DETAILED 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) because they fail to show: the Pool-chess board 101, the pockets or additional squares, in addition to the regular 64 squares on a conventional chess board (drawings only show 64 squares and no additional recessed pockets), pool-pieces 102, Boomerang-pieces 202, Xray-pieces 302 and magnetic-pieces 402, opponent piece 2b, square1, square 2, Xray piece piece1x, Xray piece piece2x, target square3, blocking piece2x, comer square h1 having 3 adjacent squares i0, i1, h0, other comer squares a1, a8, h8, pockets i3, i4, i5, i6, squares h4, h5, and the mid squares a4, a5, d1, e1, d8, e8 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
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, the Pool-chess board 101, the pockets or additional squares, in addition to the regular 64 squares on a conventional chess board (drawings only show 64 squares and no additional recessed pockets), pool-pieces 102, Boomerang-pieces 202, Xray-pieces 302 and magnetic-pieces 402, opponent piece 2b, square1, square 2, Xray piece piece1x, Xray piece piece2x, target square3, blocking piece2x, comer square h1 having 3 adjacent squares i0, i1, h0, other comer squares a1, a8, h8, pockets i3, i4, i5, i6, squares h4, h5, and the mid squares a4, a5, d1, e1, d8, e8 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In a utility claim an apparatus or a method must be claimed. The preamble should clearly set the stage for either an apparatus or a method that is being claimed. A claim is required to be in one sentence form only. If a claim has more limitations than one, they should be clearly separated and indented by semicolons (;). The claim is required to have only one period (.) at the end of claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Independent claim 1 lacks a transitional phrase for determining the scope of the claim. See MPEP 2111.03, transitional phrases "comprising", "consisting essentially of" and "consisting of" define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim. The determination of what is or is not excluded by a transitional phrase must be made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts of each case.
In claim 1, lines 4-5 and 7, parenthesis should be replaced with a comma.
In claim 1, line 11 “Xray piece piece” appears to be a typo and should be –X ray piece--.
In claim 1, line 11 “square!” appears to be a typo and should be –square1--.
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 1-14 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.
Claims 1-14 are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only.
Regarding claim 1, line 5 the phrase "like" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pool pieces" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the following" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the approach" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pool border" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the following" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ability" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same starting" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same move" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the following" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ability” in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ability” in line 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, line 32 the phrase "i.e." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the traditional” in line 34. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the opponents" in line 34. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, line 35 the phrase "like" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the pockets" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the entire" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the playing field squares" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the features" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the internet" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the game" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the objective" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the opponent" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the color" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the loser" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the network" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the POOL-CHESS" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 6, lines 5-6 the recitation “as explained in claim 1” is indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the traditional piece” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the striking piece1" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the same" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the network" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the traditional" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the network" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the traditional" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "its path" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the objective” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 13, line 3 the recitation "as in prior arts" is vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 13, line 4 the phrase "like" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the internet" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Samaniego, Smith, Adams, Budden, Spurgeon, ‘685, ‘528, Thomas and Grady discloses modified chess games with additional squares which are similar to applicant’s invention. Erlich discloses a chess game with detachable magnetic chess pieces which is similar to applicant’s invention. Socorregut ‘862 discloses a chess game with computer control which is similar to applicant’s invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M SEMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-2381. The examiner can normally be reached flexing generally from 7 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED 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.
/THOMAS M SEMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875