DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgement of Applicant’s Response
The merits of this case have been carefully reviewed in light of applicant’s response filed, 2/7/2026. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), however, applicant’s remarks do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, as the application cannot claim benefit to the filing date of the provisional application referenced by applicant, see MPEP 1504.20 and 35 U.S.C. 172. Therefore, the rejection under 102 is given again and made FINAL.
Specification Objection
The figure descriptions are objectionable for lack of clarity (MPEP 1503.01, subsection II). In particular, Figs. 3 and 5 are both described as bottom views, while Fig. 5 shows a rear view. Furthermore, the term “axial view” is not an accurate description of the elevation views shown in Figs. 4 and 5. The descriptions must be amended to clearly and accurately describe the views shown and may read as follows:
--FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a Rotatable Interlocking Building Block;
FIG. 2 is a top plan view thereof;
FIG. 3 is a bottom plan view thereof;
FIG. 4 is a front elevation view thereof;
FIG. 5 is a rear elevation view thereof;
FIG. 6 is a right side elevation view thereof; and
FIG. 7 is a left side elevational view thereof.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The claim is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by AXIO Block available on 5/22/2023 herein referred to as (AXIO) because the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention 9/06/2023.
PNG
media_image1.png
403
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The overall visual appearance of AXIO is substantially the same as that of the claimed design. See e.g., International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1237-38, 1240, 93 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and MPEP § 1504.02.
“Two designs are substantially the same if their resemblance is deceptive to the extent that it would induce an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, to purchase an article having one design supposing it to be the other.” Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne Inc., 256 F.3d 1308, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871)).
“The mandated overall comparison is a comparison taking into account significant differences between the two designs, not minor or trivial differences that necessarily exist between any two designs that are not exact copies of one another. Just as ‘minor differences between a patented design and an accused article's design cannot, and shall not, prevent a finding of infringement,’ so too minor differences cannot prevent a finding of anticipation.” Int'l Seaway, 589 F.3d at 1243 (citing Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
The Office has provided a mechanism for filing an affidavit or declaration (under 37 CFR 1.130) to establish that a disclosure is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) due to an exception in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). See MPEP § 717. In the situations in which it is not apparent from the prior disclosure or the patent application specification that the prior disclosure is by the inventor or a joint inventor, the applicant may establish by way of an affidavit or declaration that a grace period disclosure is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) because the prior disclosure was by the inventor or a joint inventor.
MPEP § 2155.01 discusses the use of affidavits or declarations to show that the prior disclosure was made by the inventor or a joint inventor under the exception of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) for a grace period inventor disclosure.
A 102(a)(1) rejection where the date of the reference is equal to or less than one year may be overcome by:
Applicant providing persuasive arguments that clearly show and describe the claimed design as patentably distinguishable from the prior art mentioned. In other words, the raised rejection can be overcome by evidence that the product in the prior art reference does not necessarily or inherently possess an integral characteristic of the applicant's claimed design;
and/or
Invoking either the 102(b)(1)(A) or 102(b)(1)(B) exceptions. See MPEP 2153.01 (a). See also MPEP §717.01 (Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.130).
Conclusion
The claim stands Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Direct any inquiry concerning any communication from the examiner to Andrew Golson whose telephone number is 703-756-1325. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. ET.
Examiner Interviews
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool.
A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner).
The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, is available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012.
See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information.
Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner “not of record” provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A).
To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Email Communications
If email communication is preferred, please email the examiner at andrew.golson@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. If both email and telephonic means are required, include preferred days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please consider the examiner's work schedule indicated in the first paragraph of the contact information of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call.
The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO.
For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence”: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions. Also, see MPEP 502.03 II for further information.
Patent Center
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). 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.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, reach out to the examiner’s supervisor, Richard Kearney whose telephone number is 571-272-8312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/A.D.G./
Examiner, Art Unit 2936
/Richard Kearney/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2933