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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are light in coloring and don’t use solid lines so it is difficult to distinguish different lines from each other and the images will not reproduce well. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 1-14 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “rivet” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “press fit,” while the accepted meaning is “to fasten parts together with a rivet” and wherein the term rivet is defined as “a headed pin or bolt of metal used for uniting two or more pieces by passing the shank through a hole in each piece and then beating or pressing down the plain end so as to make a second head,” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For examination purposes, the examiner will treat the limitation broadly as a press fit type fastening. Further, it should be noted that rivets have not been shown in the figures.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the baffle" in lines 4-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is claimed as a baffle arranged on two sides and it is unclear from the specification if it is one baffle or at least two baffles where one baffle is located on one side of the inner corner and the other baffle is located on the other side of the inner corner. Or if it is one baffle that spans both sides. Further, in line 6 the claims states the baffle is provided with a socket and it is unclear if it is intended to be one socket per baffle?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the magnetic block" in 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previously “a plurality of magnetic blocks” was claimed. It is suggested to change the limitation to “at least one of the plurality of magnetic blocks”. The same issue applies to “the separating member” in line 10.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a plurality of magnetic blocks”, and the claim also recites “the magnetic block” and “specifically two magnetic blocks” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. A similar issue arises in lines 10-13.
Claims 1-14 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (USPN 11766622) in view of Kiribuchi (USPN 9751025).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses a magnetic building block (Abstract, Title), comprising: a plurality of side panels (21-24), an upper cover panel (25) and a lower cover pane (26)l, wherein the plurality of side panels are annularly connected end to end and form a plurality of inner corners (Fig, 2), a baffle is arranged on each of two sides of the inner corner, the baffle on each of two sides of the inner corner and the side panel form a placement chamber (41-48), a plurality of magnetic blocks (51-58), wherein the magnetic block is configured to be placed in the placement chamber (Fig. 3-8), and specifically two magnetic blocks are arranged in each of the placement chambers (Fig. 7 & 8); and a plurality of separating members (7, 711, 712, 713, 714), wherein the separating member is configured to separate the magnetic blocks within the same placement chamber, and specifically the separating member is configured to separate the two magnetic blocks in the placement chamber (Fig. 7 & 8); and wherein the lower cover panel covers a lower opening formed by the annular connection of the plurality of side panels and is integrally molded with the side panels (Fig. 1-8; it is noted that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), it can be seen in the figures that the side panels and bottom panel are all one piece, thus the device is capable of being integrally molded). Chen does not disclose the baffle is provided with a socket and the upper cover panel is provided with an insertion column adapted to fit to the socket, so that the magnetic block and the separating member are installed inside the placement chamber, the insertion column is riveted into the socket to enable the plurality of side panels, the upper cover panel, and the lower cover panel to form an integrated body.
Kiribuchi teaches a magnetic building block (Abstract, Title), that is provided with baffles that create placement chambers (25a) provided with insertion sockets (23a & 23c) and a cover panel (30a & 30c) that has insertion columns (32a & 32c) that are press fit into the insertion sockets in order to form the closed box and contain the magnets therewithin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the baffles of Chen with insertion sockets and the cover panel with insertion columns, as taught by Kiribuchi, in order to form the closed box and contain the magnets therewithin.
Regarding Claim 2, Chen discloses wherein the upper cover panel and the lower cover panel form a crossing angle at a connection with the inner corner, and the magnetic block is arranged in the placement chamber and is positioned at the crossing angle (Fig. 2-8).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen discloses wherein the plurality of side panels comprise four side panels, the placement chamber comprises a first placement chamber and a second placement chamber, the plurality of inner corners comprise a first inner corner and a second inner corner, the first inner corner and the second inner corner are diagonally arranged, each of two sides of the first inner corner and each of two sides of the second inner corner are respectively provided with the baffles, the baffles and the side panels positioned on each of two sides of the first inner corner enclose to form the first placement chamber, the side panels on each of two sides of the second inner corner enclose to form the second placement chamber, and the first placement chamber and the second placement chamber are respectively provided with the magnetic blocks and the separating members (Fig 2, chambers at 44 and 46 and their respective baffles and magnets).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen discloses wherein the placement chamber further comprises a third placement chamber and a fourth placement chamber, the plurality of inner corners further comprise a third inner corner and a fourth inner corner, the third inner corner is arranged diagonally to the fourth inner corner and is arranged adjacent to the first inner corner and the second inner corner, each of two sides of the third inner corner and each of two sides of the fourth inner corner are respectively provided with the baffles, the baffles and the side panels positioned on each of two sides of the third inner corner enclose to form the third placement chamber, the side panels on each of two sides of the fourth inner corner enclose to form the fourth placement chamber, and the third placement chamber and the fourth placement chamber are respectively provided with the magnetic blocks and the separating members (Fig 2, chambers at 42 and 48 and their respective baffles and magnets).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen discloses wherein the separating member comprises a first plate member and a second plate member, the first plate member and the second plate member are arranged in a cross shape, an opening is arranged between two baffles of the first placement chamber, an opening is arranged between two baffles of the second placement chamber, an opening is arranged between two baffles of the third placement chamber, and an opening is arranged between two baffles of the fourth placement chamber; the baffle and the side panel are arranged in an enclosing way; through the openings, two edges of the first plate member and two edges of the second plate member are able to be respectively arranged in the first placement chamber, in the second placement chamber, in the third placement chamber and in the fourth placement chamber, and the magnetic blocks are arranged at an upper and lower ends of the first plate member and at the upper and lower ends of the second plate member (Fig. 2-8 showing the separating member 7 being two plates in a cross formation that have edges of the plate members 711, 712, 713, 714 being placed inside the placement chambers and separating magnets within each chamber as shown in Fig. 5-8).
Regarding Claim 9, Kiribuchi discloses wherein one side edge of the baffle far away from the side panel is provided with a riveting column, the socket is arranged at a top of the riveting column, and the insertion column passes through the socket and is riveted onto the riveting column (Fig. 2A, 2B, and 6 showing several riveting columns 23a & 23c with sockets, i.e. the openings at the top, and insertion columns 32a & 32c being press fit, i.e. riveted, into each other Col. 4, lines 36-42).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (USPN 11766622) and Kiribuchi (USPN 9751025) in view of Khalus et al (US PG Pub 2019/0201804).
Regarding Claim 14, Chen in view of Kiribuchi disclose the invention as claimed above but fail to specifically disclose the material the block is made from. Khalus et al. teaches a magnetic block with four side panels, an upper cover panel and a lower cover panel that are made of ABS plastic (Fig. 1-3; Para. [0019]) in order to make it appropriate for use by children.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the device of Chen and Kiribuchi out of ABS plastic, as taught by Khalus, in order to make it appropriate for children to play with.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. It is noted that USPN 12528025 teaches similar magnetic block structures that indicates rivets, screws, and at least press fit fasteners are all well known fasteners to use to close the magnets inside the blocks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER R ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights