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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 13-16 are pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundberg (6382627) in view of Conville (5056796), Zheng (20020078989), and Dresel (4565375), or in the alternative, Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundberg (6382627) in view of Conville (5056796), Zheng (20020078989), Dresel (4565375), and Eggers (20060175754).
Regarding claim 1, Lundberg (Figures 1-10) teaches a portable game assembly, comprising: a first platform (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 12) defining a first perimeter; a second platform (12) defining a second perimeter, wherein the portable game assembly is transitionable between an erect configuration (See fig. 2) and a collapsed configuration (See fig. 1) (Col. 3, Lines 47-55), and wherein said second platform (12) is attachable to said first platform in said disassembled configuration (See fig. 1), wherein said first and second platforms are both substantially planar (See fig. 1-2); legs (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 36) removably connectable to both said first and second platforms (See fig. 1-2), such that the legs are configured to connect to said first and second platforms in said erect configuration to support said first platform above, and spaced apart from, said second platform (See fig. 2) and wherein said legs are configured to be disconnected from said first and second platforms in said collapsed configuration (See fig. 1), and wherein in said erect configuration: said first platform is positioned above said second platform (See fig. 2); said first perimeter is aligned with said second perimeter (See fig. 2); and said first platform is in a fixed parallel position relative to said second platform (See fig. 2); and a circular opening (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 20) defined through said first platform (Col. 3, Lines 56-61), wherein said circular opening is in a center of said first platform (See fig. 1-2); wherein: said legs (Fig. 5 and 7, Part No. 36) do not extend above said first platform in said erect configuration (See fig. 2 and 5).
It is noted that the prior art of Lundberg is fully capable of performing the claim recitations of “the portable game assembly is transitionable between an erect configuration and a collapsed configuration”, “said second platform is attachable to said first platform,” “a circular opening… that is sized to allow a bag thrown by a user to pass through said single circular opening” and “said circular opening is configured to receive the bag thrown by the user through said circular opening, such that, the bag passes through said circular opening and onto said second platform while said portable game assembly is in said erect configuration” as the recited limitations are directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and do not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Lundberg. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Lundberg does not teach said legs are stored between said first platform and said second platform in said collapsed configuration, a single circular opening-defined through said first platform, and in said collapsed configuration, said first and second platforms form top and bottom sides of a carrying case, said carrying case defining an interior space for storing said legs in said collapsed configuration, said first perimeter is aligned with said second perimeter, and the portable game assembly further comprising: latching means for latching said carrying case in a closed position with said legs disconnected from said first and second platforms, and said legs within said interior space defined by said carrying case; and handle means for carrying said carrying case.
Conville (Figures 1-9) teaches a circular opening configured to receive a bag thrown by a user through said circular opening (Col. 5, Lines 63-68 and Col. 6, Lines 1-2), said legs (Fig. 1-5, Part No. 37, 38) are stored between said first platform (24) and said second platform (26) in said collapsed configuration (Col. 7, Lines 5-12 and Lines 53-65) (See fig. 2-5), and in said collapsed configuration, said first (24) and second (26) platforms form top and bottom sides of a carrying case (See fig. 2-5), said carrying case defining an interior space for storing said legs (Fig. 4-5, Part No. 37, 38) in said collapsed configuration (See fig. 2-5), and the portable game assembly further comprising: latching means (Fig. 5, Part NO. 65) for latching said carrying case in a closed position with said legs disconnected (See fig. 4 of Conville where the legs (37, 38) are shown disconnected) from said first and second platforms, and said legs within said interior space defined by said carrying case (See fig. 4-5), and handle means (Fig. 5, Part No. 69) for carrying said carrying case.
Zheng (Figures 9A-9C) teaches in said collapsed configuration, said first perimeter is aligned with said second perimeter (See fig. 9C) (Para. 0072).
Dresel (Figures 1-4) teaches a single circular opening (13) defined through said first platform (Col. 3, Lines 28-42), and a playing piece (25) passes through said circular opening and onto said second platform (Col. 2, Lines 49-53) while said portable game assembly is in said erect configuration.
It is noted that the apparatus of Lundberg is fully capable of being placed in a collapsed configuration as claimed as the part of the apparatus are separable (See fig. 1). As an alternative rejection, the prior art of Eggers is also being used to teach a game assembly that is placed in a collapsed configuration.
Eggers (Figures 1-8) teaches placing a game assembly that is placed in a collapsed configuration (Para. 0030) from an erect configuration (Para. 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lundberg with legs stored between said first platform and said second platform as taught by Conville as a means of collapsing a portable game assembly for transportation (Conville: Col. 7, Lines 5-12 and Lines 53-65), to provide Lundberg with said first perimeter is aligned with said second perimeter as taught by Zheng as a means of collapsing panels so that the panels overlie each other and form a stack (Zheng: Para. 0072), and to provide Lundberg with a single circular opening defined through said first platform as taught by Dresel as a means of simple substitution of one known element (an opening in a platform used to receive game pieces during a game) for another (a circular opening in a center of a platform used to receive game pieces during a game) to obtain predictable results (an opening in a platform used to receive game pieces during a game) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)), and to provide Lundberg with a collapsed configuration as taught by Eggert as a means of collapsing a game assembly by removing posts and cords and stacking game platforms on top of each other for ease of transport and storage when not in use (Eggers: Para. 0030).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Lundberg (Figures 1-10) teaches a portable game assembly is transitionable between an erect configuration and a collapsed configuration.
The modified Lundberg does not teach said first platform and said second platform comprise a wood material.
Dresel (Figures 1-4) teaches said first platform and said second platform comprise a wood material (Col. 4, Lines 25-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Lundberg with said first platform and said second platform comprise a wood material as taught by Dresel as a means of selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 7, Lundberg (Figures 1-10) teaches a portable game system, comprising: a first platform (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 12) defining a first perimeter; a second platform (12) defining a second perimeter, wherein the portable game system is transitionable between a erect configuration and a collapsed configuration (See fig. 1-2), and wherein said second platform is attachable to said first platform in said collapsed configuration for ease of transportation (See fig. 1-2), wherein said first and second platforms are both substantially planar (See fig. 1-2); legs (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 36) removably connected to both said first and second platforms, such that the legs are configured to connect to said first and second platforms in said erect configuration to support said first platform above, and spaced apart from, said second platform (See fig. 2), and wherein said legs are configured to be disconnected from said first and second platforms in said collapsed configuration (See fig. 1), and wherein in said erect configuration: said first platform is positioned above said second platform (See fig. 2); said first perimeter is aligned with said second perimeter (See fig. 2); and said first platform is in a fixed parallel position relative to said second platform (See fig. 2); and a circular opening (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 20) defined through said first platform, wherein said circular is in a center of said first platform (See fig. 1-2); wherein: said legs (Fig. 5 and 7, Part No. 36) do not extend above said first platform in said erect configuration.
It is noted that the prior art of Lundberg is fully capable of performing the claim recitations of “the portable game system is transitionable between a erect configuration and a collapsed configuration”, “said second platform is attachable to said first platform,” “a circular opening… that is sized to allow a bag thrown by a user to pass through said single circular opening” and “said circular opening is configured to receive the bag thrown by the user through said circular opening, such that, the bag passes through said circular opening and onto said second platform while said portable game system is in said erect configuration” as the recited limitations are directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and do not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Lundberg. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Lundberg does not teach wherein said legs are stored between said first platform and said second platform in said collapsed configuration, a single circular opening defined through said first platform, and in said second configuration, said first and second platforms form top and bottom sides of a carrying case, said carrying case defining an interior space for storing said legs in said collapsed configuration, said first perimeter is aligned with said second perimeter, and the portable game system further comprising: latching means for latching said carrying case in a closed position with said legs disconnected from said first and second platforms, and said legs within said interior space defined by said carrying case; and handle means for carrying said carrying case.
Conville (Figures 1-9) teaches a circular opening that is sized to allow a bag thrown by a user to pass through said single circular opening (Col. 5, Lines 63-68 and Col. 6, Lines 1-2), said legs (Fig. 1-5, Part No. 37, 38) are stored between said first platform (24) and said second platform (26) in said collapsed configuration (Col. 7, Lines 5-12 and Lines 53-65) (See fig. 2-5), and in said collapsed configuration, said first (24) and second (26) platforms form top and bottom sides of a carrying case (See fig. 2-5), said carrying case defining an interior space for storing said legs (Fig. 4-5, Part No. 37, 38) in said collapsed configuration (See fig. 2-5), and the portable game assembly further comprising: latching means (Fig. 5, Part No. 65) for latching said carrying case in a closed position with said legs disconnected (See fig. 4 of Conville where the legs (37, 38) are shown disconnected) from said first and second platforms, and said legs within said interior space defined by said carrying case (See fig. 4-5), and handle means (Fig. 5, Part No. 69) for carrying said carrying case.
Zheng (Figures 9A-9C) teaches in said collapsed configuration, said first perimeter is aligned with said second perimeter (See fig. 9C) (Para. 0072).
Dresel (Figures 1-4) teaches a single circular opening (13) defined through said first platform (Col. 3, Lines 28-42), and a playing piece (25) passes through said circular opening and onto said second platform (Col. 2, Lines 49-53) while said portable game assembly is in said erect configuration.
It is noted that the apparatus of Lundberg is fully capable of being placed in a collapsed configuration as claimed as the part of the apparatus are separable (See fig. 1). As an alternative rejection, the prior art of Eggers is also being used to teach a game assembly that is placed in a collapsed configuration.
Eggers (Figures 1-8) teaches placing a game assembly that is placed in a collapsed configuration (Para. 0030) from an erect configuration (Para. 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lundberg with legs stored between said first platform and said second platform as taught by Conville as a means of collapsing a portable game assembly for transportation (Conville: Col. 7, Lines 5-12 and Lines 53-65), to provide Lundberg with said first perimeter is aligned with said second perimeter as taught by Zheng as a means of collapsing panels so that the panels overlie each other and form a stack (Zheng: Para. 0072), and to provide Lundberg with a single circular opening defined through said first platform as taught by Dresel as a means of simple substitution of one known element (an opening in a platform used to receive game pieces during a game) for another (a circular opening in a center of a platform used to receive game pieces during a game) to obtain predictable results (an opening in a platform used to receive game pieces during a game) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)), and to provide Lundberg with a collapsed configuration as taught by Eggert as a means of collapsing a game assembly by removing posts and cords and stacking game platforms on top of each other for ease of transport and storage when not in use (Eggers: Para. 0030).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Lundberg (Figures 1-10) teaches a portable game system transitionable between a erect configuration and a collapsed configuration.
The modified Lundberg does not teach said first platform and said second platform comprise a wood material.
Dresel (Figures 1-4) teaches said first platform and said second platform comprise a wood material (Col. 4, Lines 25-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Lundberg with said first platform and said second platform comprise a wood material as taught by Dresel as a means of selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 13, Lundberg (Figures 1-10) teaches a game assembly, comprising: a first platform (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 12) comprising a first outer profile; a second platform (12) comprising a second outer profile, wherein the game assembly is transitionable between an erect configuration (See fig .2) and a collapsed configuration (see fig. 1), and wherein said second platform is attachable to said first platform in said collapsed configuration for ease of transportation (see fig. 1), wherein said first and second platforms are both substantially planar (see fig. 1-2); legs (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 36) removably connectable to both said first and second platforms (See fig. 2), such that said legs are configured to connect to said first and second platforms in said erect configuration to support said first platform above, and spaced apart from, said second platform (see fig. 2), and wherein said legs are configured to be disconnected from said first and second platforms in said collapsed configuration (see fig. 1), and wherein in said erect configuration: said first platform is positioned above said second platform (see fig. 2); said first outer profile is aligned with said second outer profile (see fig. 2); and said first platform is in a fixed parallel position relative to said second platform (see fig. 2); and a circular opening (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 20) defined in said first platform, wherein said circular opening is in a center of the first platform (see fig. 1-2), wherein: said legs (Fig. 5 and 7, Part No. 36) do not extend above said first platform in said erect configuration.
It is noted that the prior art of Lundberg is fully capable of performing the claim recitations of “the game assembly is transitionable between an erect configuration and a collapsed configuration”, “said second platform is attachable to said first platform”, “a circular opening… that is sized to allow a bag thrown by a user to pass through said circular opening”, and “said circular opening is configured to receive the bag thrown by the user through said circular opening, such that, the bag passes through said circular opening and onto said second platform while said game assembly is in said erect configuration” as the recited limitations are directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and do not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Lundberg. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Lundberg does not teach said legs are stored between said first platform and said second platform in said collapsed configuration, a single circular opening defined in said first platform, and in said collapsed configuration, said first and second platforms form top and bottom sides of a carrying case, said carrying case defining an interior space for storing said legs in said collapsed configuration, said first perimeter is aligned with said second perimeter, and the game assembly further comprising: latching means for latching said carrying case in a closed position with said legs disconnected from said first and second platforms, and said legs within said interior space defined by said carrying case; and handle means for carrying said carrying case.
Conville (Figures 1-9) teaches a circular opening configured to receive a bag thrown by a user through said circular opening (Col. 5, Lines 63-68 and Col. 6, Lines 1-2), said legs (Fig. 1-5, Part No. 37, 38) are stored between said first platform (24) and said second platform (26) in said collapsed configuration (Col. 7, Lines 5-12 and Lines 53-65) (See fig. 2-5), and in said collapsed configuration, said first (24) and second (26) platforms form top and bottom sides of a carrying case (See fig. 2-5), said carrying case defining an interior space for storing said legs (Fig. 4-5, Part No. 37, 38) in said collapsed configuration (See fig. 2-5), and the game assembly further comprising: latching means (Fig. 5, Part No. 65) for latching said carrying case in a closed position with said legs disconnected (See fig. 4 of Conville where the legs (37, 38) are shown disconnected) from said first and second platforms, and said legs within said interior space defined by said carrying case (See fig. 4-5), and handle means (Fig. 5, Part No. 69) for carrying said carrying case.
Zheng (Figures 9A-9C) teaches in said collapsed configuration, said first perimeter is aligned with said second perimeter (See fig. 9C) (Para. 0072).
Dresel (Figures 1-4) teaches a single circular opening (13) defined in said first platform (Col. 3, Lines 28-42), and a playing piece (25) passes through said circular opening and onto said second platform (Col. 2, Lines 49-53) while said portable game assembly is in said erect configuration.
It is noted that the apparatus of Lundberg is fully capable of being placed in a collapsed configuration as claimed as the part of the apparatus are separable (See fig. 1). As an alternative rejection, the prior art of Eggers is also being used to teach a game assembly that is placed in a collapsed configuration.
Eggers (Figures 1-8) teaches placing a game assembly that is placed in a collapsed configuration (Para. 0030) from an erect configuration (Para. 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lundberg with legs stored between said first platform and said second platform as taught by Conville as a means of collapsing a portable game assembly for transportation (Conville: Col. 7, Lines 5-12 and Lines 53-65), to provide Lundberg with said first perimeter is aligned with said second perimeter as taught by Zheng as a means of collapsing panels so that the panels overlie each other and form a stack (Zheng: Para. 0072), and to provide Lundberg with a single circular opening defined through said first platform as taught by Dresel as a means of simple substitution of one known element (an opening in a platform used to receive game pieces during a game) for another (a circular opening in a center of a platform used to receive game pieces during a game) to obtain predictable results (an opening in a platform used to receive game pieces during a game) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)), and to provide Lundberg with a collapsed configuration as taught by Eggert as a means of collapsing a game assembly by removing posts and cords and stacking game platforms on top of each other for ease of transport and storage when not in use (Eggers: Para. 0030)..
Regarding claim 14, the modified Lundberg (Figures 1-10) teaches a game assembly that is transitionable between an erect configuration and a collapsed configuration.
The modified Lundberg does not teach said first platform and said second platform comprise a wood material.
Dresel (Figures 1-4) teaches said first platform and said second platform comprise a wood material (Col. 4, Lines 25-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Lundberg with said first platform and said second platform comprise a wood material as taught by Dresel as a means of selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Claims 3, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundberg in view of Conville, Zheng (20020078989), and Dresel, further in view of Gallagher (20160045799), or in the alternative, Claims 3, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundberg in view of Conville, Zheng (20020078989), Dresel, and Eggers, further in view of Gallagher (20160045799).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Lundberg (Figures 1-10) teaches a portable game assembly is transitionable between an erect configuration and a collapsed configuration.
The modified Lundberg does not teach said first platform and said second platform comprise a PVC material.
Gallagher teaches forming a toss game from PVC material (Para. 0067).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Lundberg with forming a toss game from PVC material as taught by Gallagher as a means of selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Lundberg (Figures 1-10) teaches a portable game system transitionable between a erect configuration and a collapsed configuration.
The modified Lundberg does not teach said first platform and said second platform comprise a PVC material.
Gallagher teaches forming a toss game from PVC material (Para. 0067).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Lundberg with forming a toss game from PVC material as taught by Gallagher as a means of selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Lundberg (Figures 1-10) teaches a game assembly that is transitionable between an erect configuration and a collapsed configuration.
The modified Lundberg not teach said first platform and second platform comprise a PVC material.
Gallagher teaches forming a toss game from PVC material (Para. 0067).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Lundberg with forming a toss game from PVC material as taught by Gallagher as a means of selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Claims 4, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundberg in view of Conville, Zheng (20020078989), and Dresel, further in view of Palmer (4936590), or in the alternative, Claims 4, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundberg in view of Conville, Zheng (20020078989), Dresel, and Eggers, further in view of Palmer (4936590).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Lundberg (Figures 1-10) teaches a portable game assembly is transitionable between an erect configuration and a collapsed configuration.
The modified Lundberg does not teach said first platform and said second platform comprise hook and loop fasteners for attaching said first platform to said second platform in said disassembled configuration.
Palmer (Figures 1-8) teaches said first platform and said second platform comprise hook and loop fasteners (44, 46) for attaching said first platform to said second platform in said disassembled configuration (Col. 4, Lines 50-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Lundberg with hook and loop fasteners for attaching said first platform to said second platform as taught by Palmer as a means of keeping a portable game assembly closed for storage/transportation (Palmer: Col. 4, Lines 50-62).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Lundberg (Figures 1-10) teaches a portable game system transitionable between a erect configuration and a collapsed configuration.
The modified Lundberg does not teach said first platform and said second platform comprise hook and loop fasteners for attaching said first platform to said second platform in said second configuration.
Palmer (Figures 1-8) teaches said first platform and said second platform comprise hook and loop fasteners (44, 46) for attaching said first platform to said second platform in said second configuration (Col. 4, Lines 50-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Lundberg with hook and loop fasteners for attaching said first platform to said second platform as taught by Palmer as a means of keeping a portable game assembly closed for storage/transportation (Palmer: Col. 4, Lines 50-62).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Lundberg (Figures 1-10) teaches a game assembly that is transitionable between an erect configuration and a collapsed configuration.
The modified Lundberg does not teach said first platform and said second platform comprise hook and loop fasteners for attaching said first platform to said second platform in said collapsed configuration.
Palmer (Figures 1-8) teaches said first platform and said second platform comprise hook and loop fasteners (44, 46) for attaching said first platform to said second platform in said collapsed configuration (Col. 4, Lines 50-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Lundberg with hook and loop fasteners for attaching said first platform to said second platform as taught by Palmer as a means of keeping a portable game assembly closed for storage/transportation (Palmer: Col. 4, Lines 50-62).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument (to claim 13) that the prior art of Lundberg does not teach a game assembly that is “transitionable between an erect configuration and a collapsed configuration”, it is noted that Lundberg (See fig. 1-2) teaches the recited limitation. Applicant argues that Fig. 1 of Lundberg is an exploded view and does not teach a game assembly that is transitionable. This is not found persuasive because it is noted that claims are interpreted suing a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, the term “transitionable” is being interpreted to mean “a change or shift from one state, subject, place, etc. to another.” As shown in Fig. 1 of Lundberg, the apparatus of Lundberg is fully capable of changing or shifting “from one state, subject, place, etc. to another” as claimed. Applicant argues that legs of the apparatus of Lundberg are not configured to be disconnected nor are they capable of being disconnected. This is not found persuasive because the apparatus of Lundberg is fully capable of being collapsed/disconnected. The apparatus of Lundberg is inherently capable of being collapsed as the parts of the apparatus are separable from each other (See fig. 1). Applicant argues that the knots of Lundberg (See fig. 5, Part No. 48) that hold the apparatus together prevent separation of the apparatus. It is noted that the knots are fully capable of being separated/untied so that the apparatus of Lundberg is “transitionable” as claimed. Applicant argues that Lundberg teaches a “collapsible” configuration in figure 8 in which the legs of Lundeberg remain connected to the platform of Lundberg. This is not found persuasive because the apparatus of the prior art of Lundberg is fully capable of being disassembled with the legs separated from the platforms as disclosed in fig. 1. As an Alternative rejection, the prior art of Eggers is also being used to teach a collapsible game assembly where in a collapsed configuration legs and cords are removed and platforms are stacked on top of each other (See Eggers: Para. 0030; See alternative rejection of claims 1-4, 7-10, and 13-16 using prior art of Eggers).
Applicant argues that the combination of Lundberg and Dresel would destroy the intended purpose of Lundberg’s game, this is not found persuasive because the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the leg structures of the prior art of Conville are not separable, this is not found persuasive because the pending claims are rejected under 35 USC 103 where the prior art of Lundberg is used to teach legs (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 36) removably connectable to both said first and second platforms (See fig. 1-2).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the new limitation in claims 1, 7, and 13 of “said first perimeter is aligned with said second perimeter” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711