DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a game with balls and a puck, coin or dice (claim 18) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended”. If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification does not refer to a recessed pocket as set forth in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the specification does not disclose a recess pocket as set forth in line 4.
With further regard to claim 1, the specification does not disclose a table game that can be played with only ball.
Claims 2-20 are rejected because they depend from a rejected claim 1.
Claims 12 and 13 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.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, “the openings” lack a proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
Claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0030419 (Carroll).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 18, Figures 1-3 of Carroll show the recited quadrilateral-shaped table with a playing surface 60. Carroll discloses a plurality of inserts 20,30 that can be moved or placed into a recess on the playing surface; each insert is considered to be a module. See Carroll, paragraphs [0017]-[0019]. Carroll further discloses modular and movable barriers 80 that correspond to the recited obstacles. See Carroll, Figure 2; paragraphs [0017] and [0021]. Figure 3 of Carroll shows the playing pieces in the form of dice instead of the recited balls. Although Carroll discloses a preferred embodiment of using dice as the playing pieces, such a preference does not serve as an absolute bar to the use of other variants. It would have been obvious to make the playing pieces balls instead of dice since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of balls and dice for their use as game playing pieces and the selection of any of these known game elements to form the game playing pieces of Carroll would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the amendment to claim 1, Carroll explicitly discloses a recessed pocket (recess) into which inserts 20,30 can be positioned. See Carroll, paragraph [0019]. Because the Carroll game board can be used with various inserts, the Carroll inserts are considered to be removable and repositionable; the use of the inserts clearly do not require modification to the table structure.
Regarding claims 4-6, Carroll discloses that the playing surface can be made from rubber or fabric. See Carroll, paragraph [0022].
Regarding the amendment to claim 5, the Carroll rubber playing surface is considered to inherently have sound or bounce dampening properties.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll as applied above in view of U.S. Patent Number 5,755,439 (Turner).
Although scoring is used in the Carroll game, Carroll does not show a counting frame for score keeping. Figures 1 and 5 of Turner show that counting frames, located on opposite sides of a game board, consisting of a plurality of beads 53 through a rod 52 are old and well-known in game scorekeeping. To provide the device of Carroll with a counting frame would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of Turner, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, i.e., one skilled in the art would have recognized that the counting frame used in Turner would allow the players of the Carroll game to more easily keep score during game play.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll as applied above in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0072299 (Corthell).
Carroll does not describe a computerized game. Corthell teaches the concept of computerizing a physical game so that it can be played on a computer. See Corthell, paragraph [0050]. Therefore, to play a previously-physical game on a computer was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Corthell. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art game of Carroll and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that computerizing the Carroll game would allow a player to play the game virtually.
Claims 1, 2, 7-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0202609 (Williams).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 7 and 8, Figure 1 of Williams shows the recited quadrilateral-shaped table 11 with walls and bumpers 24 and having a playing surface and balls 18. Scoring holes 12 are positioned at both ends of the table and can be employed with inserts that correspond to the recited modular and moveable scoring areas. See Williams, paragraph [0019]. Interchangeable bumpers 16 correspond to the recited modular and moveable obstacles. See Williams, paragraph [0020].
Regarding the amendment to claim 1, Figure 3 of Williams shows a flange 30 and elbow 28 positioned below scoring holes 12 and correspond to the recited recessed pocket. The Williams inserts are removable and repositionable on the field area without requiring modification to the table structure.
Regarding claim 9, Figure 2 of Williams shows a hollow conduit 26 that corresponds to the recited hollow form whereby a ball 18 falls through scoring hole 12 and into conduit 26.
Regarding claim 10, Williams discloses the concept of different sized holes. See Williams, paragraph [0018].
Regarding claim 13, the Williams conduit can also be considered to be a gutter.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams as applied above in view of U.S. Patent Number 8,025,293 (Crawford et al., hereinafter Crawford).
Williams shows a quadrilateral-shaped table with goals at opposite ends but does not show a square-shaped table with goals on all four sides. Crawford teaches that games with traditionally rectangular playing surfaces and two goals can be modified have square playing surfaces and goals on each side. See Crawford, Figure 9. The substitution of one known element (a square-shaped table with goals on each side as shown in Crawford) for another (a quadrilateral table with a goal at each end as shown in Williams) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the square-shaped table shown in Crawford would have yielded predictable results, namely a way to allow more players to play the Williams game at one time.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams as applied above.
Regarding claim 14, Figure 1 of Williams shows interchangeable bumpers 16 forming a rectanguloid contoured surface whose bottom surface is positioned flush against the playing surface. Williams does not explicitly disclose the material of the obstacle It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the Williams obstacles from either wood, paper, carbon fiber, resin, ceramic, plastic, rubber, concrete, stone, meal fabric or glass, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 15, Figure 1 of Williams shows rectanguloid bumpers 16 to be above the field of play; terrestrial topography in the form of mesas which are considered to be rectanguloid.
Regarding claim 16, to the extent that Williams describes a bumper pool game, the Williams elements such as the bumpers correspond to billiards games.
Claims 1, 2, 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 4,874,167 (Hillard) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0050259 (Song).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 7, Figures 1-2 of Hillard shows a pool table 10 with bumpers 12, playing surface 28, movable field pieces 26 and balls B1,B2,B3,B4. Figures 1-2 of Hillard show pockets or holes 2,3,4,5 that correspond to scoring areas but do not show them to be modular and moveable. Figure 1 of Song shows that pool table pockets can be made modular to be easily detachable and replaceable. The substitution of one known element (a pool table pocket that is modular and moveable as shown in Song) for another (a traditional fixed pool table pocket as shown in Hillard) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the detachable pocket shown in Song would have yielded predictable results, namely an easily detachable pocket for simple replacement.
Regarding the amendment to claim 1, the Hillard holes 2,3,4,5 form a recess pocket. As modified above, the modular Song pockets are designed to fit above, within and therefore above the Hillard holes. See Song, paragraph [0008]. As the Song pockets are removable, they are also considered to be repositionable without requiring modification to the table structure.
Regarding claim 12, Figure 2 of Hilliard shows the recited net to collect balls falling through the holes 2,3,4,5.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillard and Song as applied above in view of U.S. Patent Number 5,769,729 (D’Aguiar).
Neither Hillard nor Song shows the recited hollow forms. Hollow pool tables were known in the art, as evidenced by D’Aguiar. See D’Aguiar, Figure 1. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the pool table of Hillard with the hollow pool table of D’Aguiar by known methods and the results would have been a predictable use of hollow pool tables to accommodate a ball collection system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace a traditional pool table with a hollow one.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillard, Song and D’Aguiar as applied above in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0075769 (Luzak).
Neither Hillard nor Song discloses the recited cover. Figures 1 and 2 of Luzak show a pool table cover 10 with cover pockets 14 that are aligned with the pockets of a pool table. To provide the Hillard table as modified above with a pool table cover would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of Luzak, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, i.e., one skilled in the art would have recognized that the pool table cover used in Luzak would allow the Hillard table as modified above to be adequately covered and protected when not in use.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillard and Song as applied above in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0093165 (Jackson et al., hereinafter Jackson).
Hillard does not explicitly disclose using balls of different sizes. However, Jackson teaches the concept of playing a pool game balls of different sizes. See Jackson, paragraph [0004]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the differently-sized balls of Jackson for the balls of Hillard. The different sized balls allow a lesser skilled player to compete with a better player. Furthermore, the results of such a substitution would have been predictable in that the game could be played by players of significantly different skills. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the balls of Hillard with the differently-sized ball as taught by Jackson in order to introduce new elements of strategy and tactics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “that the scoring holes taught by Williams do not anticipate ‘each modular scoring area being removable and repositionable on the field area above the recessed pocket without requiring modification to the table structure’ ” (emphasis included). Remarks, page 8. However, as set forth above, scoring holes 12 can be employed with inserts that correspond to the recited modular and moveable scoring areas. The Williams inserts may be placed about the circumference of the scoring hole 12 to make the scoring holes smaller. See Williams, paragraph [0019]. As such, the inserts are considered to be removable and repositionable; their use do not require modification to the table structure.
Applicant states that the “office action alleges that ‘Carroll discloses a plurality of inserts 20,30 that can be moved or placed into a recess on the playing surface" (see, Office Action, p. 4), but fails to provide any specific citation in support of that allegation’. Remarks, page 10. However, paragraph 9 of the previous Office action clearly references paragraphs [0017]-[0019] for support. It is noted here that paragraph [0019] of Carroll discloses that “the playing surface 60 may contain a recess in each scoring area, wherein a variety of inserts may be placed into the recess”.
Applicant also argues that “Carroll teaches away from use of balls as required by claim 1”. Remarks, page 11. However, as set forth above and in the previous Office action, having a preference for a playing piece does not serve as an absolute bar to the use of other variants. It would have been obvious to make the playing pieces balls instead of dice since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of balls and dice for their use as game playing pieces and the selection of any of these known game elements to form the game playing pieces of Carroll would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues that although “Song teaches moveable side-mountable pockets, these pockets are necessarily mounted off the table and are not on the field area”. Remarks, page 12.
However, Figures 1 and 2 of Hillard clearly show that the pockets are on the corners of the field area or playing surface.
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 Raleigh Chiu whose telephone number is (571) 272-4408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim, can be reached on (571) 272-4463.
The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
It is noted that all practice before the Office is in writing (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2) and the proper authority for action on any matter in this regard are the statutes (35 U.S.C.), regulations (37 C.F.R.) and the commentary on policy (MPEP). Therefore, no telephone discussion may be controlling or considered authority of Petitioner’s/Caller’s action(s).
/RALEIGH W CHIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711