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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 of claim 1 recites “have”, which the examiner is presuming should be “having”. Furthermore, claim 1 recites “one or front supports”. The examiner is presuming the applicant intended to recite “one or more front supports”, as indicated in paragraph 10, line 5 of the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowtko (US 20210038958 A1) in view of Ngo (US 6840488 B2), further in view of Slick Woody’s Cornhole Co.
Regarding claim 1, Kowtko teaches a cornhole board (10) in place on a support surface (“ground”, paragraph 17) (Fig. 1), the cornhole board including an inclined board have a front (28), a rear (24), and a top (26) with a target hole (22) therein, one or more rear supports (legs shown in Fig. 1) that support the rear of the inclined board at a height (paragraph 17, “12 inches above the ground”) above the front of the board and include corners (corners of legs shown in Figs. 1 and 3), and one or front supports that support the front of the inclined board and include corners (both corners of cornhole board at front-28 in Figs. 1 and 3).
Kowtko does not teach a method of stabilizing a cornhole board in place on a support surface upon impact of the cornhole board by a tossed cornhole bag, a pitch pad and four corner brackets that securably receive the four support corners, the four corner brackets including a 90-degree angle corner vertical support; stabilizing the cornhole board in place relative to the support surface with the four corner brackets by receiving the four support corners within the 90- degree angle corner vertical supports of the four corner brackets, and preventing the cornhole board from moving relative to the support surface, keeping the cornhole board in place, upon impact of the cornhole board by the tossed cornhole bag.
However, Ngo teaches a method (Abstract) to support a piece of furniture with four corners (Figs. 1 and 12) (shaped similar to a cornhole board), four corner brackets (element-21 in Fig. 1) that securably receive the four support corners (Figs. 1 and 12), the four corner brackets including a 90-degree angle (Fig. 13) corner vertical support (flange-89 in Fig. 12); stabilizing the furniture in place relative to the support surface (ground) with the four corner brackets by receiving the four support corners within the 90-degree angle corner vertical supports of the four corner brackets (Figs. 1 and 12), and preventing the furniture from moving relative to the support surface, keeping the furniture in place upon impact (column 10, lines 32-53). The furniture of Ngo can be substituted by the cornhole board of Kowtko. The examiner notes that the term “corner” recited in claim 1 is interpreted in view of the applicant’s disclosure to mean that the vertical support of the bracket defines a corner, i.e., a place where two lines, surfaces, or edges meet to form an angle (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). Furthermore, Slick Woody’s Cornhole Co. teaches a slip-resistant pitch pad to support a cornhole board. See NPL reference attached.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the cornhole of Kowtko with the stabilizing method of brackets taught by Ngo and the pitch pad taught by Slick Woody’s Cornhole Co. to stabilize the cornhole board upon impact of the cornhole bag when playing.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Kowtko teaches a pitch pad (taught by Slick Woody’s Cornhole Co.) and four corner brackets (taught by Ngo). The modified Kowtko does not teach the four corner brackets integrated with the pitch pad. However, making the four corner brackets taught by Ngo integral with the pitch pad taught by Slick Woody’s Cornhole Co. is not a novel concept. See In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), where the court held “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the modified Kowtko having integrated support brackets to support the cornhole with fewer loose pieces.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Kowtko teaches a pitch pad (taught by Slick Woody’s Cornhole Co.) and four corner brackets (taught by Ngo) comprises providing the four corner brackets separate from the pitch pad.
Regarding claim 5, because the structural limitations of claim 5 are the same as those indicated in claim 1, see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 for details.
Regarding claim 6, because the structural limitations of claim 6 are the same as those indicated in claim 2, see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2 for details.
Regarding claim 7, because the structural limitations of claim 7 are the same as those indicated in claim 3, see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 3 for details.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Kowtko teaches a pitch pad and four corner brackets. The modified Kowtko fails to teach the pitch pad with four holes therein configured to receive the four corner brackets, the four corner brackets each including a bottom and a stick gel member, and the method further comprising securing the bottom of the four corner brackets to the support surface with the stick gel members to stabilize the four corner brackets relative to the support surface; disposing the pitch pad so that the four corner brackets are received within the four holes and the 90-degree angle corner vertical support extends upwardly from the pitch pad; stabilizing the pitch pad and the cornhole board in place relative to the support surface with the four corner brackets within the four holes of the pitch pad by receiving the four support corners within the 90-degree angle corner vertical support of the four corner brackets and the four corner brackets secured to the support surface, preventing the cornhole board and pitch pad from moving relative to the support surface, keeping the cornhole board and pitch pad in place, upon impact of the cornhole board by the tossed cornhole bag.
However, Aitkenhead (US 20060152345 A1) teaches a stick gel member (paragraph 0011) to prevent an article from sliding on a support surface, which can be used to stabilize the four brackets. Furthermore, Dorsey (US 20170106259 A1) teaches a golf pad (Fig. 4A) with a hole (140) therein configured to receive a golf tee (claim 1) in lieu of a bracket as claimed by the applicant. However, it is the examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the hole taught by Dorsey with the pitch pad taught by Slick Woody’s Cornhole Co. to provide four holes in the pitch pad configured to receive the four corner brackets for supporting the cornhole board because the single hole taught by Dorsey is receiving an element (tee) to support a spherical structure (ball), whereas the applicant is claiming four holes to receive the four corner brackets for supporting a structure with corners (cornhole board). Thus, the examiner finds no motivation in the prior art to combine the features of the prior art to yield the method as described in claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, because the structural limitations of claim 8 are the same as those indicated in claim 4, see claim 4 above for details.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABA ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0268. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/SABA N. ALI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711