DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 07/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/06/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites features of “the secondary toy component.” However, no secondary toy component was positively claimed in claim 2. Claim 2 only recites holes that are “configured to receive an array of protrusions from a secondary toy component,” but does not claim a secondary toy component. Therefore, the limitations of claim 3 do not currently recite any further structure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemkin et al. (US Patent No. 3,670,449) in view of Udo et al. (US Patent No. 10,933,305 B2).
In Reference to Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, and 13-16
Lemkin teaches (Claim 1) A building unit of a toy building set, the building unit comprising: a first material forming at least four sections (items 62-72, fig’s 5-7), each comprising a plurality of edges (edges of sections 62-72); []; a first portion of the plurality of edges comprising a plurality of integral hinges connecting the at least four sections (items 52-60, fig’s 5, 6, and 9), the building unit configured to fold and unfold over multiple cycles at the plurality of integral hinges from a flat position into a closed position which is a polyhedron with a hollow interior (fig’s 5 and 6, and column 3 lines 1-16), wherein the integral hinges comprise a cut at least partially through the first material on a second surface opposite the first surface (fig’s 5 and 9, areas 52-60, column 3 lines 1-16; also note “cut” is a process, only the end result of an area of reduced material is considered here, see MPEP 2113); and a second portion of the plurality of edges comprising integral teeth (items 80, fig’s 5-7) and recesses (items 82, fig’s 5-7), the integral teeth comprising a tip and at least one recess-adjacent surface, the integral teeth of a first of the plurality of edges configured to fit with the recesses of a second of the plurality of edges in a closed position (fig’s 6 and 7, and column 3 lines 17-36);
(Claim 2) further comprising a plurality of holes through the first material [] configured to receive an array of protrusions from a secondary toy component (items 34 and 36, fig’s 1, 6, 11, and 17);
(Claim 3) wherein the secondary toy component comprises one or more wheel configured to support the building unit (items 10, fig’s 1, 6, 11, and 17, note the large rounded end portions of items 10 are larger than all corners of blocks 12, see fig. 17, and could be used as wheels if attached on two sides of a block; also note that no secondary toy component was previously positively claimed, therefore these recitations simply recite features of an element not claimed);
(Claim 5) wherein the polyhedron is a cube, and wherein the cut maintains a substantially right angle of the integral hinges in a closed position (fig’s 1, 5, 6, and 9);
(Claim 6) wherein [a] material is configured to maintain a structural integrity of the integral hinges without [another] material (column 3 lines 1-16);
(Claim 7) wherein the cut is configured to limit crimping of the first material in the closed position (fig. 9);
(Claim 14) wherein the first material comprises an image receptive material (column 3 lines 13-16, polypropylene is “image receptive,” note this is extremely broad);
(Claim 15) wherein the image receptive material is configured to receive at least one of drawing, painting, or coloring (column 3 lines 13-16, again, polypropylene is capable of being drawn, painted, or colored on);
(Claim 16) wherein the image receptive material comprises a printed digital image (column 3 lines 13-16, polypropylene can be printed on).
Lemkin fails to teach a second material / lamination layer of claims 1 and 10.
Udo teaches (Claim 1) a second material laminating [a] first material over a first surface (column 6 lines 20-28);
(Claim 6) a first material and a second material (column 6 lines 20-28);
(Claim 10) wherein the second material is adhered to the first material (column 6 lines 20-28);
(Claim 13) wherein the second material is configured to line the hollow interior in the closed position (note that Lemkin teaches a hollow interior in a closed position, and that Udo teaches using a laminated material, the combination of which would produce this).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the paneled construction element of Lemkin with the feature of a second / lamination layer as taught by the paneled construction element of Udo for the purpose of obtaining an ideal weight to stiffness ratio by using a lighter material that is laminated with a stiffer material as taught by Udo (column 20 lines 20-60), making the element lighter yet more durable, optimizing the characteristics of the element, making the element easier to use, more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
In Reference to Claims 8 and 9
The modified device of Lemkin teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lemkin fails to teach the features of claims 8 and 9.
Udo teaches (Claim 8) wherein [a] second material is between 0.5mm and 5mm thick (column 6 line 34);
(Claim 9) wherein [a] second material is between [x]th and [x]th of a total thickness of the building unit in a flat position (column 6 lines 20-28; the examiner notes that in a laminated embodiment the lamination layer is typically thinner than the underlying substrate layer, though no specific ratios are disclosed in Udo).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the paneled construction element of Lemkin with the feature of the thickness dimension claimed as taught by the paneled construction element of Udo for the purpose of optimizing the strength to bending ratio as taught by Udo (column 6 lines 34-39), making the panels both strong and resilient as well as optimally bendable with fingers, making the device more durable, easier to use, and more attractive to the users.
Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the general conditions of an optimally thin, dual layered panel are taught in Udo, and since this thickness / ratio of thicknesses is described to be a result effective variable, i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result (in this case changing the thickness of a layer and therefore the ratio of layers in a laminated construction changes both the durability and flexibility of the panels, Udo column 6 lines 34-39), merely claiming a thickness or ratio of thicknesses that would achieve a desirable result is simply a matter of routine experimentation and is not a patentable advance.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemkin et al. in view of Udo et al., and further in view of Max (US PGPub. No. 2001/0005663 A1).
In Reference to Claim 4
The modified device of Lemkin teaches all of claims 1-3 as discussed above.
Lemkin fails to teach the feature of claim 4.
Max teaches (Claim 4) a secondary cut through [] material [] configured to receive [] one or more wheels in a closed position (items 142, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the foldable toy device of Lemkin with the feature of secondary cuts for wheels as taught by the foldable toy device of Max for the purpose of providing wheel wells that would allow space for steering of wheels as taught by Max (paragraph 0019), allowing the device to be used more comprehensively as a toy vehicle, making the device more versatile, and more interesting and attractive to the users.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemkin et al. in view of Udo et al., and further in view of Jazouli (US Patent No. 9,522,342).
In Reference to Claims 11 and 12
The modified device of Lemkin teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lemkin further teaches (Claim 11) wherein the integral teeth and at least one recess- adjacent surface are configured to interleave to form a closed edge of the building unit wherein [contact] between surfaces of one or more interleaved teeth holds the building unit together in the closed position (column 3 lines 17-36).
(Claim 12) wherein the integral teeth are configured to deform in the closed position, wherein the deformation increases the [] holding an edge of the building unit together (column 3 lines 49-55).
Lemkin fails to teach friction holding the edges together.
Jazouli teaches friction holding the edges of block panels together (column 21 lines 20-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the paneled construction system of Lemkin with the feature of using a friction fit as taught by the paneled construction system of Jazouli for the providing a structural connection that eliminates the need for flanges as taught by Jazouli (column 21 lines 20-30), making the system simpler, easier to manufacture and assemble, and more attractive to manufacturers and users.
Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that the selection of a known element based on its suitability for its intended use is an obvious matter of engineering design choice. See Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Since Lemkin teaches a construction element that has folding panels and mechanisms at the edges to lock the panels together, merely claiming any known and suitable locking mechanism at the edge (friction fit, fasteners, flanges, etc.) is an obvious matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable advance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references disclose inventions similar to applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH B BALDORI whose telephone number is (571)270-7424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights