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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation in claim 1, line 18 of “integrally formed with one another wherein said mounting bracket” should be changed to --integrally formed with one another; wherein said mounting bracket--.
The recitation in claim 10, line 46 of “integrally formed with one another wherein said mounting bracket” should be changed to --integrally formed with one another; wherein said mounting bracket--.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGetrick (20160339315) in view of Contreras (20170173426) and Revell (3656747).
Regarding claim 1, McGetrick (‘315) (Figures 1-10) teaches a cup and ball assembly for facilitating a game of skill to be played involving tossing a ball in to a cup, said assembly comprising: a support arm (Fig. 10, Part No. 204) (Para. 0024) having a primary portion being perpendicularly oriented with a secondary portion (210); a hook coupled to said secondary portion (See fig. 10); a stub arm (Fig. 10, Part No. 160) (Para. 0022) being coupled to and angling away from said support arm (204), said stub arm being oriented to angle upwardly (See fig. 10); an extension arm (160) (Para. 0022) insertably receiving said stub arm (160) for removably attaching said extension arm on said stub arm (See fig. 10); a tether (14) (Para. 0026) being disposed on said extension arm (160); a ring (4) (Para. 0026) being coupled to said tether thereby facilitating said ring to be thrown toward said hook by a user such that said ring lands in said hook when said ring is accurately thrown wherein said ring is configured to test the user's aim and skill, and the apparatus is mounted to a vertical surface (Para. 0022, 0024).
McGetrick does not teach a mounting bracket having a door slot being integrated into said mounting bracket thereby facilitating said mounting bracket to be positioned on a door in a building, said primary portion being coupled to said mounting bracket such that said primary portion extends downwardly along the door and said secondary portion extends away from the door when said mounting bracket is positioned on the door, a ball being coupled to said tether thereby facilitating said ball to be thrown toward said ring by a user such that said ball lands in said ring when said ball is accurately thrown wherein said ball is configured to test the user's aim and skill.
Contreras (Figures 1-5) teaches a mounting bracket having a door slot (36) (Para. 0014-0015) being integrated into said mounting bracket thereby facilitating said mounting bracket to be positioned on a door in a building (Para. 0019), said primary portion (Fig. 4, Part No. 38) being coupled to said mounting bracket such that said primary portion extends downwardly along the door and said secondary portion (46) extends away from the door when said mounting bracket is positioned on the door (See fig. 4).
Revell (Figures 1-4) teaches a ball (40) being coupled to said tether (36) thereby facilitating said ball to be thrown toward said ring (34) by a user such that said ball lands in said ring (See fig. 1) when said ball is accurately thrown wherein said ball is configured to test the user's aim and skill.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “said mounting bracket, said support arm, said ring, and said stub arm being integrally formed with one another wherein said mounting bracket, said support arm, said ring, and said stub arm define a unitary structure” is directed to an apparatus that is integral as opposed to separable. Making the apparatus disclosed by the combination of prior art integral as opposed to separable would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of obvious engineering choice (See: In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), where the court found that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide McGetrick with a mounting bracket having a door slot being integrated into said mounting bracket as taught by Contreras as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a game assembly mounted to wall as taught by McGetrick) for another (a game assembly mounted to a door as taught by Contreras) to obtain predictable results (a game assembly mounted to a vertical surface) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)), and to provide McGetrick with a ball being coupled to said tether as taught by Revell as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a game assembly comprising a ring attached to a tether as taught by McGetrick) for another (a game assembly comprising a ball attached to a tether as taught by Revell) as taught by Contreras) to obtain predictable results (an object mounted to a tether where the object is aimed and propelled toward a ring/loop of the game assembly) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, The modified McGetrick (Figures 1-10) teaches a support arm (Fig. 10, Part No. 204) (Para. 0024) having a primary portion being perpendicularly oriented with a secondary portion (210).
The modified McGetrick does not teach said mounting bracket has a central section extending between a rear section and a front section, each of said rear section and said front section being perpendicularly oriented with said central section having said rear section and said front section being spaced apart from each other thereby defining said door slot between said rear section and said front section.
Contreras (Figures 1-5) teaches said mounting bracket has a central section (32) (Para. 0014) extending between a rear section (34) and a front section (34), each of said rear section and said front section being perpendicularly oriented with said central section having said rear section and said front section being spaced apart from each other thereby defining said door slot between said rear section and said front section (See fig. 1).
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 McGetrick with a mounting bracket having a door as taught by Contreras as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a game assembly mounted to wall as taught by McGetrick) for another (a game assembly mounted to a door as taught by Contreras) to obtain predictable results (a game assembly mounted to a vertical surface) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGetrick in view of Contreras and Revell, further in view of Schabinger (2049593).
Regarding claim 3, The modified McGetrick (Figures 1-10) teaches a support arm (Fig. 10, Part No. 204) (Para. 0024) having a primary portion being perpendicularly oriented with a secondary portion (210).
The modified McGetrick does not teach said central section lies on a top edge of the door having each of said rear section and said front section resting against a respective front surface and back surface of the door, said front section having a length being greater than a length of said rear section.
Contreras (Figures 1-5) teaches said central section (32) (Para. 0014) lies on a top edge of the door having each of said rear section and said front section resting against a respective front surface and back surface of the door, said front section inherently having a length and said rear section inherently having a length (though a specific value is not disclosed).
Schabinger (Figures 1-3) teaches said front section (10) having a length being greater than a length of said rear section (13) (Col. Lines 53-55; Col. 2, Lines 1-1-5).
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 McGetrick with said central section lies on a top edge of the door as taught by Contreras as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a game assembly mounted to wall as taught by McGetrick) for another (a game assembly mounted to a door as taught by Contreras) to obtain predictable results (a game assembly mounted to a vertical surface) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)), and to provide the modified McGetrick with said front section having a length being greater than a length of said rear section as taught by Schabinger as a means of providing a door mounted game with a hook having shaped to facilitate the seating of the hook over an upper edge of the door (Schabinger: Col. Lines 53-55; Col. 2, Lines 1-1-5).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGetrick (‘315) in view of Contreras and Revell, further in view of Halter (5827136).
Regarding claim 4, the modified McGetrick (Figures 1-10) teaches said support arm (Fig. 10, Part No. 204) has a first end, a second end and an outer surface extending between said first end and said second end, said outer surface having a front side and a back side.
The modified McGetrick does not teach said back side being positioned on a forward surface of said front section of said mounting bracket at a connection point located adjacent to said first end of said support arm, said support arm being centrally positioned along a width of said front section of said mounting bracket, said first end being aligned with said central section of said mounting bracket, said first end being angled to slope downwardly from said central section.
Halter (Figures 1-8) teaches said back side (Fig. 7, Part No. 56) being positioned on a forward surface of said front section of said mounting bracket (66) at a connection point located adjacent to said first end of said support arm, said support arm being centrally positioned along a width of said front section of said mounting bracket (See fig. 7), said first end being aligned with said central section of said mounting bracket (See fig. 7), said first end being angled to slope downwardly from said central section (See fig. 7) (Col. 3, Lines 60-67).
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 McGetrick with said support arm being centrally positioned along a width of said front section of said mounting bracket as taught by Halter as a means of centrally mounting a game assembly to a door using amounting bracket (Halter: Col. 3, Lines 60-67).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGetrick (‘315) in view of Contreras, Revell, and Halter, further in view of Walker (20110121512).
Regarding claim 5, the modified McGetrick (Figures 1-10) teaches a support arm (Fig. 10, Part No. 204) (Para. 0024) having a primary portion being perpendicularly oriented with a secondary portion (210)
The modified McGetrick does not teach said support arm has a bend being positioned closer to said second end than said first end to define said primary portion of said support arm and said secondary portion of said support arm, said primary portion being associated with said first end, said secondary portion being associated with said second end, said secondary portion lying on a horizontal plane when said mounting. Walker (Figures 1-4) teaches said support arm has a bend (See fig. 5 where there is a bend between part numbers 12 and 10) being positioned closer to said second end than said first end to define said primary portion (10) of said support arm and said secondary portion (12) of said support arm (See fig. 5), said primary portion being associated with said first end, said secondary portion being associated with said second end (See fig. 5), said secondary portion lying on a horizontal plane (See fig. 1, 5) (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 McGetrick with said support arm has a bend being positioned closer to said second end than said first end to define said primary portion of said support arm as taught by Walker as a means of providing a first portion of a support arm of a game assembly with a second portion that extends from the primary portion by a bend (Walker: Para. 0026).
Regarding claim 6, the modified McGetrick (Figures 1-10) teaches said stub arm (Fig. 10, Part No. 160) (Para. 0022) is positioned on said front side of said outer surface of said support arm (204) corresponding to said primary portion of said support arm, said stub arm being positioned closer to said first end of said support arm, said stub arm having a distal end with respect to said support arm (See fig. 10).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGetrick (20160339315) in view of Contreras, Revell, Halter and Walker, further in view of McGetrick (20200261783).
Regarding claim 7, the modified McGetrick (‘315) (Figures 1-10) teaches said extension arm (160) has a primary end, a secondary end and a lower surface extending between said primary end and said secondary end.
The modified McGetrick does not teach said primary end having a well extending toward said secondary end, said well insertably receiving said distal end of said stub arm such that said extension arm angles upwardly from said support arm.
McGetrick (‘783) (Figures 1-17) teaches said primary end having a well (See fig. 6) (Para. 0035) extending toward said secondary end, said well insertably receiving said distal end of said stub arm (40) (Para. 0035) such that said extension arm angles upwardly from said support arm (28).
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 McGetrick (‘315) with said primary end having a well extending toward said secondary end as taught by McGetrick (‘783) as a means of simple substitution of one known element (an extension arm attached to a support arm as taught by McGetrick (‘315)) for another (an extension arm having a well as taught by McGetrick (‘783)) to obtain predictable results (a game assembly comprising an extension arm attached to a support arm) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (McGetrick (‘783): Para. 0035).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGetrick (‘315) in view of Contreras, Revell, Halter, Walker, and McGetrick (‘783), further in view of Bondiskey (20140070491).
Regarding claim 8, the modified McGetrick (‘315) (Figures 1-10) teaches .an extension arm (160).
The modified McGetrick does not teach an eyehook being coupled to said extension arm, said eyehook being positioned on said lower surface of said extension arm at a point located adjacent to said second end of said extension arm, said eyehook including a ring being spaced from said lower surface.
Bondiskey (Figures 1-6) teaches an eyehook (Fig. 1, Part No. 42) (Para. 0022) being coupled to said extension arm (36), said eyehook being positioned on said lower surface of said extension arm at a point located adjacent to said second end of said extension arm, said eyehook including a ring being spaced from said lower surface (See fig. 1) (Para. 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide McGetrick with an eyehook being coupled to said extension arm as taught by Bondiskey as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a tether attached to a support arm as taught by McGetrick) for another (a tether attached to a support arm by a eyehook as taught by Bondiskey) to obtain predictable results (a game assembly comprising an object mounted to a tether) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGetrick (‘315) in view of Contreras, Revell, Halter, Walker, McGetrick (‘783), and Bondiskey, further in view Clarke (7641199).
Regarding claim 9, the modified McGetrick (‘315) (Figures 1-10) teaches said tether (14) (Para. 0026) has an upper end and a lower end,
The modified McGetrick does not teach said upper end being attached to said ring of said eyehook; and said ball has a ring being attached to an outside surface of said ball, said lower end of said tether being attached to said ring on said outside surface of said ball, said tether having a length being sufficient to facilitate said ball to be suspended at a point located lower than said ring.
Bondiskey (Figures 1-6) teaches said upper end of said tether (32) being attached to said ring of said eyehook (42) (Para. 0022).
Clarke teaches said ball (50) (Col. 2, Lines 6-9) has a ring (See fig. 1 where the ring is attached to part no. 54) being attached to an outside surface of said ball, said lower end of said tether being attached to said ring on said outside surface of said ball, said tether having a length being sufficient to facilitate said ball to be suspended at a point located lower than said ring (See fig. 1).
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 McGetrick with said upper end being attached to said ring of said eyehook as taught by Bondiskey as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a tether attached to a support arm as taught by McGetrick) for another (a tether attached to a support arm by a eyehook as taught by Bondiskey) to obtain predictable results (a game assembly comprising an object mounted to a tether) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)), and to provide the modified McGetrick with said ball has a ring being attached to an outside surface of said ball as taught by Clarke as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a game assembly comprising a ring attached to a tether as taught by McGetrick) for another ((a game assembly comprising a ball attached to a tether as taught by Clarke) to obtain predictable results (a game assembly comprising an object mounted to a tether) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGetrick (‘315) in view of Contreras, Schabinger, Halter, Walker, McGetrick (‘783), and Bondiskey, further in view Clarke (7641199).
Regarding claim 10, McGetrick (‘315) (Figures 1-10) teaches a cup and ball assembly for facilitating a game of skill to be played involving tossing a ball in to a cup, said assembly comprising: a support arm (Fig. 10, Part No. 204) (Para. 0024) having a primary portion and a secondary portion (210); said support arm (204) having a first end, a second end and an outer surface extending between said first end and said second end, said outer surface having a front side and a back side, said primary portion being associated with said first end, said secondary portion being associated with said second end (See fig. 10); a stub arm (Fig. 10, Part No. 160) (Para. 0022) being coupled to and angling away from said support arm (204), said stub arm being oriented to angle upwardly (See fig. 10), said stub arm being positioned on said front side of said outer surface of said support arm corresponding to said primary portion of said support arm (See fig. 10), said stub arm being positioned closer to said first end of said support arm than said second portion (See fig. 10), said stub arm having a distal end with respect to said support arm (See fig. 10); an extension arm (162) insertably receiving said stub arm for removably attaching said extension arm on said stub arm (See fig. 10), said extension arm having a primary end, a secondary end and a lower surface extending between said primary end and said secondary end (See fig. 10), said extension arm (160) angles upwardly from said support arm (204); a tether (14) (Para. 0026) being coupled to said extension arm, said tether having an upper end and a lower end; and a ring (4) (Para. 0026) being coupled to said tether (14) thereby facilitating said ring to be thrown toward a hook (See fig. 10) by a user such that said ring lands in said hook when said ring is accurately thrown wherein said ring is configured to test the user's aim and skill, said tether (14) having a length being sufficient to facilitate said ring to be suspended at a point located lower than said hook, and the apparatus is mounted to a vertical surface (Para. 0022, 0024).
McGetrick (‘315) does not teach a mounting bracket having a door slot being integrated into said mounting bracket thereby facilitating said mounting bracket to be positioned on a door in a building, said mounting bracket having a central section extending between a rear section and a front section, each of said rear section and said front section being perpendicularly oriented with said central section having said rear section and said front section being spaced apart from each other thereby defining said door slot between said rear section and said front section, said central section lying on a top edge of the door having each of said rear section and said front section resting against a respective front surface and back surface of the door, said front section having a length being greater than a length of said rear section, a support arm having a primary portion being perpendicularly oriented with a secondary portion, said primary portion being coupled to said mounting bracket such that said primary portion extends downwardly along the door and said secondary portion extends away from the door when said mounting bracket is positioned on the door, said back side being positioned on a forward surface of said front section of said mounting bracket at a connection point located adjacent to said first end of said support arm, said support arm being centrally positioned along a width of said front section of said mounting bracket, said first end being aligned with said central section of said mounting bracket, said first end being angled to slope downwardly from said central section, said support arm having a bend being positioned closer to said second end than said first end to define said primary portion of said support arm and said secondary portion of said support arm, said secondary portion lying on a horizontal plane when said mounting bracket is positioned on the door, a ring being coupled to said secondary portion of said support arm, said ring lying on a horizontal plane when said mounting bracket is positioned on the door, said ring having an outside surface, said outside surface being attached to said second end of said support arm, said primary end having a well extending toward said secondary end, said well insertably receiving said distal end of said stub arm, an eyehook being coupled to said extension arm, said eyehook being positioned on said lower surface of said extension arm at a point located adjacent to said second end of said extension arm, said eyehook including a ring being spaced from said lower surface, a tether being coupled to said eyehook, said upper end of said tether being attached to said ring of said eyehook, a ball being coupled to said tether, said ball having an outside surface, said ball having a ring being attached to said outside surface, said lower end of said tether being attached to said ring on said outside surface of said ball.
Contreras (Figures 1-5) teaches a mounting bracket having a door slot (36) (Para. 0014-0015) being integrated into said mounting bracket thereby facilitating said mounting bracket to be positioned on a door in a building (Para. 0019), said mounting bracket having a central section (32) (Para. 0014) extending between a rear section (34) and a front section (34), each of said rear section and said front section being perpendicularly oriented with said central section having said rear section and said front section being spaced apart from each other thereby defining said door slot between said rear section and said front section (See fig. 1, 4), said central section lying on a top edge of the door having each of said rear section and said front section resting against a respective front surface and back surface of the door (See fig. 4), said front section inherently having a length and said rear section inherently having a length (though a specific value is not disclosed), a support arm having a primary portion (Fig. 4, Part No. 38) being perpendicularly oriented with a secondary portion (46), said primary portion being coupled to said mounting bracket such that said primary portion extends downwardly along the door (See fig. 4) and said secondary portion (46) extends away from the door when said mounting bracket is positioned on the door (See fig. 4) (Para. 0012).
Schabinger (Figures 1-3) teaches said front section (10) having a length being greater than a length of said rear section (13) (Col. Lines 53-55; Col. 2, Lines 1-1-5).
Halter (Figures 1-8) teaches said back side (Fig. 7, Part No. 56) being positioned on a forward surface of said front section of said mounting bracket (66) at a connection point located adjacent to said first end of said support arm, said support arm being centrally positioned along a width of said front section of said mounting bracket (See fig. 7), said first end being aligned with said central section of said mounting bracket, said first end being angled to slope downwardly from said central section (See fig. 7) (Col. 3, Lines 60-67).
Walker (Figures 1-4) teaches said support arm having a bend (See fig. 5 where there is a bend between part numbers 12 and 10) being positioned closer to said second end than said first end to define said primary portion (10) of said support arm and said secondary portion (12) of said support arm, said secondary portion (12) lying on a horizontal plane, a ring (24) being coupled to said secondary portion (12) of said support arm, said ring lying on a horizontal plane when said mounting bracket is positioned on the door (See fig. 1, 5), said ring having an outside surface, said outside surface being attached to said second end of said support arm (See fig. 1, 5).
McGetrick (‘783) (Figures 1-17) teaches said primary end having a well (See fig. 6) (Para. 0035) extending toward said secondary end, said well insertably receiving said distal end of said stub arm (40) (Para. 0035).
Bondiskey (Figures 1-6) teaches an eyehook (Fig. 1, Part No. 42) (Para. 0022) being coupled to said extension arm (36), said eyehook being positioned on said lower surface of said extension arm at a point located adjacent to said second end of said extension arm, said eyehook including a ring being spaced from said lower surface (See fig. 1) (Para. 0022), a tether (32) being coupled to said eyehook, said upper end of said tether being attached to said ring of said eyehook (42).
Clarke teaches a ball (50) (Col. 2, Lines 6-9) being coupled to said tether (52), said ball having an outside surface, said ball having a ring (54) being attached to said outside surface, said lower end of said tether (52) being attached to said ring on said outside surface of said ball.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “said mounting bracket, said support arm, said ring, and said stub arm being integrally formed with one another wherein said mounting bracket, said support arm, said ring, and said stub arm define a unitary structure” is directed to an apparatus that is integral as opposed to separable. Making the apparatus disclosed by the combination of prior art integral as opposed to separable would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of obvious engineering choice (See: In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), where the court found that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide McGetrick (‘315) with a mounting bracket having a door slot as taught by Contreras as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a game assembly mounted to wall as taught by McGetrick) for another (a game assembly mounted to a door as taught by Contreras) to obtain predictable results (a game assembly mounted to a vertical surface) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)), to provide the McGetrick with said front section having a length being greater than a length of said rear section as taught by Schabinger as a means of providing a door mounted game with a hook having shaped to facilitate the seating of the hook over an upper edge of the door (Schabinger: Col. Lines 53-55; Col. 2, Lines 1-1-5), to provide McGetrick (‘315) with said support arm being centrally positioned along a width of said front section of said mounting bracket as taught by Halter as a means of centrally mounting a game assembly to a door using amounting bracket (Halter: Col. 3, Lines 60-67), to provide McGetrick (‘315) with said support arm has a bend as taught by Walker as a means of providing a first portion of a support arm of a game assembly with a second portion that extends from the primary portion by a bend (Walker: Para. 0026), to provide McGetrick (‘315) with said primary end having a well as taught by McGetrick (‘783) as a means of simple substitution of one known element (an extension arm attached to a support arm as taught by McGetrick (‘315)) for another (an extension arm having a well as taught by McGetrick (‘783)) to obtain predictable results (a game assembly comprising an extension arm attached to a support arm) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (McGetrick (‘783): Para. 0035), to provide McGetrick (‘315) with an eyehook being coupled to said extension arm as taught by Bondiskey as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a tether attached to a support arm as taught by McGetrick) for another (a tether attached to a support arm by a eyehook as taught by Bondiskey) to obtain predictable results (a game assembly comprising an object mounted to a tether) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)), and to provide McGetrick (‘315) with said ball has a ring being attached to an outside surface of said ball as taught by Clarke as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a game assembly comprising a ring attached to a tether as taught by McGetrick) for another ((a game assembly comprising a ball attached to a tether as taught by Clarke) to obtain predictable results (a game assembly comprising an object mounted to a tether) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach the recitation in claims 1 and 10 of “said mounting bracket, said support arm, said ring, and said stub arm being integrally formed with one another wherein said mounting bracket, said support arm, said ring, and said stub arm define a unitary structure”, this is not found persuasive because the recited limitation is directed to an apparatus that is integral as opposed to separable. Making the apparatus disclosed by the combination of prior art integral as opposed to separable would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of obvious engineering choice (See: In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), where the court found that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice).
Applicant argues that the rejection of the pending claims is based on picking and choosing various aspects of cited references to meet requirements of claim 1, this is not found persuasive because reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711