DETAILED ACTION
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aquarium Tunnel Book (2022) in view of Moving Lion (2022) and further in view of Creating Tunnel Books (2020) and Spoerer (US 1,065,562).
In respect to claim 1, ATB discloses a tunnel book assembly comprising: a plurality of page substrates that each contain a hole, wherein said hole of each of the plurality of page substrates form a tunnel when the substrates are stacked (Figs. 1-2).
Fig. 1 Fig. 2
PNG
media_image1.png
543
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
458
687
media_image2.png
Greyscale
ATB further discloses a plurality of secondary elements that are selectively attachable to any of the plurality of page substrates such that some of the secondary elements are attachable into said tunnel (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3
PNG
media_image3.png
514
683
media_image3.png
Greyscale
ATB does not disclose that the plurality of secondary elements are formed of an assembly of pieces which are selectively positionable relative to other pieces, however, ML teaches a similar secondary elements which are also in animal form, wherein the secondary elements are formed by an assembly of pieces which are held together by split pins (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4
PNG
media_image4.png
438
309
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the secondary elements of the tunnel book taught in ATB to be formed from a separate assembly of pieces in view of ML to allow the secondary elements to move (intrinsic in the title “make a lion with a moving head and tail”. This teaching is seamlessly integrated into ATB who also teaches secondary elements as animals also formed of paper or paper-like substrates cut from sheets.
In respect to the amended subject matter, ATB further discloses that the plurality of substrates are “compound”, having a main-section (border) and a cut-out section (removal inside piece) attached inside the hole (See Fig. 2). ATB in view of ML further teach that the secondary elements are provided on a separate substrate from the “compound” substrate i.e. the secondary elements are not provided within the removal inside piece “cut-out section”. However, CTB teaches a similar tunnel book, the website a transcription of the video around ~25min where the tunnel book maker states “
I just put him in the box and I call it my box of many scraps, and then if I am doing something and I need a little piece of something, I say, oh, let me go to my box of little scraps and see if I have it in there. By doing that I don’t waste so much paper and sometimes when I see a scrap they give me a different idea of something I was going to do. But because I have this scrap that’s maybe not the shape I was even thinking of using. It’ll give me a different idea. Everything gives you ideas.
Watching the video, the “scraps” are the cut-out sections in forming the holes for the tunnel book. Thus, it would be obvious to substitute the excess substrate for the secondary elements taught in ATB and ML, with the cut-out section in the compound sheet in view of CTB to prevent paper waste. It is further noted that the secondary elements in ATB are small and could be fashioned from the cut-out section, as taught. Furthermore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, namely utilizing space on a substrate intended to waste, to save paper.
Lastly, ATB and ML in view of CTB teaches providing the secondary pieces via drawing them on a substrate, but do not teach providing perforations defining the pieces. However, Spoerer teaches providing secondary elements drawings on substrates, and further teaches that they may be perforated. It would have been obvious to perforate the secondary elements taught in ATB, ML, and CTB, to facilitate removal of the secondary elements (Col. 1, 28-34). Furthermore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, namely utilizing perforates to facilitate removal of elements from paper substrates.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ATB, ML, CTB, and Spoerer, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Tunnel Book Challenge (2017).
ATB in view of ML substantially teach the claimed subject matter, but do not teach binding the pages with ring clips (rather with an accordion binding), however, TBC teaches a tunnel book which is bound with ring clips. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the accordion binding taught in ATB in view of ML with ring clips in view of TBC to allow the book to be opened to view interior elements of the book with more ease than an accordion binding, as is readily ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The binding has no bearing on the alleged inventive concept, and such bindings are extremely well known in the art.
Fig. 6
PNG
media_image5.png
419
746
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the added references applied to address the amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT GRABOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3518. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Daniel Troy, can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/KYLE R GRABOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637