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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this instant application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Che (US 11,890,551).
Re claim 1: Che teaches and shows a movable puzzle platform 10 which serves as a puzzle sorter device that provides a user with a plurality of sorting sheets 14 (see col. 4, lines 39-60; col. 7, line 60 through col. 8, line 15) to allow users to sort puzzle pieces by various desired means, the puzzle sorter device comprising: a sorting sheet 101 component; wherein the sorting sheet 14 component comprises a cardstock base sheet component secured to an anti-slipping layer which serves as a felt top sheet component; wherein a plurality of puzzle pieces are sorted and positioned on the felt top sheet component for organization and transport (see col. 4, lines 49-60); and further wherein the plurality of puzzle pieces 100 are retained by the felt top sheet 14 component, which prevents the plurality of puzzle pieces from sliding off the puzzle sorter device or falling off a puzzle table (see col. 4, lines 49-52).
Re claim 2: Che further teaches and shows wherein the sorting sheet 14 component is configured in a rectangular shape as shown in figure 1 (see col. 4, lines 35-37).
Re claim 20: Che further teaches that the sorting sheet component facilitates movement (that is, Che teaches that the board accessible unit 20 allows the board to rotate 360 degrees (see col. 5, lines 33-58)), allowing a user to be able to reach every one of a plurality of puzzle pieces 100 without leaving their location/seat.
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.
Claim(s) 3-9, 14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Che (US 11,890,551). The teachings of Che have been discussed above.
Re claims 3 and 14: Although, Che briefly discusses about the finished size of 1,000 piece puzzles is about 30”x24”, a finished size of 5,000 piece puzzles is about 60”x40”, and so on (see col. 1, lines 41+) and the sorting sheet 14 that which is placed on top of the platform, sorting sheet component within the boundary of the defining walls as shown in figure 1, Che fails to specifically teach that the sorting sheet 14 component measures approximately eleven inches in length and eight inches in width and 0.25 inches in thickness, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made and/or filed to further modify the specific dimension of this Che to accommodate sorting sheet component measuring approximately 11”x8”x0.25” OR any other particular size to meet the number of puzzle pieces. Accordingly, this modification would have been an obvious design variation well within the ordinary skill in the art to meet this claimed invention, that is varying the “size”, “color”, “shape”, etc. does not define over the prior art of record, as taught/shown by Che.
Re claims 4-6: Che further discloses that the felt top sheet 14 component is typically secured to the cardstock base sheet component with adhesives (col. 4, lines 52-56).
Re claims 7-8: Che discloses that the sorting sheet component facilitates movement (that is, Che teaches that the board accessible unit 20 allows the board to rotate 360 degrees (see col. 5, lines 33-58)), allowing a user to be able to reach every one of a plurality of puzzle pieces 100 without leaving their location/seat.
Re claims 9 and 17: Che disclose the sorting sheet component comprises a peripheral raised border, that is surrounding border wall 13 (as shown in fig. 1; and col. 4, lines 35-48), providing a recess for supporting the plurality of puzzle pieces 100 and rounded corners for handles.
Re claim 16: Che teaches and shows a movable puzzle platform 10 which serves as a puzzle sorter device that provides a user with a plurality of sorting sheets 14 (see col. 4, lines 39-60; col. 7, line 60 through col. 8, line 15) to allow users to sort puzzle pieces by various desired means. Further, one would recognize that by having a plurality of sorting sheets as taught by Che, it would be obvious to alternate which sorting sheet to be place upon the platform for user to complete a particular puzzle game. Moreover, an artisan would either store the sorting sheets on top of each other, in a separate storage container, etc. for later completion or the like.
Claim(s) 10-13, 15 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Che (US 11,890,551) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Box (GB 2,210,800, hereinafter Box). The teachings of Che have been discussed above.
Re claims 10-12, 15 and 18-19: Although, Che teaches a plurality of anti-slipping layer(s), but is silent with respect to the layer including a grid indicia thereon.
Box teaches a holder for games and jigsaw puzzles 10 comprising among other components/structure, a grid basis 18 as shown in figure 1 to facilitate the positioning of a plurality of puzzle pieces in columns and rows and according to the specific size of the puzzle pieces (i.e., to accommodate different dimension of the jigsaw puzzle(s)) which serves as a “shape” (see fig. 1; page 5, line 22 through page 6, line 9)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made and/or filed to integrate the grid indicia as taught by Box to the teachings of Che in order to provide Che with an additional visual guidance/lay-out at a first glance of the puzzle platform/sorting layer to determine/accommodate the specific size/dimension and the specific starting position/location of the puzzle pieces (i.e., every jigsaw puzzle games includes a specific size/pieces are included in a jigsaw puzzle box(s)), before the user starts his/her pairing-up of all the puzzle pieces. As indicated by Che, the sorting layer can be used as a puzzle frame for framing the puzzle pieces 100 upon completion of assembling all the puzzle pieces (see Che, col. 7, line 60 through col. 8, line 15). Accordingly, the user of this modified puzzle platform/sorting layer would have used the grid indicia to center the puzzle pieces for framing upon completion of all the puzzle pieces later thereof. Thereof, such modification would have been a mere design upgrade/variation well within the ordinary skill in the art.
Re claim 13: Che teaches and shows a movable puzzle platform 10 which serves as a puzzle sorter device that provides a user with a plurality of sorting sheets 14 (see col. 4, lines 39-60; col. 7, line 60 through col. 8, line 15) to allow users to sort puzzle pieces by various desired means. Further, one would recognize that by having a plurality of sorting sheets as taught by Che, it would be obvious to alternate which sorting sheet to be place upon the platform for user to complete a particular puzzle game. Moreover, an artisan would either store the sorting sheets on top of each other, in a separate storage container, etc. for later completion or the like.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Malki (US 2021/0170268); Zhang et al (US 2024/0416221); Watkins (US 11,388,990); Deng (US 2024/0374990); Vo (US 2023/0293978); and Fredrickson (US 2006/0151947) discloses and shows a jigsaw puzzle sorting table/platform.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL G LEE, SPE TC2800, whose telephone number is (571)272-2398. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (430am-330pm).
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, Allana Bidder, DIRECTOR TC2800, can be reached at (571)272=5560. 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.
/MICHAEL G LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876