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 .
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to”. The examiner is aware of the functional language in the various claims.
Disclaimer
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 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perego (US Patent Publication No. 2007/0298679) in view of Kiribuchi (US Patent No. 6,431,936) and further in view of Chan et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2014/0206256).
Regarding claim 1, Perego discloses a track toy component comprising a plurality of track pieces (see title and all Figures including tiles 2 and/or 2b), each having a track (railway/track 4; guide/track portion 6), wherein the titles are arranged adjacent one another such that the track portions of neighboring tiles communicate to provide a continuous track. Perego further teaches means for fixing adjacent track pieces (fixing means 8, including a cross member having opposed pegs received in corresponding seats of adjacent tiles). Perego does not expressly disclose a magnetic member at an abutting end of each track piece for magnetically attaching adjacent track pieces. Kiribuchi teaches the use of modular pieces (blocks 1) having magnetic members (permanent magnets 2, including magnets 2a/2b) disposed at confronting connecting faces such that adjacent pieces are magnetically attached by attraction between the magnets. Kiribuchi further teaches its magnetically connected blocks forming a track structure (for example, see Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pergo’s track pieces to include Kiribuchi’s magnetic members at the confronting ends thereof, thereby permitting the adjacent track pieces to be readily connected and disconnected and facilitating rearrangement of the modular pieces into different track configurations. Kiribuchi expressly teaches magnetic coupling as a means for facilitating connection of modular pieces.
Perego and Kiribuchi do not expressly disclose the claimed fixing buckle having a buckle groove having formed penetrating between two ends thereof and configured to insert and fix tow track pieces as recited. However, Chan teaches a connector for joining adjacent modular vehicle track sections (connector 200; track sections 110a, 11b). The connector spans adjoining ends of two track sections and includes trac engaging/receiving structure (see first and second support surfaces 202,204; connection features/receptacles 210,212,218,220) configured to receive and secure corresponding portions (124a, 124b) of adjoining track sections. See particularly Figures 6A-7B and 11-12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the adjoining track pieces of Perego, as modified by Kiribuchi, with the track connector of Chan to further secure and align adjoining track pieces and maintain continuity of the track during use, as taught by Chan.
It should be noted that examiner is giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims set forth in MPEP 904.01(a). The examiner notes that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. SEE MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 5, Perego teaches modular track pieces (tile 2) having curved track portions (curved railway/track portions 4/6) extending between peripheral portions of the tile. Perego discloses multiple curved-track configurations as shown in Figures 3a-3k. It would have been obvious to select disclosed curved track configuration to provide different continuous track layouts, as expressly contemplated by Perego.
Regarding claim 6, Perego teaches track pieces (tiles 2) having track portions (railway/track portions 4/6) extending between selected peripheral sides of the track piece. It would have been obvious to select the recited orientation from Perego’s disclosed track configurations because the different orientations permit the modular tiles to be selectively arranged to establish a desired continuous track.
Regarding claim 7, Perego teaches track pieces (tiles 2) having track portions (railway/track portions 4/6) extending between selected peripheral portions of the tiles and communicating with corresponding track portions of adjoining tiles. It would have been obvious to employ the claimed straight/curved configuration as one of Perego’s interchangeable track piece to provide an alternative continues track path.
Regarding claim 8, Perego teaches track pieces (tiles 2) having track portions (railway/track portions 4/6) arranged in different directions, including configurations providing multiple paths through a tile, as illustrated in Figures 3a-3k. It would have been obvious to use the claimed multi-path configuration because Perego teaches providing differently configured tiles to increase the number and variety of continuous track layouts obtainable from the modular pieces.
Regarding claim 9, Perego teaches track pieces (tiles 2) having track portions (railway/track portions 4/6) and teaches arranging differently configured pieces such that the track portions of adjacent pieces communicate to form a continuous track.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to reach or suggest the following claimed limitations: regarding claims 2-3, a track comprising a base and cover plate fixedly connected defining a receiving groove therebetween, wherein the magnetic member is movably received int eh receiving groove, in combination with the remaining claimed track structure; regarding claim 4, the recited fixing buckle/buckling groove configuration and dimensional relationship in combination with the limitation of claim 3; and regarding claim 10, a track car comprising an outer shell, an inner shell detachably connected inside the outer shell, and a flappable shell rotationally connected at one side of the outer shell and buckled at the other side, in combination with the claimed powered track car structure.
Conclusion
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
on __________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
________________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO
on _____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 4,504,243 and 6,427,926 disclose a track toy components with track pieces (see all Figures).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINI F LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4412. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Nicholas J. Weiss can be reached at (571) 207-1775. 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.
/NINI F LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
