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 12/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-14 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 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (5370393) in view of Jacques (20190366171).
Regarding claim 1, Taylor (Figures 1-5) teaches a spinning device for use with dice games comprising: a top plate (Fig. 5, Part No. 22) having a viewing window (26) and a bottom surface with a vertical pin (Fig. 4, Part No. 14) that extends away from a bottom surface of the top plate (22); a bottom plate (Fig. 5, Part No. 12); and a middle plate (Fig. 5, Part No. 16) having a top surface, a bottom surface and an aperture (See fig. 5) in the middle of the middle plate.
Taylor does not teach the bottom plate having a central post sized and shaped to accept the insertion of the vertical pin.
Jacques (Figures 1-6) teaches a bottom plate having a central post (Fig. 2b, Part No. 235) (Para. 0028) sized and shaped to accept the insertion of the vertical pin (Fig. 2a, Part No. 225) (Para. 0028).
It is noted that the prior art of Taylor and Jacques are fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “for use with dice games” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art. 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)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Taylor with a bottom plate having a central post sized and shaped to accept the insertion of the vertical pin as taught by Jacques as a means of rotationally attaching an upper baseplate to a lower baseplate through mechanical interface (Jacques: Para. 0028).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Taylor (Figures 1-5) teaches a first raised seat (Fig. 5, Part No. 46) encircling a base of the bottom plate (12).
The modified Taylor does not teach a first raised seat encircling a base of the central post on the bottom plate.
Jacques (Figures 1-6) teaches a first raised seat (Fig. 2b, Part No. 233) encircling a base of the central post (235) on the bottom plate.
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 Taylor with a first raised seat encircling a base of the central post on the bottom plate as taught by Jacques as a means of providing a post of a rotationally attached apparatus with a circular interface surface (Jacques: Para. 0067).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Taylor (Figures 1-5) teaches a second raised seat (Fig. 4, Part No. 48) encircling a base of the vertical pin (14).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Taylor (Figures 1-5) teaches a raised seat (Fig. 4, Part No. 48) encircling a base of the vertical pin (48).
Claims 4-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Jacques, further in view of Robustelli (20150148155).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Taylor (Figures 1-5) teaches a middle plate (Fig. 5, Part No. 16) having a top surface, a bottom surface and an aperture (See fig. 5) in the middle of the middle plate.
The modified Taylor does not teach a ball bearing assembly integrated into an inner edge of the middle plate.
Robustelli (Figures 1-6) teaches a ball bearing assembly (Fig. 5c, Part No. 24) integrated into an inner edge of the middle plate (Fig. 5C, Part No. 10) (Para. 0040).
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 Taylor with a ball bearing assembly integrated into an inner edge of the middle plate as taught by Robustelli as a means of providing an assembly of rotating plates with bearings that make it possible for the assembly to be rotatable in a particularly easy-running manner (Robustelli: Para. 0040).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Taylor (Figures 1-5) teaches a middle plate (Fig. 5, Part No. 16) having a top surface, a bottom surface and an aperture (See fig. 5) in the middle of the middle plate.
The modified Taylor does not teach a ball bearing assembly integrated into an inner edge of the middle plate.
Robustelli (Figures 1-6) teaches a ball bearing assembly (Fig. 5c, Part No. 24) integrated into an inner edge of the middle plate (Fig. 5C, Part No. 10) (Para. 0040).
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 Taylor with a ball bearing assembly integrated into an inner edge of the middle plate as taught by Robustelli as a means of providing an assembly of rotating plates with bearings that make it possible for the assembly to be rotatable in a particularly easy-running manner (Robustelli: Para. 0040).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Taylor (Figures 1-5) teaches the top plate and the bottom plate are made of a flexible material (Col. 7, Lines 11-13), and a middle plate (16).
It is noted that the prior art of Taylor is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “such that squeezing the top plate and the bottom plate causes the center plate to stop moving” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art. 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 7, the modified Taylor (Figures 1-5) teaches the top plate and the bottom plate are made of a flexible material (Col. 7, Lines 11-13), and a middle plate (16).
It is noted that the prior art of Taylor is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “such that squeezing the top plate and the bottom plate causes the center plate to stop moving” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art. 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 9, the modified Taylor (Figures 1-5) teaches a middle plate (Fig. 5, Part No. 16) having a top surface, a bottom surface and an aperture (See fig. 5) in the middle of the middle plate.
The modified Taylor does not teach a ball bearing assembly integrated into an inner edge of the middle plate.
Robustelli (Figures 1-6) teaches a ball bearing assembly (Fig. 5c, Part No. 24) integrated into an inner edge of the middle plate (Fig. 5C, Part No. 10) (Para. 0040).
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 Taylor with a ball bearing assembly integrated into an inner edge of the middle plate as taught by Robustelli as a means of providing an assembly of rotating plates with bearings that make it possible for the assembly to be rotatable in a particularly easy-running manner (Robustelli: Para. 0040).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Taylor (Figures 1-5) teaches the top plate (22) and the bottom plate (12) are made of a flexible material (Col. 7, Lines 11-13).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Jacques, further in view of Ruderian (3143347).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Taylor (Figures 1-5) teaches a middle plate (Fig. 5, Part No. 16) having a top surface, a bottom surface and an aperture (See fig. 5) in the middle of the middle plate.
The modified Taylor does not teach a plurality of protrusions encircling an outer edge of the middle plate.
Ruderian (Figures 1-4) teaches a plurality of protrusions (Fig. 1, Part No. 11) encircling an outer edge of the middle plate (10) (Col. 1, Lines 70-72; Col. 2, 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 the modified Taylor with a plurality of protrusions encircling an outer edge of the middle plate as taught by Ruderian as a means of providing a plate of a rotationally coupled apparatus with scallops extending about the entire periphery of the plate over 360 degrees (Ruderian: Col. 1, Lines 70-72; Col. 2, Lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Taylor (Figures 1-5) teaches a middle plate (Fig. 5, Part No. 16) having a top surface, a bottom surface and an aperture (See fig. 5) in the middle of the middle plate.
The modified Taylor does not teach a plurality of protrusions encircling an outer edge of the middle plate.
Ruderian (Figures 1-4) teaches a plurality of protrusions (Fig. 1, Part No. 11) encircling an outer edge of the middle plate (10) (Col. 1, Lines 70-72; Col. 2, 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 the modified Taylor with a plurality of protrusions encircling an outer edge of the middle plate as taught by Ruderian as a means of providing a plate of a rotationally coupled apparatus with scallops extending about the entire periphery of the plate over 360 degrees (Ruderian: Col. 1, Lines 70-72; Col. 2, Lines 1-7).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Jacques and Robustelli, further in view of Ruderian (3143347).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Taylor (Figures 1-5) teaches a middle plate (Fig. 5, Part No. 16) having a top surface, a bottom surface and an aperture (See fig. 5) in the middle of the middle plate.
The modified Taylor does not teach a plurality of protrusions encircling an outer edge of the middle plate.
Ruderian (Figures 1-4) teaches a plurality of protrusions (Fig. 1, Part No. 11) encircling an outer edge of the middle plate (10) (Col. 1, Lines 70-72; Col. 2, 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 the modified Taylor with a plurality of protrusions encircling an outer edge of the middle plate as taught by Ruderian as a means of providing a plate of a rotationally coupled apparatus with scallops extending about the entire periphery of the plate over 360 degrees (Ruderian: Col. 1, Lines 70-72; Col. 2, Lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Taylor (Figures 1-5) teaches a middle plate (Fig. 5, Part No. 16) having a top surface, a bottom surface and an aperture (See fig. 5) in the middle of the middle plate.
The modified Taylor does not teach a plurality of protrusions encircling an outer edge of the middle plate.
Ruderian (Figures 1-4) teaches a plurality of protrusions (Fig. 1, Part No. 11) encircling an outer edge of the middle plate (10) (Col. 1, Lines 70-72; Col. 2, 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 the modified Taylor with a plurality of protrusions encircling an outer edge of the middle plate as taught by Ruderian as a means of providing a plate of a rotationally coupled apparatus with scallops extending about the entire periphery of the plate over 360 degrees (Ruderian: Col. 1, Lines 70-72; Col. 2, Lines 1-7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 over Robustelli in view of Jacques have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection for claim 1 is made under 35 USC 103 over Taylor in view of Jacques.
Regarding the combination of the cited references under 35 USC 103, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the prior art of Taylor, Jacques, Robustelli, and Ruderian are all directed to rotary plate assemblies used to play a game and provide one of ordinary skill in the art with different designs and configuration of rotary plate assembles. It is noted that the recitation in claim 1 of “for use with dice games” is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art. 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)).
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
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711