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 because “Sez.” in Figs. 1-7 is not in English, 37 CFR 1.52(b)(1)(ii).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5) because Figures 1-7 each shows modified forms of construction in the same view.
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 3-13 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim must list the claim or claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n), particularly MPEP § 608.01(n)(B)(1), listing “Claim 6. A gadget as in the preceding claims in which ---” as an example of “Unacceptable Multiple Dependent Claim Wording”. Accordingly, the claims 3-13 have not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75(i).
“a attachment element” should be replaced with --an attachment element--;
either term “the” or “said” should be chosen in the case of “the said rigid body” (line 3). 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 1-2 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 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.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations; there is insufficient antecedent basis for each limitation in the claim:
“the outer sides” in lines 2-3;
“said attachment element” in line 5, when there three attachment elements disclosed in the instant invention on each token, it is recommended that this be replaced with --each attachment element--;
“said interlocking seat” in line 5, when there are at least three interlocking seats, it is recommended that this be replaced with --each interlocking seat--;
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “for example” (line 9) 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).
In addition to being unclear whether the last 4 lines of claim 1 are required, it is further unclear:
as there are two parallel requirements of “configured to accommodate” (lines 9-10 and lines 10-12)- it is unclear how these differ and/or add to the recited structure; and
what “its” references, in the last line of the claim.
Since Claim 2 further modifies a structure from claim 1 which, as noted above, is unclear whether it is required in claim 1 or not, the scope of claim 2 is further unclear.
The following prior art rejection is as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being disclosed by Kenney (US 20050167914 A1).
For Claim 1, Kenney discloses a token (24) for board games (element 24 may be used in a board game) comprising
a rigid body (base 24) having a substantially planar shape (in the same manner as the instant invention, 24, as illustrated in Fig. 5, is shown as mostly flat) and having a substantially hexagonal perimeter (Fig. 5), wherein on the outer sides of the perimeter of the said rigid body there are provided, in an alternating manner, an interlocking seat (holes 30D) and a attachment element (posts 28D), where said attachment element is complementary to said interlocking seat ¶0024,27, such that each of the said interlocking seats is configured to accommodate a respective attachment element belonging to a different hexagonal token (Fig. 5 & ¶0027), characterized in that said token provides a hole (into which a figurine1 is placed, e.g. 22, as seen in, e.g., Fig. 2B) placed for example (as noted in the above 112b rejection, the remainder of the claim is unclear; however, for purposes of examination, additional claim mapping is provided in italic font) in the centre of the token itself (Figs. 2A & 2B) and configured to accommodate an object external to said token to accommodate a component having a base of complementary shape to the shape of said hole and a pin or a hole for facilitating its assembly and removal (each figurine is removal from base, as discussed throughout the specification; see Figs. 2A-2B in view of 4A-4C).
For Claim 2, Kenney discloses a game token as in claim 1, wherein the hole in the centre of the token has a hexagonal shape (see the above 112b rejection: this limitation further limits a portion of claim 1 which is not required).
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lipps (US 4025076 A) shows a hexagonal indentation in Figs. 1 & 4. Special attention is drawn to the disclosures of US 4331333 A, WO 8301009 A1, US 20100289215 A1, WO 2018189569 A1, US 3186716 A, US 3751039 A, US RE32663 E, and US 4805915 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: it appears that the disclosure of Kenney discusses “FIG. 22” as opposed to --figure 22-- or --figurine 22--, as there is no Figure 22.