DETAILED ACTION N otice 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 Applicant’s election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 2/19/26 is acknowledged. Claims 19-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/19/26. 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 1 ,4 , 5, 12, and 17 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. Regarding claim 1, the term “like” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “like” 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. Using the term “cube-like” in claim 1 and the following dependent claims is unclear in what the metes and bounds of such a physical structure are, making it an unclear interpretation. Additionally, claim 1 recites arranging selected physical category labels from a group of physical category labels. It is unclear what is meant by “arranging” the category labels, as this could mean the labels are stuck on, printed on, removably attached, drawn on, etc. Examiner suggests modifying the claim language to specifically detail how the category labels are “arranged.” Additionally, line 5 of claim 1 recites the limitation “cube-like faces”. It is unclear what a cube like face is. All cubes have 6 faces, but what is a cube like face? Examiner suggests clearly identifying what this structural limitation is, and amending the claim respectively. Additionally , claim 1, and the phrase "so as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-18 are dependent from claim 1, therefore inheriting its deficiencies and also being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Regarding claim 4, it recites that within the nine by nine small cell square structure is formed nine three by three large cell square structures with respect to the selected categories for the one selected topic for the one respective cube-like face, however in claim 1 (the claim it depends from), it is recited that the one respective large cell having a number of small cells arranged in a square structure within the one respective large cell. As such, it is unclear whether the small cell square structure is within the large cell square structure or vice versa, based on the differing recitations in claim 1 and claim 4. As such, examiner suggests amending the claim to align with the limitations discussed in the independent claim 1. Claims 5 -16 are dependent from claim 4, therefore inheriting its deficiencies and also being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Regarding claim 5, “a cube like structure” is disclosed in line 4, and “a cube like physical structure” is disclosed in claim 5. Are these separate cube like structures? The cube like structure of the apparatus could be interpreted as a different cube like structure than the word game. Examiner suggests clearly identifying what type of cube is claimed. Claims 6-10 are dependent from claim 5, therefore inheriting its deficiencies and also being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Regarding claim 12, it recites at least one particular relationship between the selected category labels and/or the selected subcategory labels , however it is unclear what type of relationship is being referred. The examiner interprets this as either a classification type of relationship, where the subcategory labels are specific examples of the category labels. However, a spatial relationship could exist as well, where the subcategory labels exist under the category labels. Examiner suggests amending this claim language and specifying what this limitation includes. Regarding claim 17, it recites wood-like materials, concrete-like materials, glass-like product for the material composition of the cube-like physical structure . This is the same issue as discussed above in regards to claim 1, as the term “like” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Examiner suggests amending the claim to specify what the metes and bounds of the material compositions are. The claim(s) 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. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited. The above noted informalities should not be taken as an exhaustive list of all such instances. Therefore, it is requested that Applicant review the claims in their entirety for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 1. Claims 1- 1 6, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 4437667 A) in view of Steenstra et al. (US 7114719 B2). Regarding claim 1 ( as best understood in view of the numerous 112(b) rejections detailed above ) , Miller teaches An apparatus (1) for use in playing a word game (The game is played by multiple players, with the amount of time allotted each player to spell the maximum number of words on the faces of the playing unit determined by the chance means and measured by the timekeeping means, see abstract) that comprises arranging selected physical category labels from a group of physical category labels and/or arranging selected physical subcategory labels from a group of physical subcategory labels to selected positions on a cube-like structure (10) having six cube-like faces (11) , the apparatus comprising: a cube-like physical structure having six cube-like faces (In the preferred embodiment, the playing unit 1 has a cubic configuration 10 with six faces 11, col 2, lines 58-59) in which a respective cube-like face corresponds with a respective selected topic in a particular arrangement related to a symmetrical structure between the cube-like faces so as to contrast the selected topics in a manner that at least relates to the symmetrical structure between the cube-like faces with respect to the cube-like structure ( The markers 2 are removably attached by the player to the playing unit 1, which has a mechanism which allows facets on each face of the unit to be shifted in order to disorganize the markers. The player then is required to return the markers to their original configuration, col 2, lines 52-57) ; one respective cube-like face of the six cube-like faces has a structure of a number of large cells such that the number of large cells are able to be arranged in a square structure on the one respective cube-like face (Each face 11 includes nine facets 12 which are squares of equal size layed out in three rows and three columns, col 2, lines 59-61) , in which the large cells of the one respective cube-like face respectively have a space for placement of a physical category label in which the selected category comprises a category within the respective selected topic of the one respective cube-like face ( During play, a player selects markers 2 which carry the letters the player desires to use and affixes one of such markers 2 to each of the facets 12 on the playing unit 10. Preferably, the letters are organized on the facets 12 of playing unit 1 to spell out words in each column and row, col 3, lines 16-21) , and the number of different physical labels for the number of different selected categories within the respective selected topic of the respective one cube-like face corresponds to the number of large cells such that the selected categories are to be arranged in the square structure so as to contrast the different selected categories of the respective selected topic of the one respective cube-like face in a manner that at least relates to the symmetry of the large cell square structure of the one respective cube-like face ( Numerous stickers or markers 2 are provided, each of which carries some indicia, there being at least as many different indicia as there are faces on the playing unit 1. The markers 2 are removably attached by the player to the playing unit 1, which has a mechanism which allows facets on each face of the unit to be shifted in order to disorganize the markers. The player then is required to return the markers to their original configuration, col 2, lines 49-57) . While Miller doesn’t explicitly teach the one respective large cell having a number of small cells arranged in a square structure within the one respective large cell, this is simply a design choice for containing the physical category labels and relates to ornamentation only, which has no mechanical function and cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; see MPEP 2144.04 I. While Miller teaches the placement of markers 2 on the facets 12 (analogous to the large cells) on each face of the six-sided cube, the markers being an indicia type of alphabet letters, it lacks specifically teaching one respective large cell of the number of large cells to have a selected physical category label in which the selected category comprises a category within the respective selected topic of the one respective cube-like face, in which the small cells of the one respective large cell respectively have a space for placement of a physical subcategory label in which the subcategory comprises a subcategory within the selected category of the one respective large cell and the number of different physical labels for the number of different selected subcategories within the respective selected category corresponds to the number of small cells such that the selected subcategories are to be arranged in the square structure so as to contrast the different selected subcategories within the selected category in a manner that at least relates to the symmetry of the small cell square structure of the one respective large cell. Steenstra et al. does as follows: configured as hollow 3-D polygonal structures, with one or more (polygonal) facets, allocated to respective topics, and subsidiary topic categories, by respective coded marking (col 2, lines 63-66). In some variants, provision may be made for a game activity participant, or player, (physically) to mark a facet--or facet sub-division--say with specific indicia, signs, symbols, markings, graphics or text, representing data upon a game activity being played (col 4, lines 39-44). The respective topics are analogous to the physical category label and the subsidiary topic categories are analogous to the subcategories within the selected category. These topics and topic categories are allocated to a cube (Whilst, in principle, a diversity of forms may be employed, a cube is a particular preferred format. The regularity, (mirror) symmetry, simplicity and rectangularity of a cube simplify construction, marking, facet layout or sub-division--and use, col 4, lines 47-51), appreciating the arranging selected physical category labels from a group of physical category labels and/or arranging selected physical subcategory labels from a group of physical subcategory labels to selected positions on a cube-like structure having six cube-like faces. Therefore, 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 geometric game of Miller with the category and subcategory labels of Steenstra et al. to best generate the relationships between a broad topic and its respective sub-topics as related to the user’s experience (Steenstra et al. , col 1, lines 50-64). Regarding claims 2- 3 , the modified Miller teaches wherein the symmetry of the large cell square structure of the one respective cube-like face includes horizontal, vertical and/or diagonal symmetry within the one respective cube-like face (claim 2) as seen in Fig 4 of Miller , where the facets 12 ( large cell square structure) is arranged in a 3x3 horizontal/vertical symmetry . While the modified Miller doesn’t specifically teach wherein the symmetry of the small cell square structure within the one respective large cell includes horizontal, vertical and/or diagonal symmetry within the respective large cell (claim 3), the small cell square structure is simply related to design choice as discussed above in claim 1, and the horizontal, vertical and/or diagonal symmetry is related to rearrangement of parts, as choosing any specific type of symmetry of the aforementioned symmetries would not change the function of the structure, and is held an obvious matter of design choice; see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. Regarding claim 4, the modified Miller teaches a nine three by three large cell square structures with respect to the selected categories for the one selected topic for the one respective cube-like face (see Fig.1 of Miller). However, it doesn’t specifically teach wherein the one respective cube-like face comprises a nine by nine small cell square structure with physical labels respectively containing the selected subcategories of the selected categories such that within the nine by nine small cell square structure is formed, wherein nine selected physical subcategory labels associated within the one selected topic are to be arranged in a particular manner so as to contrast the nine selected subcategories in a manner that at least relates to the horizontal, vertical and/or diagonal symmetry of nine small cells within the respective cube-like face , the nine by nine small cell square structure. The nine by nine small cell square structure is simply related to design choice as discussed above in claim 1, and the physical labels respectively containing the selected subcategories of the selected categories within this nine by nine small cell square structure is taught by Steenstra et al. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the category labels of Steenstra et al. in a grid-like design as seen with the nine by nine small cell square structure, as this is related to design choice and doesn’t change the functionality of the apparatus; see MPEP 2144.04 I. Similarly, the nine selected physical subcategory labels associated within the one selected topic are to be arranged in a particular manner so as to contrast the nine selected subcategories in a manner that at least relates to the horizontal, vertical and/or diagonal symmetry of nine small cells within the respective cube-like face is again, related to rearrangement of parts, and an obvious matter of design choice; see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. While Steenstra et al. teaches 12 innovation factors (analogous to the physical subcategory labels ) it would have been obvious to use the nine selected physical subcategory labels of the instant invention, as these amounts are merely close and it is expected that the same results would be achievable using nine subcategory labels ; see MPEP 2144.05 I. Regarding claims 5-10, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate in an unobvious manner, it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Lowry , 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai , 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gulack , 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The fact that the content of the printed matter placed on the substrate may render the device more convenient by providing an individual with a specific type of cube structure does not alter the functional relationship. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter (the specific topics and corresponding category labels) and the substrate (cube faces) which is required for patentability. Regarding claim 11, the modified Miller teaches wherein the selected category labels and/or the selected subcategory labels are capable of being physically attached to the cube-like faces in selected patterns on the cube-like faces ( In a more specific embodiment, the markers each carry a letter of the alphabet and can be adhesively attached to the playing unit to spell words as desired by the player, Miller, col 1, lines 40-43). Regarding claim 12, the modified Miller teaches wherein the selected patterns on the cube-like faces of the selected category labels and/or the selected subcategory labels are capable of being modified to capture at least one particular relationship between the selected category labels and/or the selected subcategory labels that aligns with a spatial symmetry on one or more faces and/or among the one or more faces (Facet (contributory) factors can be layered, in transverse (e.g. horizontal) strata, to represent a hierarchy of significance or importance--with, say, an uppermost layer accorded most significance. Similarly, (inter-)relationship with corresponding (contributory) factors in other topic categories, depicted upon adjacent facets, can be identified, by turning the cube, Steenstra et al., col 14, lines 59-65). Regarding claims 13-16, the physical positions for the selected category labels and for the selected subcategory labels of a large cell are simply related to ornamentation, and have no mechanical function and cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Regarding claim 1 8, the modified Miller teaches wherein the physical labels comprise at least one of the following: magnetic material, Velcro material, suction devices, screw-like attachments, attachments capable of being interlocked, transparent plastic sleeves capable of being fixed and/or otherwise attached to a cube-like face, push pins, or any combinations thereof as follows: On the face or side of each marker 2 opposite to the side carrying the letter is a pressure sensitive adhesive substance which can be used to repeatedly adhere and remove markers 2 from playing unit 1 (Miller, col 3, lines 11-15). This adhere and remove function is analogous to Velcro material. 2. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Steenstra et al., further in view of Gruber (US 20160129340 A1). Regarding claim 17, while the modified Miller teaches a cube-like physical structure (cubic configuration 10, Miller, col 2, line 59), it fails to teach that it comprises at least one of the following materials: any type of one or more polymers, including any compositions thereof, which includes Styrofoam; any type of wood product and/or wood-like materials, including any compositions thereof, which includes cardboard as a wood product; one or more types of metal, including any compositions thereof, which includes alloys; masonry materials, including stone, ceramic, which also includes any compositions thereof; concrete and/or concrete-like materials, including any compositions thereof; glass and/or glass-like products, including any compositions thereof; any one of a number of available solid and/or solidifiable composites, including any combinations thereof; or any compositions of any of the foregoing. Gruber teaches this as follows: the building blocks 20 of the cube-shaped object are here regular squares and can be made for example of wood or another material that can be realized with different forms of side faces [0032]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the modified game cube of Miller with the wood material composition of Gruber to best form the spatial geometry of the cube-shaped object from individual building blocks (analogous to the cube-like faces of the instant invention) (Gruber, [0038]) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RIA SHARMA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0286 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:00am- 5pm . 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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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. /RIA SHARMA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /NICHOLAS J. WEISS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711