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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted February 12, 2025, and the references cited therein have been considered. Applicant separately provided a copy of the cited nonpatent literature; therefore, no deficiency under 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) is noted with respect to the required nonpatent-literature copy.
Priority
The application claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/552,159, filed February 11, 2024. The benefit claim is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites "from another other of the surfaces depending downwardly from the top surface." The word "other" is duplicated. Applicant may revise the phrase to "from another of the surfaces depending downwardly from the top surface."
Claim 6 recites "a second of the horizontally oriented floor modules." Because only the first-floor module has previously been introduced, Applicant may revise the phrase to "a second horizontally oriented floor module."
Claim 8 recites "a vertically oriented, side wall module." Applicant may revise the phrase to "a vertically oriented side wall module."
Claim 9 recites "parallel first and second, vertical side surfaces." Applicant may revise the phrase to "parallel first and second vertical side surfaces."
Claim 12 recites "two wall portions defining parallel first and second, vertical side surfaces, and a generally linear lower side edge extending between the first and second side surfaces in the L-shape." The language is imprecise as to whether the side surfaces and lower edge are features of the individual perpendicular wall portions or of the corner wall globally. Applicant may clarify the supported relationship and, if consistent with the originally filed disclosure, recite respective generally linear lower-edge segments of the two perpendicular wall portions that collectively form the L- shape; the misplaced comma after "second" should also be removed.
Claim 12 ends with "centered about the seam joining the wall portions,". The claim ends with a comma rather than a period. Applicant may replace the final comma with a period.
Claim 13 recites "female recessed." Applicant may revise the phrase to "female recesses."
Claim 13 recites "wall interlocking recessed." Applicant may revise the phrase to "wall interlocking recess."
Claim 13 recites "the L-shaped female recess is a wall is a wall interlocking recess." The phrase "is a wall" is repeated. Applicant may revise the phrase to "the L-shaped female recess is a wall interlocking recess."
Claim 19 recites “from one the surfaces.” Applicant may revise the phrase to “from one of the surfaces.”
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
[0008] recites "from another other of the surfaces." Applicant may revise it to "from another of the surfaces."
[0011] recites "Fig. 2 is a perspective of a complete, full-size side wall module wall with open windows." Applicant may revise it to "Fig. 2 is a perspective view of a complete, full-size side wall module wall with open windows."
[0019] recites "Fig. 10 a bottom perspective view." Applicant may revise it to "Fig. 10 is a bottom perspective view."
[0031] defines proximal and distal by reference to "the end of the oven," an "inlet," and an "outlet." These appear to be unrelated to the disclosed tabletop terrain and appear to be extraneous subject matter. Applicant may delete the sentence or replace it with definitions directly supported by the originally filed disclosure.
[0032] recites "member) Such coupling." Applicant may revise it to "member). Such coupling."
[0032] recites "mechanical, electrical, fluidic a combination thereof." Applicant may revise it to "mechanical, electrical, fluidic, or a combination thereof."
[0037] recites "As one on-limiting example." Applicant may revise it to "As one non-limiting example."
[0037] recites "as described will be further described." Applicant may revise it to "as will be further described."
[0039] identifies the complete half-sized side wall as module "10," whereas Figure 4 and the surrounding disclosure identify it as module 10'. Applicant may correct the reference character to 10'.
[0042] identifies "the complete, half-size side wall module 110," whereas 110 identifies a broken full-size wall and the complete half-size wall is identified as 10'. Applicant may correct the reference character to 10' if that is the supported intended comparison.
[0043] recites "the completely side wall module 10." Applicant may revise it to "the complete side wall module 10."
[0047] recites "a T-shaped connected 36a." Applicant may revise it to "a T- shaped connector 36a."
[0050] ends with the incomplete sentence "The void 43 may be of the same". Applicant may delete the incomplete sentence or complete it only with subject matter directly and unambiguously supported by the original filing.
[0051] recites "the second side surface 34c of the floor edge module 30," while the preceding description identifies 34c as the first side surface and 34d as the second. Applicant may identify the intended supported surface consistently, without adding new matter.
[0053] recites "the flour surface." Applicant may revise "flour" to "floor."
[0053] refers to "Figs. 13-16" when describing the standalone cradle examples, while Figures 13-15 depict the cradle modules and Figure 16 depicts the floor endcap. Applicant may revise the range to "Figs. 13-15" for the cradle discussion.
[0055] recites "in order support." Applicant may revise it to "in order to support."
[0056] recites "The first surface 50c is an exterior surface whereas the second surface 50c is an interior surface." The second surface is identified elsewhere as 50d. Applicant may replace the second "50c" with "50d."
[0057] recites "the floor end module 50." The disclosed component is consistently identified as the floor endcap module 50. Applicant may revise accordingly.
[0057] recites "as previously describe." Applicant may revise it to "as previously described."
[0058] recites "equal to sum of the height." Applicant may revise it to "equal to the sum of the height."
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites "from another other of the surfaces depending downwardly from the top surface." Applicant may revise the wording to "from another of the surfaces depending downwardly from the top surface" and coordinate the correction with claim 1 and description [0008]. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the following reference characters are inconsistent between the drawings and the description:
Figure 12 labels the floor-corner front surface "46b," while description [0051]- [0052] identifies the frontside surface as 48b and uses 46 for wall-interlocking recesses. Applicant may correct Figure 12 to show 48b or otherwise make the originally supported drawing and description mutually consistent.
Figure 12 includes reference character 48d, but 48d is not identified in the supplied description. Applicant may add an originally supported description of 48d or remove/correct the drawing label if erroneous.
Description [0045] refers to corner-wall heights H26 and H28, but those reference signs are not shown in Figure 7. Applicant may add the supported labels to the appropriate drawing or delete the unused reference signs from the description.
Description [0049] refers to cradle base 42c, but 42c is not shown in Figures 9-11. Applicant may add the supported designation or remove the unused reference sign.
Description [0054] refers to cradle width W42, but W42 is not shown in Figure 13 or another submitted drawing. Applicant may add the supported W42 dimension label or delete the unillustrated reference sign.
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 § 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 1-10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziran (US 2022/0040584 A1) in view of Mower (US 7770337 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Ziran teaches the claimed tabletop-gaming context and modular floor architecture. Ziran states that its system includes a "plurality of tiles, provided in various sizes and configurations, which can be connected to form a continuous grid-based playing surface," including rectilinear tiles and three-dimensional tiles ([0080], Fig. 1). Ziran further teaches modular external boundaries, wall corners, boundary caps, and internal boundaries ([0081]). For physical aesthetic texture, Ziran teaches "wood, stone, other organic textures" and states that the surface details may be "sculpted/manufactured" ([0088]); it also describes decorative skins having "physical protrusions" that emulate "ruins, architecture" and other terrain formations ([0119], [0168]).
Ziran does not clearly disclose the complete claim-1 floor-to-floor connection arrangement in one floor module because its principal floor embodiments use a separate locking clip. Mower supplies the missing direct structural interface. Mower teaches that each floor panel includes "a top portion, a bottom portion, a front side, a rear side, a left side and a right side" (col. 34, lines 57-65), and teaches "outwardly extending portions or protrusions," complementary "inwardly extending or recessed portions 147," and floor panels in which "the protrusions 146 and the recessed portions 147 ... preferably alternate" (col. 35, lines 8-40; Figs. 28-30). Mower further states that the protrusions are "preferably flush with the bottom surface" and that adjacent floor panels may be connected by "a snap, friction or interference fit" (col. 35, lines 35-45). Thus, the recessed portions enter the lower/underside region and directly cooperate with projecting portions of an adjacent panel.
Mower also teaches physical surface treatments applicable to molded modular panels. Its wall outer surfaces may be "textured" to resemble "wood, siding, bricks, stone, stucco and the like," interior surfaces may include integral patterns or designs, and floor panels may likewise include patterns/designs (col. 20, lines 5-18; col. 21, lines 1-10; col. 22, lines 15-18).
The principal differences between Ziran and claim 1 are Ziran's use of a separate locking clip rather than the claimed direct male/female floor interface, the placement of complementary connector features on different depending faces, and the physical terrain treatment of the recited exposed faces. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute Mower's known integral projection/recess connecting means for Ziran's separate clip because both are known means for releasably joining adjacent modular floor elements and Mower expressly teaches direct snap, friction, or interference engagement. The substitution predictably eliminates separate connecting hardware while preserving the modular joining and reconfiguration function. This is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See KSR Int’I Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-17 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(B). It also would have been obvious to continue the known molded terrain texture onto the exposed perimeter faces because Ziran and Mower both teach molded or physically formed panel surface treatments, predictably producing a visually continuous terrain module without changing the joining function. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C). Mower is reasonably pertinent analogous art because it addresses the same mechanical problem of directly and releasably joining modular horizontal panels using complementary molded projections and recesses. See MPEP § 2141.01(a).
The principal differences between Ziran and claim 1 are Ziran's use of a separate locking clip rather than the claimed direct male/female floor interface, the placement of complementary connector features on different depending faces, and the physical terrain treatment of the recited exposed faces. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute Mower's known integral projection/recess connecting means for Ziran's separate clip because both are known means for releasably joining adjacent modular floor elements and Mower expressly teaches direct snap, friction, or interference engagement. The substitution predictably eliminates separate connecting hardware while preserving the modular joining and reconfiguration function. This is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See KSR Int’I Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-17 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(B). It also would have been obvious to continue the known molded terrain texture onto the exposed perimeter faces because Ziran and Mower both teach molded or physically formed panel surface treatments, predictably producing a visually continuous terrain module without changing the joining function. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C). Mower is reasonably pertinent analogous art because it addresses the same mechanical problem of directly and releasably joining modular horizontal panels using complementary molded projections and recesses. See MPEP § 2141.01(a).
Regarding claim 2, Mower teaches end and intermediate floor panels having "one or more inwardly extending or recessed portions" and "one or more protrusions" that engage corresponding portions of adjacent panels and further teaches an intermediate floor panel engaging a pair of adjacent floor panels (col. 35, lines 18-34; Figs. 28-30). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the known male projection on one opposed side of Ziran’s rectilinear tile and the complimentary female recess on the other opposed side because that arrangement allows for successive tiles to be joined along a row while using the same direct interface already adopted for claim 1. The opposed placement only changes the location of Mower’s known complementary features; each keeps its established joining function, and the result is the predictable extension of Ziran’s modular grid without separate clips. This is a combination of known elements according to their established functions to yield a predictable result. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (D).
Regarding claim 3, Ziran expressly teaches tiles arranged in a "rectilinear grid pattern" ([0080]), and Mower teaches floor panels that have front, rear, left, and right sides together with the projection/recess interface (col. 34, lines 57-65; col. 35, lines 18-40). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, after replacing Ziran's loose clip with Mower's direct interface as explained in claim 1, to place the same complimentary interface on perpendicular tile edges so the modified tile could connect along both axes of Ziran’s expressly disclosed rectilinear layout. Locating the male connector on the front edge is a predictable positional variation prompted by the known two-dimensional grid arrangement; the connector and recess perform the same joining functions in the new locations, and no change in operating principal is needed. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(F) and (D).
Regarding claim 4, Mower teaches protrusions 146 and recessed portions 147 as connection features of molded floor panels 138 and 140 (col. 35, lines 18-40; Figs. 28-30), and Mower repeatedly teaches integrally formed panel features and unitary, one-piece molded structures. It would have been obvious to form the panel-edge male projection monolithically with the floor frame because the projection is already a fixed geometric feature of the molded panel and integrating it into the same body eliminates a separate attachment operation, preserves the intended alignment of the mating surface, and leaves the projection’s joining function unchanged. The result would have been the predictable one-piece implementation of Mower’s disclosed interface. This fact pattern is sufficiently similar to In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), where a claimed integral brake drum and clamp differed from prior-art parts rigidly secured as a single unit and one-piece construction was held to be an ordinary engineering choice (see MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B)). Larson is used here only as supporting rationale, not as a per se rule, because Mower itself teaches molded integral structures and the proposed connector performs the same function before and after integration. No supplied evidence shows that making this connector monolithic produces a critical or unexpected function analogous to the circumstances that distinguished Schenck v. Nortron Corp. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (D); MPEP § 2144.04.
Claim 5 further characterizes the monolithic connector as "co-molded." Mower teaches molded plastic components, including injection molding, and teaches panel features that may be integrally formed during manufacture. Under MPEP § 2113 and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985), patentability of a product-by-process limitation is determined from the resulting product, while any structure implied by the manufacturing language must still be considered. In re Nordt Development Co., 881 F.3d 1371, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2018), likewise recognizes that molding language may connote integral structure. In this case, the resulting/final product is a frame with an integral male connector, which is taught or rendered obvious by Mower as discussed for claim 4. The supplied record identifies no additional structural characteristic caused by co-molding that distinguishes the claimed apparatus. Accordingly, the co-molding process language does not overcome the rejection. See MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Ziran with Mower as applied to claim 1 expressly teaches that adjacent floor panels are connected through corresponding protrusions and recessed portions and that "the floor panels may be connected by a snap, friction or interference fit" (col. 35, lines 35- 45). Once Mower's direct projection/recess interface is substituted for Ziran's separate clip, it would have been obvious to use Mower's expressly disclosed friction-fit option to retain the adjoining floor modules because friction fit is one of the identified retention modes for that same interface. The selection predictably provides direct, releasable engagement without separate hardware, with a reasonable expectation of success because Mower expressly teaches the fit for adjacent floor panels. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C), (D).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Ziran with Mower as applied to claim 1 teaches a floor panel having "a plurality of receiving portions 144" and states that an end floor panel may have receiving portions along the left side, right side, and either the front or rear side (col. 34, lines 62-65; col. 35, lines 1-7). Mower further teaches wall projections 38 disposed in those receiving portions 144 (col. 36, lines 35-45). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the socket-bearing rear-edge portion of the floor frame constitutes the claimed cradle when selected as the edge opposite the identified front side because it extends between the opposed side edges and has multiple downwardly extending receiving openings in an upper support surface for vertical wall connectors. It would have been obvious to use that known receiver-bearing edge structure as Ziran's frame cradle because Mower teaches the structure specifically to support vertical wall components on modular horizontal floor panels, predictably providing direct vertical-module existing plural receiving openings continue to receive ordinary wall projections. The modification uses compatible molded projection/recess geometry, each feature retains its established function, and the expected result-repeatable corner orientation and alignment-is predictable in this mechanical modular assembly. Hanson is reasonably pertinent analogous art because it addresses the same structural problem of aligning and interlocking perpendicular modular components with complementary projections and recesses. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A), (D); MPEP § 2141.01(a).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Ziran with Mower as applied to claim 7 teaches wall panels having an inner surface and an outer surface (col. 18, lines 15-22). Mower states that the outer surfaces may be "textured" and that the interior surfaces may include a pattern or design; it further explains that designs or patterns on opposing wall surfaces may be integrally formed as part of the molded panel structure (col. 20, lines 5-18; col. 21, lines 1- 10). Ziran separately teaches decorative modular boundaries ([0081]). It would have been obvious to apply Mower's known molded surface treatment to both visible faces of Ziran's vertical gaming wall because the wall is a terrain boundary viewable from either side and Mower already teaches patterned or textured treatment of opposing wall surfaces. The modification uses a known surface-treatment technique for the same decorative and surface-finishing purpose and predictably yields aesthetically textured front, and rear wall faces without affecting the structural connection. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A), (C).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Ziran with Mower as applied to claim 8 teaches wall panels having a "generally rectangular configuration" and a wall panel with a "top portion, a bottom portion, a left side and a right side" (col. 16, lines 35-45; col. 18, lines 15-22), supplying parallel vertical side boundaries and a generally linear lower boundary. The modified Ziran/Mower wall does not expressly teach the claimed unevenly contoured upper side edge. Ziran, however, teaches physically formed terrain representing "ruins, architecture" and other irregular formations ([0119], [0168]). It would have been obvious to apply Ziran's disclosed ruin treatment to the upper edge of the otherwise conventional wall profile so that the vertical module visually represents the ruined architecture Ziran identifies as terrain while retaining a straight lower edge for engagement with the floor support. Selecting the particular broken upper contour is an obvious design choice on these facts because the prior art expressly teaches ruined architectural terrain, the selected contour changes only the exposed appearance, and the record contains no evidence of criticality, unexpected results, or teaching away tied to that contour. This fact pattern is consistent with In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), as summarized in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C), (D); MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Ziran with Mower as applied to claim 9 teaches that the "bottom portion of the wall panels ... may include outwardly extending protrusions 38" used to connect the walls to the floor (col. 19, lines 8-19), and that those projections are disposed within floor receiving portions 144, with the wall/floor interconnection made by "snap, interference or friction fit" (col. 36, lines 35-48). In the assembled upright-wall orientation, the bottom-wall projection extends downward into the upwardly accessible floor receiving portion. It would have been obvious to use that same downward projection and friction-fit receiving relation for Ziran's vertical terrain wall because Mower teaches the arrangement specifically to connect an upright wall to a horizontal modular floor while permitting modular interchangeability. Applying the known wall-to-floor attachment technique to Ziran's analogous modular wall produces the predictable result of direct, stable, and releasable wall retention, with each projection and recess performing its established function. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C), (D).
Regarding claim 18, Ziran identifies "exterior boundary caps 118a and 118b" as modular game components (Ziran [0081]). Mower teaches end floor panels 138 having a top portion, bottom portion, front, rear, left, and right sides (col. 34, lines 57-65), teaches patterns/designs on floor panels (col. 21, lines 1-10; col. 22, lines 15-18), and teaches end floor panels directly connected to adjacent floor panels through the same complementary protrusion/recess interface (col. 35, lines 8-45). It would have been obvious to implement Ziran’s terminal terrain cap using Mower’s known end-panel geometry and direct floor-panel interface because Ziran already calls for a boundary component at the termination of the gameplay area and Mower supplies a known terminal panel architecture designed to join directly to an adjacent modular floor panel. Applying the same physical terrain-texture treatment to the exposed cap faces would maintain the finished terrain appearance taught by Ziran. The resulting endcap predictably terminates the modular floor while retaining direct engagement and the established decorative functions. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A), (C) and (D).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Ziran with Mower as applied to claim 18 teaches end floor panels 138 with recessed portions 147 that "contact, engage, and/or overlap" corresponding protrusions of an adjacent floor panel and further teaches snap, friction, or interference fit between adjacent floor panels (col. 35, lines 18-45). It would have been obvious, when using Mower's end-panel architecture for Ziran's boundary cap of claim 18, to configure the cap recess for Mower's expressly disclosed friction-fit engagement with the projecting connector of the adjacent floor module. Friction fit is one of Mower's identified connection options for the same end-panel interface and predictably provides a direct connection that is secure during use yet releasable for reconfiguration, without additional hardware. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(D), (E).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziran in view of Mower as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hanson (EP 0087872 B1).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Ziran with Mower as applied to claim 8 teaches an end floor panel having receiving portions along the left side, right side, and either the front or rear side, with the receiving portions accessed from the upper side to accept wall projections (col. 34, lines 62- 65; col. 35, lines 1-7; col. 36, lines 35-48). Thus, the same floor panel can have two perpendicular receiver-bearing edge regions meeting at a corner, each providing an upper support region with multiple female receiving openings. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, those perpendicular receiver-bearing regions satisfy the first- and second-cradle arrangement, with the corner junction providing the recited seam about which the cradles form an L-shape. Ziran additionally identifies wall-corner game components ([0081]) . The modified Ziran/Mower arrangement, however, does not teach the additional L-shaped female recess centered about that seam. Hanson teaches a corner block having a vertically extending L-shaped projection 80 and complementary orthogonally arranged recesses 84 and 86 sized and shaped for mating engagement at a 90-degree corner and similarly teaches a lower-surface L-shaped projection 87 with complementary recesses 88 and 89 ([0016]-[0017]).
It would have been obvious to configure the seam between the two receiver- bearing cradle regions with an L-shaped female recess complementary to a corner key, based on Hanson's known keyed corner engagement because that geometry positively registers a perpendicular corner component while Mower's wall/floor interconnection may be a friction fit (col. 36, lines 35-48). Hanson teaches L-shaped projections together with complementary orthogonally arranged recesses on the corner block ([0016]-[0017]). It would have been obvious to provide complementary receiving structures for the three male connection features because Mower's projection/recess pairs and Hanson's keyed corner interface are known complementary joining mechanisms for modular components. Mower's two wall-receiving recesses predictably retain the respective perpendicular wall legs, while the Hanson-derived keyed recess at the seam registers the central L-shaped connector. The combined interfaces are geometrically compatible, each performs its established joining/alignment function, and the expected result is direct, releasable, repeatably aligned corner-wall retention. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A), (D).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Ziran/Mower/Hanson combination as applied to claim 11 teaches the inherited L-shaped cradle arrangement and keyed corner interface but does not expressly disclose the specific corner-wall module having two perpendicular wall portions, a downward male connector associated with each wall portion, and a central downward L-shaped male connector centered at the seam. Ziran expressly identifies exterior and interior "wall corners" as game components ([0081]). Mower teaches a corner panel having first and second portions that can "form a ninety degree or right angle" and teaches bottom wall/corner projections 38 for connection to the floor (col. 16, lines 52-65; col. 19, lines 8-19; col. 36, lines 35-48). Hanson teaches an L-shaped projection 87 on the lower surface of its corner block ([0017]). It would have been obvious to configure Ziran's wall-corner component using Mower's known right-angle wall construction and individual downward floor-connection projections and providing Hanson's lower L-shaped key at the corner seam. Mower's individual projections retain each perpendicular wall portion in its respective receiving region, while Hanson's L-shaped projection positively indexes the 90-degree seam. The elements are mechanically compatible molded projection/recess structures, retain their known functions, and predictably provide stable wall-leg retention plus corner registration with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A), (D).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Ziran/Mower/Hanson combination as applied to claim 12 teaches the corner-wall connector arrangement but does not expressly disclose the complete coordinated receiving arrangement recited by claim 13: respective first and second-cradle wall-interlocking recesses receiving the two wall-portion connectors together with a seam-centered L-shaped recess receiving the central L-shaped connector. Mower teaches that wall/corner projections 38 are disposed within receiving portions 144 and that the retention while preserving modular interchangeability. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C), (D).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Ziran/Mower/Hanson combination as applied to claim 12 teaches the corner-wall module and its lower connector arrangement but does not expressly teach the unevenly contoured upper side edge added by claim 14. Ziran teaches physically formed terrain representing "ruins, architecture" and other irregular formations ([0119], [0168]). It would have been obvious to apply that disclosed broken/ruin treatment to the exposed upper edge of the corner-wall module so that the corner piece visually corresponds to Ziran's ruined architectural terrain while leaving the lower wall connectors and corner key unchanged. The modification changes only the exposed upper contour and predictably produces the claimed uneven profile without altering the interlocking function. On these facts, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), as summarized in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B), further supports treating the selected contour as an obvious configuration choice because the prior art supplies a reason for the irregular ruin form and the supplied record contains no evidence of criticality, unexpected results, or teaching away tied to the contour. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C), (D); MPEP § 2144.04.
Claims 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziran in view of Mower as applied above, and further in view of Maddock (US 6059631 A).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Ziran with Mower as applied to claim 7 teaches the inherited floor/cradle/vertical-module arrangement, and Ziran expressly teaches a free-standing interior terrain element "configured to represent a pillar (e.g., a wood column)" ([0103], Fig. 9A) together with physical terrain surface topography and textures ([0168]). The modified Ziran/Mower arrangement, however, does not teach the pillar having the claimed I-shaped cross-section perpendicular to its vertical extent. Maddock teaches elongated framing/connector pieces having an "I-shaped cross-section" and primary-block faces "designed with apertures to receive a connector or elongated framing projection with rounded ends or I-shaped cross section" (col. 8, lines 35-62; Figs. 7 and 11). It would have been obvious to form Ziran's vertical terrain pillar with Maddock's known I-shaped profile because Maddock specifically uses that profile as a modular structural member with a correspondingly receptive opening. The noncircular keyed profile predictably provides repeatable orientation and complementary keyed engagement while preserving the pillar's vertical terrain/support function; applying Ziran's known physical texture to the visible front and rear surfaces preserves the established terrain appearance. Maddock is reasonably pertinent analogous art because it addresses the same problem of selectively joining modular structural members to complementary keyed receptacles. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A), (D); MPEP § 2141.01(a).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Ziran/Mower/Maddock combination as applied to claim 15 teaches the I-shaped vertical column and the cradle environment but does not expressly teach a cradle recess having both the complementary I-shaped geometry and friction-fit retention recited by claim 16. Maddock teaches primary-block faces "designed with apertures to receive a connector or elongated framing projection with rounded ends or I-shaped cross section" (col. 8, lines 52-62), while Mower teaches that a comparable projection-and- recess wall/floor connection may use "snap, interference or friction fit" (col. 36, lines 41-48). It would have been obvious to shape one cradle recess to complement the I-shaped column of claim 15 because Maddock expressly pairs an I-shaped member with a receiving aperture, and to use Mower's known friction-fit retention because the modified terrain assembly already uses that retention technique for direct modular projection/recess connections. The complementary I-shape supplies keyed positional registration, the friction fit supplies predictable releasable retention, and both features perform their known functions in a simple molded mechanical interface with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A), (D).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Ziran/Mower/Maddock combination as applied to claim 15 teaches the I-shaped textured vertical column but does not expressly teach the unevenly contoured top added by claim 17. Ziran teaches physically formed terrain representing "ruins, architecture" and other irregular formations ([0119], [0168]) in the same game-tile environment in which it teaches a pillar terrain element ([0103]). It would have been obvious to apply the same broken/ruin treatment to the exposed upper end of the pillar so that the column visually represents damaged or ruined architecture while leaving its lower keyed engagement and vertical-support functions unchanged. The modification is a predictable application of Ziran's known terrain-forming technique to a similar terrain component and yields the claimed uneven top surface. For the same fact-specific reasons stated for claims 9 and 14, Dailey also supports the ordinary contour selection where no supplied evidence establishes criticality, unexpected results, or teaching away for the particular top contour. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C), (D); § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Ziran with Mower as applied to claim 1 teaches the inherited floor-module assembly but does not teach the additional standalone cradle module, separate from the claim-1 floor frame, having an upper surface with a plurality of downwardly extending female recesses for selectively receiving a vertical module. Maddock teaches primary blocks that "can be interconnected to form a larger three-dimensional planar surface," teaches block faces "designed with apertures to receive a connector or elongated framing projection," and describes side connections forming "a matrix that structures the base for a self-expanding array" (col. 8, lines 35-62; col. 9, lines 14-18). Ziran separately teaches free-standing interior terrain elements, including a pillar, which can be positioned throughout the gameplay area ([0103]). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 20 does not require the standalone cradle module to be a single molded piece. Interconnecting at least two of Maddock's aperture-bearing blocks into a support separate from the floor frame, with the aperture-bearing faces oriented upward, would place multiple receiving apertures in the upper support surface, and provide the claimed standalone support relationship. It would have been obvious to use that known aperture-bearing modular support as a standalone base for Ziran's free-standing vertical terrain elements because Maddock expressly teaches the block matrix as a structural base and Ziran expressly contemplates independently positionable terrain elements. The modification predictably permits selective support of vertical terrain elements independently of the floor-frame cradle while Maddock's apertures retain their established receiving function. Maddock is reasonably pertinent analogous art because it addresses modular structural members and support pieces joined through complementary receiving openings. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A), (D); MPEP § 2141.01(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30 -5:00.
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.
ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT
Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights