DETAILED ACTION
This final action is in response to the amendment filed on 17 October 2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 4-12 are pending.
Claims 1 and 4 were amended.
Claims 9-12 were added.
Claims 2 and 3 were cancelled.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 was previously objected to because of informalities. Applicant has successfully addressed the issue in the amendment filed on 17 October 2025. Accordingly, the objection to the claim has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is 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(s) 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. Namely, the limitation “wherein each said continuous body is formed from a homogeneous material composition” is not supported by the original disclosure and constitutes new matter. Applicant discusses two materials on page 6, line 12 of the original disclosure: plywood and fiber wood. Plywood is not a homogeneous material and fiber wood does not appear to be a common term in the art and is not otherwise defined in the disclosure. Even if applicant intended to recite fiberboard, the recitation of a single homogeneous material does not provide sufficient support for the scope of the limitation in question (i.e., all homogeneous material compositions).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blasingame (US 4012042 A), in view of Devine (US 20150108719 A1) and Eanniello et al. (US 20210236897 A1), herein referred to as Eanniello.
Regarding claim 1, Blasingame discloses a gameboard for an object toss game (see 10 in fig 1), the gameboard comprising: a platform (16) elevated above a supporting surface (28) by way of one or more walls (18, 20, 22) so that the platform is level relative to said supporting surface (see fig 5); a plurality of apertures (30, 36, 37, 38, 39; see fig 3) formed in the platform; for each aperture, a net (32, 42) secured to an underside of the platform so as to catch an object sent through said aperture (see fig 5); a sidewall (18, 20) extending along each side edge of the platform, each sidewall extending from the supporting surface to at least two inches above each respective side edge (see fig 1 & 5); and a rear wall (22) mounted on an upper surface of the platform adjacent to a rear edge of the platform (see fig 1), wherein the rear wall projects at least two inches above said rear edge (see figs 1 & 5).
Blasingame does not disclose a front wall extending orthogonally from a front edge of the platform to the supporting surface or whereby a void is defined by the rear edge, the two sidewalls and the supporting surface, providing access to the nets secured to the underside of the platform in a playing condition, while the front wall prevents access to said underside in the playing condition. Instead Blasingame discloses the opposite: a void defined by the front edge, two sidewalls, and the supporting surface and a back wall extending orthogonally from the rear edge of the platform to the supporting surface (see fig 1).
Devine, however, teaches that it is known in the art of object toss games similar to that taught by Blasingame to have a void in the back of the gameboard and a wall in the front (see figs 2 and 3). The purpose for including the void in the back of the gameboard is to access its interior (see paragraph 0047). Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gameboard disclosed by Blasingame by rearranging the front void and back wall to have a back void and front wall as taught by Devine in order to achieve the expected result of accessing the interior of the gameboard from the back.
Additionally, Blasingame does not disclose wherein the plurality of apertures define at least three different sized openings.
Eanniello, however, discloses that it is known in the art of game apparatuses for a gameboard (10) similar to that taught by Blasingame to have a plurality of apertures (38, 42, 46, 50, 54) formed in a platform (18, 22), wherein two rear apertures (42, 50) have a rear diameter less than a front diameter (see paragraph 0027) of two front apertures (38, 46), and the front diameter being less than a center diameter (see paragraph 0027) of a center aperture (54). The purpose for including the variation in aperture size is to provide levels of difficulty and corresponding levels of points (see at least paragraph 0048). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aperture sizes and locations disclosed by Blasingame with the configuration as taught by Eanniello in order to achieve the expected result of providing different levels of difficulty and corresponding levels of points.
Regarding claim 4, Blasingame (in view of Devine and Eanniello) discloses the gameboard of claim 1, wherein the plurality of apertures consist of five apertures, including two front apertures, two rear apertures, and a center aperture (see Blasingame fig 3).
Regarding claim 5, Blasingame (in view of Devine and Eanniello) discloses the gameboard of claim 4, wherein the two front apertures and two rear apertures are inward of four rectangular corners, respectively, of the platform (see Blasingame fig 3).
Regarding claim 6, Blasingame (in view of Devine and Eanniello) discloses the gameboard of claim 4, wherein the two rear apertures have a rear diameter less than a front diameter of the two front apertures, and wherein the front diameter is less than a center diameter of the center aperture (per combination of Blasingame and Eanniello; see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Blasingame (in view of Devine and Eanniello) discloses a method of playing an object toss game, the method comprising: placing the gameboard of claim 6 (per rejection of claim 6 above) on a supporting surface (Blasingame col 3, lines 13-14: “the target structure 10 is placed upon a suitable supporting surface”); taking turns between two teams sequentially tossing a plurality of objects from a predetermined distance from a front edge of said gameboard (see Blasingame col 4, lines 28-43 and fig 1); and tallying a point value for each object sent through one of the five apertures as a function of a diameter of the receiving aperture (per combination of Blasingame and Eanniello; see also Blasingame col 4, lines 33-35).
Regarding claim 8, Blasingame (in view of Devine and Eanniello) discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising awarding the tallied point value to a first team of the two teams only if there is no object subsequently received in the aperture associated with said tallied point value (see col 4, lines 37-41 of Blasingame).
Regarding claim 9, Blasingame (in view of Devine and Eanniello) discloses the gameboard of claim 1, further comprising wherein each of the front wall, the rear wall, and the sidewalls is substantially continuous body throughout an entirety of a respective volume thereof (see Blasingame figs 1, 3, & 5).
Regarding claim 10, Blasingame (in view of Devine and Eanniello) discloses the gameboard of claim 9, wherein each said continuous body is formed from a homogeneous material composition (see Blasingame fig 5).
Regarding claim 11, Blasingame (in view of Devine and Eanniello) discloses the gameboard of claim 1, wherein the front wall is directly connected to the front edge of the platform. (per rejection 1 above; see Blasingame figs 1, 3, & 5)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blasingame (US 4012042 A), in view of Devine (US 20150108719 A1) and Eanniello et al. (US 20210236897 A1), herein referred to as Eanniello, and in further view of Sciandra (US 20150231467 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Blasingame (in view of Devine and Eanniello) discloses the gameboard of claim 11, wherein front facing corners of the sidewalls appear to be curved (see Blasingame fig 1),but does not explicitly disclose wherein front facing corners of the sidewalls are angled.
Sciandra, however, discloses that it is known in the art of object toss games similar to that taught by Blasingame to have a gameboard with front facing corners of the sidewalls being angled (see fig 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front facing corners disclosed by Blasingame with angled corners as taught by Sciandra in order to avoid sharp corners on the gameboard which could injure players.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Christine M Mills whose telephone number is (571) 272-8322. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday - Thursday, 7:30 - 5:30 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, Joe Thomas, can be reached on (571) 272-8004. The fax phone 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.
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675