Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/108,672

ROUNDED DICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 13, 2023
Examiner
GRAMLING, SEAN P
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
738 granted / 1114 resolved
-1.8% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
1134
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
47.1%
+7.1% vs TC avg
§102
41.7%
+1.7% vs TC avg
§112
9.2%
-30.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1114 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Amendment Acknowledgment is made of Amendment filed December 2, 2025. Claims 7-8 and 11 are canceled. Claims 1, 4 and 12 are amended. Claim 15 is new. Claims 1-6, 9-10 and 12-15 are pending. 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 1-6, 9-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storey (GB 191016142) in view of Factor (US 2010/0259006). Regarding claim 1, Storey discloses a rounded dice comprising: a hollow dice body 4 (see page 4, lines 42-46) comprising a plurality of faces 2 formed by a plurality of links 3,9 (see Fig. 8 and page 4, lines 26-31 which teaches that boundary lines/spaces 3,9 between pins 10 may be filled or made solid); wherein each of the plurality of faces is provided with an identifier 1 (see numbers on each face 2); wherein each of the plurality of pins 10 extends outward from the hollow dice body specifically from the interconnecting points of the plurality of links 3,9 to facilitate the rounded dice to stop rolling excessively (see Figs. 1,3 and 7-8 and page 4, lines 38-40 which teaches that the pins 10 can be formed “at the junction of the boundary lines 3”); wherein each of the plurality of pins 10 are circularly or semi-circularly shaped; wherein, each of the plurality of links 3,9 (see Fig. 8 and page 4, lines 26-31 which teaches that boundary lines/spaces 3,9 between pins 10 may be filled or made solid) connects two pins 10 of the plurality of pins; wherein the plurality of faces are polygon shaped (see Fig. 7 and page 4, lines 24-25); and wherein a top-faced defines a position of the dice (see Figures 1-8 and page 1, line 1 through page 4, line 46). Storey does not specifically teach that the faces also include a design element. However, dice with faces having design elements is well-known in the art and taught in Factor (see at least para [0074]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a design element on the faces of the dice in Storey as taught by Factor in order to provide a variant of the dice for use in different dice games and increased utility of the dice. Regarding claim 2, the dice body 4 in Storey can be made from metal or metal alloy (see page 4, lines 44-46). Regarding claim 3, the polygon shape in Storey comprises a triangle, quadrilateral, pentagon, hexagon, heptagon, octagon, decagon, or any possible combination thereof (see at least Fig. 7). Regarding claim 4, the identifier 1 in Storye includes an alphabet, a number, an alpha-number sign, a zodiac symbol (see at least Fig. 1). Regarding claim 5, the plurality of faces 2 in Storey includes four, six, eight, ten, twelve, or twenty faces (see at least Fig. 5). Regarding claim 6, each pin 10 of the plurality of pins 10 in Storey is connected to at least three links (see at least Figs. 1 and 5). Regarding claims 9-10, the recitations that each pin of the plurality of pins are “configured to have a plurality of segments” or “configured to hold a jewel therein” relate to an intended use/function of the pins, and it has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations (MPEP 2114(II)). Examiner notes, however, that each pin 10 in Storey can have a plurality of segments (see Figs. 1 and 5; segments can halves of each pin 10, or quarters of each pin 10 etc.) and can hold a jewel therein (see Figs. 1 and 5; small jewels can be secured on pins 10). Regarding claim 12, the plurality of pins 10 in Storey are uniformly distributed over the dice body 4 (see at least Figs. 1 and 5). Regarding claims 13-14, the recitations that the dice is “made using a casting method that uses a circular mold” and the casting method is “a lost-wax casting method” relates to the method of forming the apparatus which is not germane to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself. Therefore, these recitations are not to be given patentable weight (see MPEP 2113). Regarding claim 15, as modified above, the design element comprises a dragon (see Factor, para [0074]). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed December 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s submission that the plurality of pins 10 in Storey do not extend outward from the hollow dice body specifically from the interconnecting points of the plurality of links. As illustrated in Figures 1, 3 and 7-8 and described on page 4, lines 38-40, the pins 10 extend outwards and can be formed “at the junction of the boundary lines 3”. Moreover, as set forth in the rejection above, faces of dice with design elements is common in the art and does not patentably distinguish over the Storey reference. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SEAN P GRAMLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9082. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm EST. 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, Majeed Aziz can be reached at (571) 270-5046. 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. /SEAN P GRAMLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 13, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 02, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595903
LIGHTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584603
VEHICLE HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLY WITH PCB-MOUNTED SHIELD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585157
COLOR CONVERSION FILM, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING COLOR CONVERSION FILM, BACKLIGHT UNIT, AND LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578076
Dual-Output Laser-Driven Light Source
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571518
LIGHT SOURCE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+28.3%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1114 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month