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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baird (US 3895801 A).
Regarding claim 1, Baird teaches 1. An aquatic game apparatus, comprising: See Fig. 1, a bouyant water skipping article, comprising: See Fig. 1; 1:64+, a target, comprising: See Fig. 1; 1:64+, a target portion comprising an upper surface having a plurality target openings; and See Fig. 1; 2:65+, a bouyant base portion comprising a flotation unit; See Fig. 1, wherein the upper surface of the target portion is configured to be elevated up from the base unit a target angle. See Fig. 1 wherein the openings 22, 23 and 24 are elevated at an angle near 90 degrees.
Regarding claim 2, Baird teaches 2. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an anchor coupled to the target by a strap. See Fig. 1; (9)(10)(9a)(10a).
Regarding claim 3, Baird teaches 3. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 2, comprising at least two anchors coupled to the targert by a strap. See Fig. 1; (9a)(10a).
Regarding claim 4, Baird teaches 4. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 2, wherein the anchor comprises a fillable weight bag. See 2:18+ wherein conventional weight may include conventional fillable weights.
Regarding claim 5, Baird teaches 5. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 1, wherein the bouyant water skipping article is made of foam. See Fig. 3A; 2:54+.
Regarding claim 11, Baird teaches 11. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 1, where the floatation unit of the base portion is detachably attached to the base portion. See Fig. 1; (2a)(2b).
Regarding claim 12, Baird teaches 12. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 11, where the floatation unit of the base portion is rod shaped and made of foam. See 2:18+.
Regarding claim 13, Baird teaches 13. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 1, where the floatation unit of the base portion is rod shaped and made of foam. See 2:18+.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The notations noted below apply to all rejections: In as much structure set forth by the applicant in the claims, the device is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired (See MPEP 2112). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention 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, it meets the claim limitations. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The intended use defined in the preamble and body of the claim breathes no life and meaning structurally different than that of the applied reference.
Claims 6, 10, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baird (US 3895801 A) in view of Zavracky (US 20180001171 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Zavracky teaches 6. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of target openings comprise pocketed nets configured to catch the water skipping article. See Fig. 5; (557) the net can easily be duplicated on all the openings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Baird with Zavracky to provide a inflatable goal or target that can be used in a pool or other body of water with easy transport abilities.
Regarding claim 10, Zavracky teaches 10. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 1, where the floatation unit of the base portion is an inflatable bladder. See Fig. 1; [0020+].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Baird with Zavracky to provide a inflatable goal or target that can be used in a pool or other body of water with easy transport abilities.
Regarding claim 17, Zavracky teaches 17. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 1, further comrpising a bouyant backstop that is configured to extend behind the taget and comprises a net configured to capture water skipping articles that miss the target openings. See Fig. 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Baird with Zavracky to provide a inflatable goal or target that can be used in a pool or other body of water with easy transport abilities.
Regarding claim 18, Zavracky teaches 18. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 1, of claim 17, wherein the bouyant backstop comprieses an upper support and a base support that is bouyant and wherein the net is configured between said upper support and the base support. See Fig. 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Baird with Zavracky to provide a inflatable goal or target that can be used in a pool or other body of water with easy transport abilities.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baird (US 3895801 A) in view of Dunbar (US 715249 A).
Regarding claim 7, Dunbar teaches 7. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 1, wherein the target portion is a triangularly shaped having three sides configure at acute angles. See Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Baird with Dunbar to provide a game means with a plurality or pockets for projectiles.
Regarding claim 8, Dunbar teaches 8. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 7, wherein the target portion comprises at least three target openings. See Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Baird with Dunbar to provide a game means with a plurality or pockets for projectiles.
Regarding claim 9, Baird teaches 9. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 8, wherein the target portion comprises a lower target opening, a middle target opening and an upper target opening, wherein the middle target opening is configured between the lower and upper target opening. See Fig. 1.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baird (US 3895801 A) in view of Gallagher (US 10065095 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Gallagher teaches 14. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 1, wherein the target is collapsable is foldable and configured to be folded and placed in a case for transport. See Fig. 1-5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Baird with Gallagher to provide a game board that can collapse for easy transport.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baird (US 3895801 A) in view of Gallagher (US 10065095 B2) and Zavracky (US 20180001171 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Zavracky teaches 15. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 14, wherien the target comprises an inflatable bladder. See Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Baird with Zavracky to provide a inflatable goal or target that can be used in a pool or other body of water with easy transport abilities.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baird (US 3895801 A) in view of Gallagher (US 10065095 B2) and Zheng (US 7031147 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Zheng teaches 16. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 14, wherien the target comprises a wire frame configured in a sleeve and wherein the wire frame is flexible. See Fig. 16 which teaches a collapsible structure that can be used in a game with a wire frame and a sleeve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Baird with Zheng to impart additional utility or amusement value to the basic underlying structure.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baird (US 3895801 A) in view of Kinner (US 20190091534 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Kinner teaches 19. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 1, wherein the target comprises glow in the dark material. See [0019+].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Baird with Kinner to allow the game to be played at night (See [0019+]).
Regarding claim 20, Kinner teaches 20. The aquatic game apparatus of claim 1, wherein the water skipping article comprises glow in the dark material. See [0019+].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Baird with Kinner to allow the game to be played at night (See [0019+]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST.
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 L Kim can be reached on (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.
/JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3711