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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14, 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear how two components can be uniformly spaced apart as only a single space exists between two components. The examiner will examine as best understood with the magnets spaced at thirds along the edge. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the at least one of the first magnet or the second magnet" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Two magnets were previously established in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bensussan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0246715.
Regarding claim 1, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel comprising: two or more panels (101), each of the two or more panels comprising: a first recess and a second recess (both of spaces within 101 in which 105 is situated, see Fig. 10B) in a first edge of each of the two or more panels (101 edge adjacent 103 as illustrated, see Fig. 10B); a first magnet (one of 105) secured in the first recess by a first casing (103 as illustrated in Fig. 10B) such that the first magnet can rotate (paragraph 123); a second magnet (other of 105) secured in the second recess by the first casing (103) such that the second magnet can rotate (paragraph 123); wherein each of the two or more panels are configured such that when the first edge of a first panel of the two or more panels is brought towards the first edge of a second panel of the two or more panels from any direction, the first magnet and the second magnet in each panel orientate such that a magnetic connection is formed between the first panel and the second panel (as the magnets rotate); wherein the first magnet comprises a diametrically magnetized cylindrical magnet (paragraph 109; Figs. 16); wherein the second magnet comprises a diametrically magnetized cylindrical magnet (paragraph 109; Figs. 16); wherein the first casing extends over a portion of a first face of each of the two or more panels, the first edge of each of the two or more panels, and a portion of the second face of each of the two or more panels (it is U-shaped, paragraph 109; Fig. 14A), but does not specifically disclose a second casing securing the second magnet, wherein the second casing extends over a portion of a first face of each of the two or more panels, the first edge of each of the two or more panels, and a portion of the second face of each of the two or more panels; nor wherein the structure is a size in which children can enter and exit the structure and play with or within the structure. As Bensussan teaches the panels may be of varying sizes (paragraph 55), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the panels of a desired size depending on the application desired, including of a size in which children can play within an assembled structure of the panels, as 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the first casing as two separate half-length identical casings in order for a user to access a magnet individually for maintenance, and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. The phrase “configured such that when the first edge of a first panel of the two or more panels is brought towards the first edge of a second panel of the two or more panels from any direction, the first magnet and the second magnet in each panel orientate such that a magnetic connection is formed between the first panel and the second panel” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel wherein when the first edge of the first panel is brought towards the first edge of the second panel, the first edge of the first panel and the first edge of the second panel form a hinge (as the magnets will rotate according to paragraph 135, a hinge will be created), but does not specifically disclose wherein the first panel and the second panel can be rotated up to 360 degrees relative to each other about the hinge. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the panels are capable of rotating up to 360 degrees, as the present invention rotates, due to the panels being flat. The phrase “wherein when the first edge of the first panel is brought towards the first edge of the second panel, the first edge of the first panel and the first edge of the second panel form a hinge” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel wherein the hinge is configured to maintain the magnetic connection between the first panel and the second panel when the first panel and the second panel are rotated up to 360 degrees relative to each other about the hinge (as the magnets will rotate according to paragraph 135). The phrase “configured to maintain the magnetic connection between the first panel and the second panel when the first panel and the second panel are rotated up to 360 degrees relative to each other about the hinge” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel wherein at least one of the first recess or the second recess is shaped to house an outer profile of at least one of the first or the second magnet (see Fig. 10B). The phrase “configured to maintain the magnetic connection between the first panel and the second panel when the first panel and the second panel are rotated up to 360 degrees relative to each other about the hinge” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 6, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel wherein the two or more panels comprise at least one of: a triangular panel; a square panel (paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 7, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel wherein the two or more panels comprise at least one of: a rectangular panel; a trapezoid panel (paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 8, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel wherein the two or more panels comprise an aperture which provides a window for the play area (as depicted in Fig. 26).
Regarding claim 9, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel wherein the two or more panels comprises a plurality of panels and the system can be arranged to build the play area structure, and wherein the play area structure comprises at least one of: a play house; a stage; a scene; an exhibition display; a play car; a play spaceship; a box; furniture; floor tiles; a floor mat of combined panels; a toy roadway and a stage (see Figs. 31 for example). The phrase “can be arranged to build the play area” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel wherein the system comprises layers of the two or more panels (shown in Fig. 10A); wherein each edge of the two or more panels has a same thickness (see Fig. 10A); and wherein the two or more panels are configured to tesselate with each other such that the layers of panels can be stacked on top of each other for storage (as they are flat, see Fig. 10A). The phrase “configured to tesselate with each other such that the layers of panels can be stacked on top of each other for storage” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 11, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel wherein: the first casing covers the first recess to retain the first magnet in the first recess; and the second casing covers the second recess to retain the second magnet in the second recess (paragraph 123).
Regarding claim 12, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel wherein the first casing and the second casing are two different portions of casing (each retains a magnet per paragraph 123).
Regarding claim 13, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel wherein the first casing is push-fit and/or a friction- fit over the first edge and wherein the second casing is push-fit and/or a friction- fit over the first edge (a push connection via components 121 and 123, see paragraph 118).
Regarding claim 14, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel but does not specifically disclose wherein the first recess and the second recess are uniformly spaced apart along first edge. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the magnets evenly along the edge for a uniform attachment between adjacent panels.
Regarding claim 15, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel wherein each of the two or more panels comprises a first face (outer face of 101) and a second face (inner face of 101), wherein the first edge connects the first face and the second face around a perimeter of each of the two or more panels (see Fig. 10B), wherein the first recess and the second recess are positioned in the first edge and wherein each of the first recess and the second recess are through each of the two or more panels from the first face to the second face (see Fig. 10B, generally).
Regarding claim 19, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel (101) comprising: a first recess (recess in 101 into which 105 is situated at 103, see Fig. 10B) and a second recess (other recess in 101 into which other of 105 is situated) in a first edge of the panel (as shown in Fig. 10B); and a first magnet (105) secured in the first recess by a first casing (103) such that the first magnet can rotate (paragraph 124); a second magnet (other of 105 as shown in Fig. 10B) secured in the second recess by the first casing (103) such that the second magnet can rotate (paragraph 142); wherein the first magnet comprises a diametrically magnetized cylindrical magnet (paragraph 109; Figs. 16); wherein the second magnet comprises a diametrically magnetized cylindrical magnet (paragraph 109; Figs. 16); wherein the first casing extends over a portion of the first face of the panel, the first edge of the panel, and a portion of a second face of the panel (it is U-shaped, paragraph 109; Fig. 14A), but does not specifically disclose a second casing securing the second magnet, wherein the second casing extends over a portion of a first face of each of the two or more panels, the first edge of each of the two or more panels, and a portion of the second face of each of the two or more panels, nor wherein the play area structure is a size in which children can enter and exit the play area structure and play with or within the play area structure. Bensussan teaches the panels may be of varying sizes (paragraph 55), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the panels of a desired size depending on the application desired, including of a size in which children can play within an assembled structure of the panels, as 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the first casing as two separate half-length identical casings in order for a user to access a magnet individually for maintenance, and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 20, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel comprising: providing a panel (101) comprising a first recess (recess in 101 into which 105 is situated, see Fig. 10B) and a second recess (other recess in 101 into which other 105 is situated, see Fig. 10B) in a first edge of the panel (at 103, as shown in Fig. 10B); and securing, using a first casing (103), a first magnet (105) in the first recess such that the first magnet can rotate in the first recess (paragraph 124); securing, using the first casing (103), a second magnet (105) in the second recess such that the second magnet can rotate in the second recess (paragraph 124) wherein the first magnet comprises a spherical magnet or a diametrically magnetized cylindrical magnet (Fig. 16A; paragraph 135); wherein the second magnet comprises a spherical magnet or a diametrically magnetized cylindrical magnet (Fig. 16A; paragraph 135); wherein the first casing extends over a portion of a first face of the panel, the first edge of the panel, and a portion of a second face of the panel (it is U-shaped, paragraph 109; Fig. 14A); but does not specifically disclose wherein the play area structure is a size in which children can enter and exit the play area structure and play with or within the play area structure, nor securing, using a second casing (142), the second magnet, wherein the second casing extends over a portion of a first face of the panel, the first edge of the panel, and a portion of a second face of the panel. Bensussan teaches the panels may be of varying sizes (paragraph 55), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the panels of a desired size depending on the application desired, including of a size in which children can play within an assembled structure of the panels, as 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the first casing as two separate half-length identical casings in order for a user to access a magnet individually for maintenance, and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim(s) 5, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bensussan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0246715 in view of Ornstein et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0184727.
Regarding claim 5, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel but does not specifically disclose wherein the play area structure comprises a life-size play area between 0.5 metres and 2.5 metres tall. Ornstein teaches magnetic panels of a half meter in height (paragraph 159). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the panels of a desired size depending on the application desired, including a half meter, as 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 18, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel but does not specifically disclose wherein the two or more panels are comprised of foam. Ornstein teaches a magnetic panel comprised of foam (paragraph 133). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a foam material to produce a lightweight panel, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bensussan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0246715 in view of Rosen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0232357.
Regarding claim 16, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel but does not disclose wherein the first casing comprises a first safety clip for encapsulating the first magnet, wherein when the first magnet is removed from the first recess the first magnet remains encapsulated in the first safety clip; and/or the second casing comprises a second safety clip for encapsulating the second magnet, wherein when the second magnet is removed from the second recess the second magnet remains encapsulated in the second safety clip. Rosen teaches a clip (18) encapsulating magnets at edges of the panels. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize individual clips rather than a singular component (103/104) extending along entire panel edges so that a lesser amount of material is required, thereby reducing material costs, and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bensussan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0246715 in view of Rudisill, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0227934.
Regarding claim 17, Bensussan discloses a magnetic panel, but does not disclose wherein the system comprises a foldable panel with pre-created foldable lines which can be folded to provide different shapes of the foldable panel, and wherein the foldable panel can be magnetically attached to the at least one of the first magnet or the second magnet. Rudisill teaches (scoring/compressing lines in a magnetic panel to allow for folding of the panel (paragraph 105). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to score, or add perforations, to allow for folding of individual panels for a more versatile set of panels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
See prior art rejections as set forth above.
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 GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633