Object Canvas Art

Application No. 18/957,420

• Filed: Nov 22, 2024
• Priority: Nov 22, 2023 — provisional 63/601,987
• Examiner: MILLS, CHRISTINE M
• Assignee: Shared Progress Inc.
• OA Round: 1 (Non-Final)

Office Action

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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6-10, 12, and 13 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits.
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 4-5 of claim 1, the phrase “said colored objects” should read “said plurality of objects”
In line 5 of claim 1, the phrase “position panels” should read “position the plurality of panels”
In line 1 of claim 2, the phrase “said objects” should read “said plurality of objects”
In line 2 of claim 2, the phrase “the objects” should read “the plurality of objects”
In line 1 of claim 3, the phrase “said objects” should read “said plurality of objects”
In line 1 of claim 4, the phrase “said template panels” should read “said plurality of panels”
In line 2 of claim 4, the phrase “plus have” should read “and have”
In line 1 of claim 5, the phrase “wherein each said template panel” should read “wherein each of said plurality of panels”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.

The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.

Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 includes only a limitation (“objects vary in color”) that was already claimed previously (“having a variety of colors” in claim 1) . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bremsteller (US 7242799 B1), in view of Hodsdon et al. (US 7641951 B2), herein referred to as Hodsdon.
Regarding claim 1, Bremsteller discloses a mosaic kit (see at least figs 8A-8C) comprising: a plurality of objects (see figs 5 & 6 and col 7, lines 31-34) having a variety of colors (see at least abstract); and a template (34) having a plurality of panels containing sub-image portions of a pre-printed pattern (see at least col 7, lines 35-39), which is coded with markers (see fig 6), each to receive a particular one of said colored objects (see figs 5 & 6).

Bremsteller does not explicitly disclose other markings denoting where and how to position panels in a desired arrangement to form a seamless mosaic artwork of any size.

Hodsdon, however, teaches that it is known in the art of large-scale art assembly to include markings on sub-images denoting where and how to position panels in a desired arrangement (see figs 13, 15, & 19 and col 2, lines 55-62). The purpose for including the markings is to facilitate alignment of adjacent panels to create a large-scale image (see at least col 1, lines 20-21 and col 2, lines 55-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the panels disclosed by Bremsteller with markings as taught by Hodsdon in order to facilitate alignment of adjacent panels to create a large-scale image.
Regarding claim 2, Bremsteller (in view of Hodsdon) discloses the kit of claim 1 wherein said objects are spheroid in shape, with a height less than their diameter width, or having a planar base, such that the objects stay in place on a generally flat surface (see Bremsteller fig 6; note that the objects have a planar base).
Regarding claim 3, Bremsteller (in view of Hodsdon) discloses the kit of claim 1 wherein said objects vary in color (per rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Bremsteller (in view of Hodsdon) discloses the kit of claim 1 wherein said template panels are the same shape and size, plus have a white background surface (see Bremsteller fig 6 and Hodsdon fig 2).
Regarding claim 5, Bremsteller (in view of Hodsdon) discloses the kit of claim 1 wherein each said template panel includes at least one panel-guiding character marking (see Hodsdon fig 15 or 19).
Regarding claim 11, Bremsteller (in view of Hodsdon) discloses the kit of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein each said object has a weight such that when a user places a plurality of objects upon a template panel, the panel and objects generally stay in place while a kit user slides another panel, empty of objects, underneath a portion of the prior panel.

However, the kit would work equally well with a variety of sizes of the objects. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to increase the size and weight of the objects in order to ensure that the objects stay in place during assembly to decrease frustration of the user, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner notes that the prior art cited on PTO-892 but not relied upon for this rejection discloses crafting kits and large-scale art assembly systems relevant in scope and structure to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christine M Mills whose telephone number is [phone]. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday - Thursday, 7:30 - 5:30 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, Namrata Boveja, can be reached on [phone]. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is [phone].
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at [phone] (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call [phone] (IN USA OR CANADA) or [phone].
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675

Prosecution Timeline

• Nov 22, 2024: Application Filed
• Jun 10, 2026: Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112 (current)