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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/22/2025 has been entered.
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 30-34 are 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.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “the outer structure” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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.
Claims 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leivan (5642843).
Regarding claim 30, Leivan (Figures 1-9) teaches a) a base (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 20); b) a tray (2) with an internal space (Fig. 2, Part No. 6) to hold a liquid (Col. 2, Lines 64-67 and Col. 3, Lines 1-28), wherein the internal space is formed by at least three walls which form the outer structure of the tray (See fig. 2); c) at least one cup (60) on the tray; d) at least two openings (12); e) a hose connector (12, 29) (Col. 3, Lines 46-52) on the tray, wherein the connector connects to the internal space of the tray (See fig. 2).
It is noted that the prior art of Leivan is fully capable of being used as “a game”, “for liquid outlet on the tray”, and “for liquid input” as the recited limitations are directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus. 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)).
Regarding claim 31, Leivan (Figures 1-9) teaches a spinning mechanism (Col. 2, Lines 64-67 and Col. 3, Lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 32, Leivan (Figures 1-9) teaches one or both of the tray or the at least one cup spins (Col. 2, Lines 64-67 and Col. 3, Lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 33, Leivan (Figures 1-9) teaches at least two cups (See fig. 3, Part No. 30) on the tray (Col. 3, Lines 52-63).
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 17-20, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leivan (5642843) in view of Attenweiler (20150335993).
Regarding claim 17, Leivan (Figures 1-9) teaches a base (20); a spinning tray (2) (Col. 2, Lines 64-67 and Col. 3, Lines 1-13); a fitting (12, 29) (Col. 3, Lines 46-52); and passages (Fig. 2, Part No. 10) within the tray formed by at least three walls of the tray (See fig. 2).
It is noted that the prior art of Leivan is fully capable of being used as “a game” and “for a hose in the tray” as the recited limitations are directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus. 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)).
Leivan does not teach passages within the tray leading to at least two ports in the tray.
Attenweiler (Figures 1-8) teaches passages (Fig. 6, Part No. 199) within the tray leading to at least two ports (50W) in the tray (Para. 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Leivan with passages within the tray leading to at least two ports in the tray as taught by Attenweiler as a means of providing a recess or ledge along a wall an opening for supporting a portion of a receptacle (Attenweiler: Para. 0026).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Leivan (Figures 1-9) teaches a base (20); a spinning tray (2); and a fitting (12, 29).
The modified Leivan does not teach at least two indentions in the tray.
Attenweiler (Figures 1-8) teaches at least two indentions (See fig. 6) in the tray (Para. 0026).
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 Leivan with at least two indentions in the tray as taught by Attenweiler as a means of providing a recess or ledge along a wall an opening for supporting a portion of a receptacle (Attenweiler: Para. 0026).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Leivan (Figures 1-9) teaches a base (20); a spinning tray (2); and a fitting (12, 29).
The modified Leivan does not teach the at least two ports are inside the at least two indentions in the tray.
Attenweiler (Figures 1-8) teaches the at least two ports are inside the at least two indentions in the tray (See fig. 6) (Para. 0026).
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 Leivan with the at least two ports are inside the at least two indentions in the tray as taught by Attenweiler as a means of providing a recess or ledge along a wall an opening for supporting a portion of a receptacle (Attenweiler: Para. 0026).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Leivan (Figures 1-9) teaches a base (20); a spinning tray (2); and a fitting (12, 29).
. The modified Leivan does not teach a mechanism to open and close the ports in the tray.
Attenweiler (Figures 1-8) teaches a mechanism (Fig. 6, Part No. 99) to open and close the ports in the tray (Para. 0026).
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 Leivan with a mechanism to open and close the ports in the tray as taught by Attenweiler as a means of providing a cover for a port in a tray (Attenweiler: Para. 0026).
Regarding claim 34, Leivan (Figures 1-9) teaches a spinning mechanism (Col. 2, Lines 64-67 and Col. 3, Lines 1-13).
Leivan does not teach at least one ball.
Attenweiler (Figures 1-8) teaches at least one ball (Para. 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Leivan with at least one ball as taught by Attenweiler as a means of providing a cup holding tray with a ball to play a game (Attenweiler: Para. 0025).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leivan in view of Attenweiler, further in view of DOI (20180118123).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Leivan (Figures 1-9) teaches a base (20); a spinning tray (2); and a fitting (12, 29).
. The modified Leivan does not teach the mechanism to open and close the ports is controlled by a weight sensor.
DOI teaches the mechanism to open and close the ports is controlled by a weight sensor (32) (Para. 0038-40).
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 Leivan with the mechanism to open and close the ports is controlled by a weight sensor as taught by DOI as a means of providing a tray having passages with means to open/close access to the passages (DOI: Para. 0038-40).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Leivan (Figures 1-9) teaches a base (20); a spinning tray (2); and a fitting (12, 29).
. The modified Leivan does not teach the mechanism to open and close the ports is controlled by a pressure sensor.
DOI teaches the mechanism to open and close the ports is controlled by a pressure sensor (32) (Para. 0038-40).
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 Leivan with the mechanism to open and close the ports is controlled by a pressure sensor as taught by DOI as a means of providing a tray having passages with means to open/close access to the passages (DOI: Para. 0038-40).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiemann (5855372) in view of Rudell (4982959).
Regarding claim 29, Thiemann (Figures 1-3) teaches a method for playing a game, the method comprising the steps of: providing a platform having a connector for a liquid source (Col. 5, Lines 46-50); providing at least two ports (44), wherein the ports are outlets for the liquid source on top or on sides of the platform such that liquid shoots from the ports (Col. 5, Lines 46-50).
Thiemann does not teach providing a mechanism for opening or closing the ports, and taking at least one turn by a player wherein the player attempts to open or close the ports.
Rudell (Figures 1-5) teaches providing a mechanism (72) for opening or closing the ports (Col. 3, Lines 66-68 and Col. 4, Lines 1-12), taking at least one turn by a player wherein the player attempts to open or close the ports (24) (Col. 2, Lines 63-68 and Col. 3, Lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Thiemann with taking at least one turn by a player wherein the player attempts to open or close the ports as taught by Rudell as a means of playing a game which identifies a port on a playing surface which that player must cover (Rudell: Col. 3, Lines 66-68 and Col. 4, Lines 1-12).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leivan in view of Attenweiler, further in view of Hague (20140027544).
Regarding claim 42, the modified Leivan (Figures 1-9) teaches a base (20); a spinning tray (2); and a fitting (12, 29).
The modified Leivan does not teach the mechanism to open and close the ports is a valve.
Hague (Figures 1-) teaches the mechanism to open and close the ports is a valve (Fig. 4, Part No. 155) (Para. 0027-0028).
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 Leivan with the mechanism to open and close the ports is a valve as taught by the mechanism to open and close the ports is a valve as taught by Hague as a means of using a valve to control opening and closing of a water dispensing apparatus (Hague: Para. 0028).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/19/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Leivan does not teach the recitation in claim 30 of “b) a tray with an internal space to hold a liquid, wherein the internal space is formed by at least three walls which form the outer structure of the tray; e) a hose connector on the tray for liquid input, wherein the connector connects to the internal space of the tray”, this is not found persuasive because Leivan teaches: b) a tray (2) with an internal space (Fig. 2, Part No. 6) to hold a liquid (Col. 2, Lines 64-67 and Col. 3, Lines 1-28), wherein the internal space is formed by at least three walls which form the outer structure of the tray (See fig. 2); e) a hose connector (12) (Col. 3, Lines 46-52) on the tray, wherein the connector connects to the internal space of the tray (See fig. 2).
It is noted that the prior art of Leivan is fully capable of being used as “a game”, “for liquid outlet on the tray”, and “for liquid input” as the recited limitations are directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus. 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)).
Applicant argues that that the claimed “internal space” is different from the “internal space” disclosed by the prior art of Leivan, this is not found persuasive because claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, the claim recitation of “internal” is being interpreted to mean “of or situated on the inside”. Under BRI, the claim recitation of “space” is being interpreted to mean “a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied”. Therefore, under BRI, the claim recitation of “internal space” is being interpreted to mean a free/unoccupied inside area. The prior art of Leivan teaches a “free/unoccupied inside area”.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Leivan does not teach the recitation in claim 17 and 30 of passages/internal space “formed by at least three walls”, this is not found persuasive because Leivan teaches passages (Fig. 2, Part No. 10) /internal space (Fig. 2, Part No. 6) “formed by at least three walls” (See fig. 2 of Leivan).
Applicant argues that the prior art of Leivan does not teach the recitation in claim 30 of a “hose connector” because the “hose connector” of Leivan is a hole, this is not found persuasive because claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, a “connector” is interpreted to be “a thing which links two or more things”. It is noted that Leivan teaches a part/feature (i.e. part number 12) which is fully capable of being used as a “hose connector” as claimed. Alternatively, the prior art of Leivan teaches a fitting as part number 29.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Leivan does not teach the recitation in claim 17 of a “a fitting for a hose” because the “fitting” of Leivan is a hole, this is not found persuasive because claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, a “fitting” is interpreted to be “a small part for connecting one thing to another”. It is noted that Leivan teaches a part/feature (i.e. part number 12) which is fully capable of being used as a “fitting” as claimed. Alternatively, the prior art of Leivan teaches a fitting as part number 29.
Applicant argues (to claims 21-22) that the prior art of DOI is non-analogous art because the prior art of DOI is a device to be used in a vehicle or vehicle accessory, this is not found persuasive because it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the prior art of DOI is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned because the claimed invention is directed to a tray having openings/ports. The actual use of the tray (i.e. to play a game as claimed) is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the combination of prior art.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Rudell does not teach the recitation in claim 29 of “providing a mechanism for opening or closing the ports”, this is not found persuasive because Rudell (Col. 4, Lines 1-5) discloses: “the game can be played with a plurality of numbered cards 72, each of which bears a single indicium 74 of the plurality of indicia. The cards are distributed to the players in a random fashion and a player selects a card which identifies a position on the playing surface which that player or an opponent player must cover with his body”. It is noted that Rudell teaches a mechanism (in the form of cards) used to determine which ports are open or closed.
Conclusion
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 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711