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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6 January 2026.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1-7 be found allowable, claims 8-10 & 12-15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the game board” is repeated in line 1, and one iteration should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate each of: “game board,” “game surface,” “planar board.” Reference character “24” designates: “traffic cones,” and “larger traffic cones.”
The drawings are objected to because “In the shown embodiment, the one or more larger traffic cones 24 are arranged within the perimeter of the boundary ring 22 and outside of the cone zone blocks 1, 2, 3. In this manner, the cones are positioned at or near a the blocks of the game board 10 so as to enable a player to aim at or near the center of the planar board 10 when preparing to throw or flip a cone, as described herein after.” Paragraph 22, is not shown in the drawings.
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. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 22 should be revised “at or near a” is unclear: “In this manner, the cones are positioned at or near a the blocks of the game board 10 so as to enable a player to aim at or near the center of the planar board 10 when preparing to throw or flip a cone, as described herein after.” The specification should be reviewed for readability. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-6 & 10-15 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.
Additionally, in claims 3, 10, & 12, a “boundary ring” is recited, without further limitation. Since a boundary can be an invisible and unmarked area, it is unclear what further limitation this gives either the kit or the game claims. Additionally, a “ring” is not shown nor illustrated in the drawings in the traditional sense, and it is further unclear what shape is required by Applicant. Lastly, it appears that each of these claims is directed to the intended use of the device; it is unclear what structure is specifically required by such use.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the canvas gameboard” in line 1; Claim 12 recites “perimeter” and “the boundary ring”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each limitation in the respective claim.
Claims 4-6 & 13-15 are rejected as ultimately dependent from one or more of claim 3 or 10-12, rejected above.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 6386997 B1) in view of Martin (US 4872681 A) and Bradbury (US 3504914 A).
For Claim 1, Brown discloses a kit comprising a flip cone game (as disclosed by Brown) including:
a game surface (10) having a rectangular shape (Fig. 1);
four stakes (11b) to be inserted to secure the game surface to the ground (Col. 2, lines 52-58, the markers are capable of being inserted into an opening); and
a plurality of cones (11a).
Since Brown discusses that the game may be used with either cones 11a or alternative markers 11b, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the game box or kit with the provision of both types of markers, in order to allow for the user to set up the game on differing playing surfaces, yielding predictable results.
Brown is silent to the game surface being a game board constructed of a flexible material; four openings, one at each corner of the game board.
Martin, like prior art above, teaches a game surface (title, disclosure) comprising the game surface being a game board constructed of a flexible material (“foldable material,” Col. 2, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to support the game of Brown on a game surface formed of a flexible material as taught by Martin, in order to provide a clearly delineated and clean space, yielding predictable results.
Bradbury, like prior art above, teaches a game surface (title, disclosure, 6, 8), comprising four openings (27), one at each corner (14,16,18,19) of a game board (6, 8, Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the above-modified reference with anchored corners as taught by Bradbury, in order to ensure that the game board does not move while in use, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 8, Brown discloses a cone flipping game for players to score the flipping of plural cones to a game surface1 (given the below construction, the device of Brown is capable of being used for cone flipping) comprising:
the game surface (10) being of a rectangular shape (Fig. 1);
four stakes (11b) to be inserted into to secure the game surface to the ground (Col. 2, lines 52-58); and
a plurality of cones (11a).
Since Brown discusses that the game may be used with either cones 11a or alternative markers 11b, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the game box or kit with the provision of both types of markers, in order to allow for the user to set up the game on differing playing surfaces, yielding predictable results.
Brown is silent to the game surface being a game board constructed of a flexible material; the game board having four openings, one at each corner of the game board.
Martin, like prior art above, teaches a game surface (title, disclosure) comprising the game surface being a game board constructed of a flexible material (“foldable material,” Col. 2, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to support the game of Brown on a game surface formed of a flexible material as taught by Martin, in order to provide a clearly delineated and clean space, yielding predictable results.
Bradbury, like prior art above, teaches a game surface (title, disclosure, 6, 8), comprising four openings (27), one at each corner (14,16,18,19) of a game board (6, 8, Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the above-modified reference with anchored corners as taught by Bradbury, in order to ensure that the game board does not move while in use, yielding predictable results.
For Claims 2 & 9, Brown as modified above teaches the kit/game of claim 1/8, and Brown further discloses wherein the game board has three cojoined, rectangular cone zones depicted on a surface of the game board (any three of 14:13, 13:12, 12:13, and 13:14, bottom to top).
For Claims 3, 10, & 12, Brown as modified above teaches the kit/game of claims 2, 9, & 112, and Brown further discloses wherein the plurality of cones are arranged around a perimeter of a boundary ring formed about the three cojoined, rectangular cone zones on the game board (when 11b are used for the boundary elements, cones 11a are able to be placed anywhere, including outside of an imaginary perimeter/boundary ring).
For Claims 4 & 13, Brown as modified above teaches the kit/game of claim 3/10.
Brown is silent to wherein the plurality of cones are hollow.
However, Brown discloses that the cones are made of soft plastic (Col. 2, lines 52-53), and other elements in the system of Brown have been disclosed as light and soft, in order to avoid injury (Col. 2, lines 39-48), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the cones of Brown as modified above to be hollow, in order to further avoid injury, and since applicant has not disclosed that this solves any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a game piece. In re Dailey and Eilers, 149 USPQ 47 (1966).
For Claims 5 & 14, Brown as modified teaches the kit/game of claim 4/12.
Brown as modified is silent to wherein the plurality of cones have an opening at an upper end.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the top of each cone of Brown as modified to have an opening, in order to affect the aerodynamics or to use widely-available cones, and since the Examiner takes Official Notice that a hole in the top of a cone is an extremely common construction for cones and is exceedingly well known in the art.
For Claims 6 & 15, Brown as modified teaches the kit/game of claim 5/13, and Brown further discloses wherein the plurality of cones have a circular collar about their base (as seen in Figs. 1 & 3).
For Claims 7 & 11, Brown as modified teaches the kit/game of claim 1/10, and Bradbury further teaches grommets at each end to receive the stakes (24 at each corner 14,16,18,19).
Brown is silent to wherein the game board is constructed of canvas.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to choose canvas as the foldable material disclosed by Martin, in order to use inexpensive materials that will extend the longevity of the game, and 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 obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Special attention is drawn to the disclosures of the attachment non-patent literature (YouTube videos) as disclosing an invention or aspects of the invention which are similar to those claimed and/or disclosed in the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Morgan T. Jordan whose telephone number is (571)272-8141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, PETER POON can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/MORGAN T JORDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Interpretation note: with the exception of “game board,” the preamble is not referenced in the body of the claim, and provides no additional patentable weight.
2 Rejected below.