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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS(s) were filed in this application.
Status Of Claims
Claims 2-4 are cancelled.
Amendments to claims 1, 5-15, 19, and 20 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejected under 35 USC 103 has been vacated. A new rejected is presented below necessitated by amendments. The Examiner notes, Johannsen discloses a building block wherein the separating post is a structural element located inside the groove, that together with the ribs defines an interference fit for each of the connecting posts (Johannsen, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolf U.S. Pub. No. US2006/0194505 A1 in view of Johannsen U.S. D806,181 S, in further view of Nils U.S. Patent 2,262,199.
Referring to claim 1. Rolf discloses a building block structure, comprising building block bodies (Rolf, Building Block 1), wherein an upper end of each of the building block bodies (Rolf, Building Block 1) is provided with four connecting posts distributed in two rows and two columns (Rolf, Fig. 5), and a bottom end of the building block body (Rolf, Building Block 1) is provided with a groove.
Rolf does not disclose, but Johannsen discloses in a similar field of endeavor wherein a center of the groove is provided with a separating post, wherein an inner wall of the groove is provided with convex ribs each with an arc shaped cross section corresponding to the four connecting posts, and in a connected state of the building block bodies each of the four connecting posts is in a respective interference fit between the separating post and a corresponding convex rib of the convex ribs (Johannsen, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to have modified the building block structure of Rolf to include the elements found in Johannsen to create a toy building block, which may be attached to another block with only reduced force, yet provides good interconnection strength (Rolf, paragraph 0004).
Neither Rolf nor Johannsen expressly disclose where the building block structure is made from Wood. Nils discloses a building block structure made from wood (Nils, para 10, “I prefer to make them of wood, such as hard maple, and it is a further object of my invention to provide an improved building member of wood which has a plurality of rodlike portions of the body partially displaced relative to the remaining portion of the body in the direction of the grain of the wood to provide dowels on one face and registering sockets in the opposite face.”).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to have modified the building block structure of Rolf and Johannsen to include the wooden construction disclosed in Nils in order to simulate the appearance of ordinary building materials (Nils, para 4, “…simulate in appearance ordinary building bricks laid in courses with the joints of one course staggered or broken with respect to those of the adjacent top and bottom Courses.”).
Referring to claim 5. Rolf further discloses the building block structure according to claim 4, wherein a building block structure D is constituted by arranging the building block structure C as an array unit along horizontal and vertical directions linearly or in an array form; and the numbers of horizontal arrays and vertical arrays is the same or different, wherein the number of the array unit is greater than or equal to 1 (Rolf, Fig. 14 – Fig. 18).
Referring to claim 6. Neither Rolf, Johannsen, or Nils disclose wherein an upper groove is coaxially formed in each of the four connecting posts, and an inner diameter of each respective upper groove is 1/2 of a diameter of the separating post.
Rolf discloses a building block structure wherein the basic shape of the separating post may vary. See Rolf paragraph 0067. Rolf recognizes that the dimensions of the upper groove and the separating post are variables that may be adjusted to obtain proper fit and function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to optimize the relative dimensions of the upper groove and the separating post to achieve predictable engagement, retention, and manufacturability. Under KSR, where a work in the field discloses a general approach and the claimed invention involves nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, selecting an appropriate dimensional ratio from a finite number of predictable options is ordinarily obvious. Such optimization would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded no unexpected result.
The Examiner notes, looking at Fig. 17 of Rolf, even though not explicitly stated, the inner diameter of the upper groove appears to be ½ of a diameter of the separating post. However, the motivation above was included because it is unclear if Fig. 17 was drawn to scale.
Referring to claim 7. Rolf further discloses the building block structure according to claim 4, wherein the separating post is sunken inward compared with the bottom end of each building block body (Rolf, Fig. 16).
Referring to claim 8. Rolf further discloses the building block structure according to claim 4. Rolf does not disclose wherein the separating post is sunken 1/2-3/4 of a height of the four connecting post.
Rolf discloses a building block structure where the height of the studs and/or the depth of the recesses may vary. Preferably, the height of the studs is at least 30% of the cell height, most preferably about a third. The same applies to the depth of the recesses, maybe with a certain overmeasure to compensate for production tolerances. See Rolf paragraph 0071. Rolf recognizes that the dimensions of mating block components are variables that may be adjusted to obtain proper fit and function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to optimize the relative dimensions of the separating post sink height to achieve predictable engagement, retention, and manufacturability. Under KSR, where a work in the field discloses a general approach and the claimed invention involves nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, selecting an appropriate dimensional ratio from a finite number of predictable options is ordinarily obvious. Such optimization would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded no unexpected result.
Referring to claim 9. Rolf discloses the building block structure according to claim 8, wherein four corners of the groove are arc-shaped clamping grooves. Rolf does not disclose wherein a diameter of each of the clamping grooves is 1/2 of a diameter of the four connecting post. Rolf recognizes that the dimensions of mating block components are variables that may be adjusted to obtain proper fit and function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to optimize the relative dimensions of the clamping groove and the connecting post to achieve predictable engagement, retention, and manufacturability. Under KSR, where a work in the field discloses a general approach and the claimed invention involves nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, selecting an appropriate dimensional ratio from a finite number of predictable options is ordinarily obvious. Such optimization would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded no unexpected result.
Referring to claim 10. Claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as set forth above in claim 1. The Examiner notes, Rolf discloses the use of six connecting posts distributed in two rows and three columns disposed on each building block. Rolf discloses that the basic building block shape may vary (Rolf, [0061]).
Referring to claim 11. Rolf discloses the building block structure according to claim 10, wherein a wooden building block structure is constituted by arranging array units along horizontal and vertical directions linearly or in an array form by taking the wooden building block structure as a starting point of an array and four wooden building block structures in two rows and two columns as the array units; and a separating post is disposed in the groove corresponding to every four adjacent connecting posts; and a number of horizontal arrays is the same with or different from that of vertical arrays, wherein the number of the array unit is greater than or equal to 1 (Rolf, Fig. 14 – Fig. 18).
Referring to claim 12. Rolf discloses the building block structure according to claim 10, wherein an upper groove is coaxially formed in each of the six connecting posts. Rolf does not disclose an inner diameter of the upper groove is 1/2 of the diameter of the separating post.
Rolf recognizes that the dimensions of mating block components are variables that may be adjusted to obtain proper fit and function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to optimize the relative dimensions of the upper groove and the diameter of the separating post to achieve predictable engagement, retention, and manufacturability. Under KSR, where a work in the field discloses a general approach and the claimed invention involves nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, selecting an appropriate dimensional ratio from a finite number of predictable options is ordinarily obvious. Such optimization would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded no unexpected result.
The Examiner notes, looking at Fig. 17 of Rolf, even though not explicitly stated, the inner diameter of the upper groove appears to be ½ of a diameter of the separating post. However, the motivation above was included because it is unclear if Fig. 17 was drawn to scale.
Referring to claim 13. Rolf discloses the building block structure according to claim 10, wherein the separating posts are sunken inward compared with the bottom end of the building block bodies (Rolf, Fig. 16, Fig. 17., and Fig. 18).
Referring to claim 14. Rolf discloses the building block structure according to claim 10. Rolf does not disclose wherein the separating posts are sunken 1/2-3/4 of the height of the six connecting posts.
Rolf discloses a building block structure where the height of the studs and/or the depth of the recesses may vary. Preferably, the height of the studs is at least 30% of the cell height, most preferably about a third. The same applies to the depth of the recesses, maybe with a certain overmeasure to compensate for production tolerances. See Rolf paragraph 0071. Rolf recognizes that the dimensions of mating block components are variables that may be adjusted to obtain proper fit and function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to optimize the relative dimensions of the separating post sink height to achieve predictable engagement, retention, and manufacturability. Under KSR, where a work in the field discloses a general approach and the claimed invention involves nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, selecting an appropriate dimensional ratio from a finite number of predictable options is ordinarily obvious. Such optimization would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded no unexpected result.
Referring to claim 15. Rolf discloses the building block structure according to claim 14, wherein four corners of the groove are arc-shaped clamping grooves.
Rolf does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the clamping groove is 1/2 of a diameter of the 6 connecting posts.
Rolf recognizes that the dimensions of mating block components are variables that may be adjusted to obtain proper fit and function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to optimize the relative dimensions of the clamping groove and the connecting post to achieve predictable engagement, retention, and manufacturability. Under KSR, where a work in the field discloses a general approach and the claimed invention involves nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, selecting an appropriate dimensional ratio from a finite number of predictable options is ordinarily obvious. Such optimization would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded no unexpected result.
Referring to claim 16. Rolf discloses the building block structure according to claim 1, wherein a volume of the building block body corresponding to one connecting post is taken as a unit volume, and the volume of the building block body provided with more than two connecting posts varies with the number of connecting posts (Rolf, Fig. 16, Fig. 17., and Fig. 18).
Referring to claim 17. Rolf discloses the building block structure according to claim 1, wherein the building block structure is expanded by 1 time or reduced by 1/2 in a same proportion in X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis directions, respectively, to obtain a large-size wooden building block structure or a small-size wooden building block structure. (Rolf [0055], “As variants thereof, building blocks may be considered, where one or the other of the dimensions (length, width and/or height) are an integer multiple or fraction of the basic unit.”).
Referring to claim 18. Rolf discloses the building block structure according to claim 17, wherein the dimensions of connecting posts, ribs and separating posts of wooden building block structures with the same specifications are the same (Rolf [0065] The basic units may be varied in a wide range. Also, one or the other of the units may differ from the other basic units, e.g. the height unit may be one half of the width and length unit. [0068] The bottom recesses are shaped otherwise, e.g. with three sidewalls each bearing a land, or at least one bearing a land for rotational fixation more sidewalls may be present providing a polygonal cross-section. [0071] The height of the studs 3, and/or the depth of the recesses 6 may vary. Of course, the recesses 6 should be able to receive a stud in full. Preferably, the height of the studs is at least 30% of the cell height 60, most preferably about a third. The same applies to the depth of the recesses, maybe with a certain overmeasure to compensate for production tolerances.).
Referring to claim 19. Rolf discloses the building block structure according to claim 1, wherein the ribs are formed on the inner wall of the groove and protrud into the groove; and two protruding sides form an arc transition with the inner wall of the groove, so that the ribs are in a shape of an arc surface to form the cross section in an arc shape (Johannsen, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6).
.
Referring to claim 20. Rolf discloses the building block structure according to claim 19, wherein the rib extends to a bottom the groove, and another end extends to the bottom of the building block body (Johannsen, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6).
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 MATTHEW S GART whose telephone number is (571)272-3955. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
