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 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and” should be replaced with --further comprising--. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 5 states “The side walls 23 of the cavity 21 form a cylinder portion.” which is inconsistent with the figures and the claims. 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.
Claim 10 is 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.
For Claim 10, the recitation of “a ball game according to claim 8” in contrast of “a cavity of the ball game board” is unclear. There is a mix of antecedent basis (“a” v.s. “the”), bringing into question whether each component of claim 8 is being further limited in claim 10. It is recommend to positively recite claim 8 in full.
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, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elwell (US 20140265120 A1)
For Claim 1, Elwell discloses a ball game board (100, title, disclosure), comprising a plurality of cavities (depressions 108) arranged in a two-dimensional ordered array on a first surface (game surface 102) of said ball game board (Fig. 1), each cavity being designed to receive a ball (“The depressions 108 can be sized and shaped to cradle the ball,” ¶0021) and having a truncated cone shape comprising side walls1 (the sidewall of each cradling depression, as seen in Figs. 1-2) and a bottom (the terms “depression” and “indentation,” especially in contrast with “opening” or “aperture” as discussed in ¶0024 notes a continuous game surface without apertures therethrough), wherein a slope of the side walls comprises an angle with respect to a plane of the first surface (each depression forms an angle in order for “The depressions 108 can be sized and shaped to cradle the ball,” ¶0021).
Elwell is silent to the angle of the slope of the side walls comprised between 130° and 165°.
130° amounts to a cradling surface of about 3/8 of the height of the (implied) ball and 165° amounts to a cradling surface of about 11/24 of the height of the (implied) ball.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide each depression of Elwell at between 1/8-11/24 of a received ball, in order to allow for the ball to escape more or less easily from the depression by inertia and other forces, yielding a more interesting and entertaining game, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
For Claim 2, Elwell as modified above teaches the ball game board according to claim 1, and Elwell further discloses further comprising a peripheral abutment (sides 104) at least partially surrounding the two-dimensional ordered array of cavities to stop a travel of a ball (Figs. 1-2, the sides 104 are capable of stopping the travel of a ball in play, ¶0021).
For Claims 4 & 11, Elwell as modified above teaches the ball game board according to claim 1, and Elwell as modified above teaches the wherein a distance between two adjacent cavities of the two-dimensional ordered array is less than 10% of a length of a cavity (as seen clearly in Figs. 1 & 2, the depressions are shown as nearly touching, which clearly amounts to less than 10% of the length of the cavity measured along play surface 102, also see ¶0024).
For Claim 5, Elwell as modified above teaches the ball game board according to claim 1, and Elwell further discloses wherein all the cavities of the two-dimensional ordered array are substantially identical (as seen in Figs. 1 & 2, and supported by the remainder of the disclosure).
For Claim 8, Elwell as modified above teaches the ball game board according to claim 1, and Elwell further discloses wherein the cavities comprise a round base (in a direction parallel with the play surface 102, each depression is round, Figs. 1 & 2) or2 a base of a regular polygon.
For Claim 10, Elwell as modified above teaches the kit comprising a ball game according to claim 8 (see rejection of claims 1 + 8), and a set of balls (shown in Fig. 2) designed to be immobilized in a cavity of the ball game board ¶0021.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elwell as modified above as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gibson, Jr. (US 20190192959 A1, “Gibson”).
For Claim 3, Elwell as modified above teaches the ball game board according to claim 1.
Elwell as modified above is silent to wherein said ball game is transparent.
Gibson, like prior art above, teaches a ball game (title, disclosure), further comprising the ball game is transparent (“The material may be …transparent,” ¶0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the material of Elwell as modified above with a transparent material as taught by Gibson, in order to allow for the user(s) to identify if any tokens/balls have fallen below the structure, yielding predictable results.
Claims 6 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elwell as modified above as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Orsini (US 2753187 A).
For Claim 6, Elwell as modified above teaches the ball game board according to claim 1.
Elwell is silent to comprising at least two parts, each part comprising means for reversible fastening to another similar part along a fastening border, the cavities of the first surface extending along the two parts and wherein each part comprises reversible fasteners to the other part along a fastening border.
Orsini, like prior art above, teaches a ball game (title, disclosure) comprising at least two parts (10, 12), each part comprising means for reversible fastening (25/26 or 35/36) to another similar part (similar in height) along a fastening border (24), and wherein each part comprises reversible fasteners to the other part along a fastening border (the other of 25/26 or 35/36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to separate the playing board of Elwell as modified above with a plurality of board pieces which are reversibly fastened to one another as taught by Orsini, in order to require less space for storage of the game board, yielding predictable results.
The resulting device renders obvious that the cavities of the first surface extending along the two parts (by separating the board of Elwell into multiple, modular components).
For Claim 7, Elwell as modified by Orsini teaches the ball game board according to claim 6.
Elwell as modified by Orsini is silent to wherein the fastening means comprise an alternation of rails and grooves designed to cooperate with grooves and rails of another similar part respectively.
It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to substitute the cooperating rod and groove attachment component of Elwell in view of Orsini with a dovetail joint, in order to allow for a smooth connection along the entire seam, and since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
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 US 3854724 A, US 6361046 B1, US 1370171 A, DE 202013000419 U1, US 20220370871 A1, US 7988154 B1, and US 5549295 A as disclosing an invention or aspects of the invention which are similar to those claimed and/or disclosed in the instant invention. The remaining references cited establish the state of the art.
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: though conical structures do not usually have “side walls” (plural), it appears that Applicant is referring to the cross-sectional view of instant Fig. 3. The prior art has been applied in the same manner.
2 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.