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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 7/31/2023 was/were considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: target 10. 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 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: Claim 19 recites “waving the second target to indicate a dumping event.” It is unclear what “waving the second target” means. A reference to the specification revealed that the term “wave” or “waving” does not appear in the specification. It is unclear what “waving the second target” means.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to for inconsistent recitation of “said first panel” when claim 1 has established “a first forward panel”.
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 4-6 and 19 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.
Claim 4 is unclear in that it recites “approximately”. The term is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 5-6 are unclear for their dependency from claim 4.
Claim 19 is unclear in that it recites “waving the second target to indicate a dumping event.” The specification does not define or explain what “waving” means or how it indicates a dumping event.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erlandson US 4909518 in view of Henslee US 9901837.
Regarding claim 1, Erlandson discloses a competitive ballistic water dunking game apparatus comprising:
a shelter (12) comprising a forward section (26) and a back section (28), a top section (60, 66) and two side sections (22, 24), said shelter having a bottom (open) mounted onto a lower surface (ground);
said shelter comprising a first forward panel (face formed from 58) comprising at least one aperture (57);
a launching apparatus (70) coupled with the shelter; and
a target (66).
However, it does not teach a target coupled to the shelter set forward and beneath said target; wherein said receptacle is mounted to at least one lateral bar, said lateral bar defining a rotational axis; said receptacle placed above a participant location within said shelter.
Henslee teaches a water amusement apparatus comprising a target (opening of 25); wherein said receptacle (25) is mounted to at least one lateral bar (26), said lateral bar defining a rotational axis (Fig. 3); said receptacle placed above a participant location (pool). Henslee so teaches in order to provide amusement and enjoyment for children (col. 1 ln. 35). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the target as taught by Erlandson by utilizing a target and receptacle as taught by Henslee, in order to dump water onto children inside the shelter and provide for their amusement and enjoyment.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the receptacle set forward and beneath said target solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the location serves to dump water onto the player. It appears that the combination would perform equally well with the receptacle located as claimed by applicant. Thus, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the location of the receptacle of the combination by utilizing a location as claimed for the purpose of dumping water onto the players for their entertainment and enjoyment. See, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 2, the combination further discloses that said target (Erlandson, 66) comprises a flat panel (Fig. 2), and whereby said target (bucket of Henslee) is fixedly coupled with said receptacle such that both target and receptacle rotate in unison along said rotational axis (Henslee, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Erlandson further discloses that said first forward panel is angled with a top section set back and over the participant location at approximately twenty to sixty degrees from a vertical (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Erlandson further discloses a front wall (26) extending below said first forward panel (58), said front wall parallel with the vertical (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Erlandson further discloses that the launching apparatus (70) comprises an elastic launcher having a platform (74) connected to a pair of cords (Fig. 4).
However, it does not teach that said cords are coupled to said first panel. Here coupled is being interpreted as directly coupled rather than indirectly coupled through intermediate members.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the cords directly coupled to said first panel solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that cords serve to launch water balloons. It appears that Erlandson would perform equally well with its cords coupled as claimed by applicant. Thus, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Erlandson’s placement of the cords by attaching them to the first front panel as claimed for the purpose of launching water balloons. See, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 8, Erlandson, as modified by the design choice, further discloses that said cords are coupled to a perimeter of said aperture (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erlandson US 4909518 in view of Henslee US 9901837 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Mahieu US 4629188.
Regarding claim 3, the combination does not teach that said target flat panel may be adjustable in height and/or width.
Mahieu teaches a target (49) that is flat and adjustable in height and/or width (col. 3 ln. 25-47). Mahieu so teaches in order to vary the size and precise location of the target (col. 3 ln. 48-62). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the target (66) as taught by Erlandson by utilizing target sizing means as taught by Mahieu in order vary the size and precise location of the target.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erlandson US 4909518 in view of Henslee US 9901837 as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Braxton US 4493118.
Regarding claim 6, the combination does not teach a side wall coupled to the front wall via hinges having vertical axes, and a back wall hingedly coupled to said side wall.
Braxton teaches a shelter (10) comprising side walls (32,34) coupled to a front wall (28) via hinges (38) having vertical axes, and a back wall (30) hingedly coupled to said side walls (Fig. 3). Braxton so teaches in order to facilitate easy shipping and assembly from an unfolded state (col. 1 ln. 57-60). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shelter as taught by Erlandson by utilizing hinges as taught by Braxton in order to fold, store, ship, and easily assemble the shelter.
Claim(s) 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erlandson US 4909518 in view of Henslee US 9901837 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Noel US 10750737.
Regarding claim 9, the combination does not teach that said first forward panel further comprises a hinged protective panel sized to cover and obstruct said first aperture when in a closed position.
Noel teaches a shelter enclosure for launching projectiles comprising the technique of providing a hinged protective panel (Fig. 2) to cover an obstruct an aperture when in a closed position (Fig. 2) in order to keep precipitation out (col. 1 ln. 51). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shelter as taught by Erlandson by utilizing a hinged protective panel as taught by Noel in order to keep water out.
Regarding claim 10, utilizing the combination of claim 9, the combination of Erlandson, Henslee and Noel teach a water launching and sheltering gaming apparatus wherein players alternatively or concurrently launch water containing projectiles towards one another's shelter targets with a goal of filling a receptacle over the opposing player with spilled water from the projectiles to cause the receptacle to lose balance and overturn contents on to the opposing player, said apparatus comprising:
a first structure (Erlandson, 12) comprising a first forward panel (Erlandson, 26) positioned between a first player and a second player, said first forward panel comprising a first reclosable aperture providing a first shield (Noel, Fig. 2) from any projectiles launched from a second structure (Erlandson, 14, equally modified per claim 9), the second structure comprising a second forward panel (Erlandson, 26) comprising at least one aperture (Noel, Fig. 2); positioned between the second player and the first player, said second forward panel comprising a second reclosable aperture providing a second shield from any projectiles launched from the first structure (Noel, Fig. 2); said first and second structures facing one another (Erlandson, Fig. 1);
a first target (Henslee, opening of 25) positioned above a first position for the first player behind the first forward panel (see claim 1); and a second target positioned above a second position for the second player behind the first forward panel (Id);
a first launching apparatus (Erlandson, 70) mounted to a first frame of the first forward panel (Erlandson, Fig. 3), said first launching apparatus adapted to launch a fluid-containing projectile (water balloon) towards the second target; and a second launching apparatus mounted to a second frame of the second forward panel, said second launching apparatus adapted to launch a fluid-containing projectile towards the first target (Erlandson, Fig. 1);
wherein the first forward panel (Erlandson, 58) is coupled to a first shield (Noel, Fig. 2) to allow for independent manipulation of the first shield to an open and closed position; said first shield in closed position obstructing a direct path from the second reclosable aperture (Noel, Fig. 2); and wherein the second forward panel is coupled to a second shield to allow for independent manipulation of the second shield to an open and closed position; said second shield in closed position obstructing a direct path from the first reclosable aperture (same as first forward panel).
Regarding claim 11, the combination further teaches a first receptacle (Henslee, 25) positioned under the first target and above the first position (see claim 1); and a second receptacle positioned under the second target and above the second position (same as first receptacle).
Regarding claim 12, the combination further teaches that the first receptacle is rotatably mounted to a first bar (Henslee, 26), said first bar forming a first rotation axis, said first receptacle adapted to invert when a predetermined weight of fluid is deposited in said first receptacle (Henslee, Fig. 3); and wherein the second receptacle is rotatably mounted to a second bar, said second bar forming a second rotation axis, said second receptacle adapted to invert when a predetermined weight of fluid is deposited in said second receptacle (same as first receptacle).
Regarding claim 13, the combination does not teach that the first target is adjustable in shape and position, and said second target is independently adjustable in shape and position.
It has been held, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the first and second targets be adjustable in shape (per Dailey) and position (per Japikse) solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the adjustability serves to alter the difficulty to the players and it appears that targets of the combination would perform equally well being configured to be adjustable in shape and position, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first and second target’s shape as position as taught by the combination by being adjustable as claimed for the purpose of merely altering the difficulty for the player to hit the target. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV).
Regarding claim 14, the combination further teaches that said first target and said second target each comprise a stiff planar body (Erlandson, 66).
Regarding claim 15, the combination further teaches that said first target is fixedly mounted to said first receptacle such that rotation and inversion of said first receptacle pulls and rotates the target to a down position (Henslee, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, utilizing the combination of claim 9, the combination of Erlandson, Henslee and Noel teach a method of preparing and playing a competitive water balloon launching game, wherein the competitors are positioned behind shielding structures (Erlandson, 12 and 14), to allow for alternative launching of projectiles at a target positioned above the opposing player, said method comprising the steps of
positioning a first player (Erlandson, in 12) behind a first forward panel (26),
coupling a first launching apparatus (70) to the first forward panel (Fig. 3) to allow the first player to launch a fluid-filled projectile (water balloon) forward through a first window (57) in the first forward panel (Fig. 2);
further positioning a second player (in 14) behind a second forward panel (26) such that the first and second forward panels are situated between the first and second players (Fig. 1);
further coupling a second launching apparatus (70) to the second forward panel to allow the second player to launch a fluid-filled projectile forward through a second window in the second forward panel (same as with the first);
launching a first projectile with the first launching apparatus (12’s 70) through the first window towards a second target (14’s) positioned above a second receptacle (Noel, 25);
filling the second receptacle with fluid from the launched first projectile (inherent as the objective of the game and so Henslee may function as intended); and
dumping fluid contents from the second receptacle onto the second player position (Henslee, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, the combination further teaches that said first window is closed after said step of launching so as to shield the first player from a projectile launched by the second player (Noel, col. 1 ln. 51).
Regarding claim 18, the combination further teaches that reopening the first window to allow for an additional step of launching the first projectile (Noel, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, the combination further teaches that said step of dumping comprises the step of waving the second target to indicate a dumping event (Hanslee, Fig. 3). As best understood by the Office the term waving means that the bucket will move to reset (Hanslee, col. 4 ln. 29-31).
Regarding claim 20, the combination further teaches that said filling causes fluid to fill a volume on one side of the receptacle causing an unbalancing of the receptacle about an axis of rotation (Hanslee, Fig. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm 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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745