DETAILED ACTION
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, 12-16, and 21-22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wickum (US 2021/0331052) in view of Ruder (US 8,807,568).
In respect to claims 1 and 14, Wickum discloses a dice toss game comprising: a pair of spaced apart table units (deflection mechanisms) (Fig. 16); each table unit comprising: a frame 650 having an opening extending therethrough, a plurality of legs 614 connected to the frame (0063); and at least one cube-shaped die, wherein the “throwable object” 120 may comprise a litany of devices, including dice (0064). Although claim limitations drawn to tossing/bouncing of the die on the net surface are fully met by Wickum, it is noted that such limitations are intended use and are immaterial to the structure or method of making the structure.
Wickum does not disclose a plurality of hooks on the net to secure it to the frame, however, Ruder teaches a similar “table unit” for the same purpose of providing a deflection mechanism for a throwable object in a game (Fig. 1); the frame having a plurality of hooks 70 thereon (Fig. 7) which secure the net to the frame (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to provide the frame taught in Wickum with hooks in view of Ruder to provide a means to secure the net to the frame (Pg. 3, 34-41).
In respect to claims 2, 12, 15, and 21, Wickum does not disclose the particular material of the dice, e.g. “silicone rubber” however other throwable items may be rubber (0013). Nor that the legs and frame are “plastic”. However, it would have been obvious to provide the dice/frame/legs as a known material, such as silicone rubber (also present in other throwable items in Wickum) or any generic “plastic” since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In respect to claims 3 and 16, Wickum discloses that the legs may be detachable (0063).
In respect to claims 13 and 22, Wickum discsoes that the frame may constitute a support board which also holds cups 130 (Fig. 13).
Claims 1, 4, 11, 14, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wickum (US 2021/0331052) in view of Kolwicz (US 3,368,814).
Wickum substantially discloses the claimed invention for the reasons stated above, but does not disclose a plurality of hooks on the net to secure it to the frame, however, Kolwicz teaches a similar “table unit” for the same purpose of providing a deflection mechanism for a throwable object in a game (Fig. 6); the frame having a plurality of hooks thereon (ends of springs 13) with a hook on each end, one attached to the frame and one attached to the net (Fig. 3) which secure the net to a rectangular frame. It would have been obvious to substitute the “table unit” taught in Wickum with a table unit with a rectangular frame and net hooks in view of Kolwicz. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the instant case, the particular shape of the “table unit”, whether circular or rectangular, does not significantly alter the table unit or the game as a whole, and would be a readily obvious substitution, particularly since the purpose of the “table unit” is the same, to bounce a throwable object for use in a game.
Claims 5-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wickum (US 2021/0331052) in view of Kolwicz (US 3,368,814) as applied to claims 1, 4, 14, and 17, above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 112263828).
In respect to claims 5-7, 10, 18, and 20, Wickum in view of Kolwicz substantially disclose the claimed invention, but do not disclose modular elements of the frame/legs. However, Chen et al. teach a table for use in games, wherein the table frame includes tubular legs 131 with upper and lower sections which separate; a diameter of the upper leg section (outer diameter) is larger than a diameter of the lower leg section, diameter of smaller peg which inserts for assembly (Fig. 3). Chen et al. further teach a coupler which is simply a third leg 121 between an upper leg and a lower leg (all of the same construction) (Fig. 3); Chen et al. further teach 3-way elbow fittings 121 between adjacent frame sections and the legs (Fig. 2).
In respect to claims 8-9 and 19, Chen et al. further teach first and second leg cross-supports 14, one between a first pair of legs and another between a second pair of legs (Fig. 2).
Claims 13 and 22 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wickum (US 2021/0331052) in view of Ruder (US 8,807,568) in further view of Gonzales (US 10,632,358).
WIckum and Ruder substantially disclose the claimed subject matter, but do not explicitly disclose attaching a cup holder to the frame of the “table unit”, however, Gonzales teaches a “table unit” almost identical to Ruder, wherein the table unit further comprises a cup holder 101 which may attach to the frame via opening 110 (Col. 5, 3-10; Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to provide the frame of the “table unit” taught in Wickum and Ruder with a cup holder in view of Gonzales to hold cups which is intrinsically evident.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT GRABOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3518. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Daniel Troy, can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/KYLE R GRABOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637