DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
37 CFR 1.98(2)(ii) requires a legible copy of each publication, other than US patents and US patent application publications, listed in an information disclosure statement (IDS). The non-patent literature publications cited in the IDS filed October 14, 2023, have not been considered because no copies have been provided.
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the sections” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. In addition, the limitation “the same set of targets on a single sheet” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear how the “set of targets on a single sheet” relates to the single “paper target” of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, “a single sheet” is interpreted as referring to the paper target of claim 1, and the terms “the sections” and “the same set of targets” will be interpreted as referring to sections within the single paper target sheet.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “each target” in line 1 is unclear, because claim 1 (from which claim 4 depends) recites a single paper target. It is unclear whether “each target” is referring to the paper target as a whole or to some subset(s) of the paper target. For the purpose of examination, “each target” will be interpreted as referring to each of a plurality of sections of the paper target.
Claim 5 appears to recite a method step in the use of the claimed paper target (“wherein a number of shots is determined and each player competes for a high score in the round”). A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), because it is unclear whether direct infringement would occur when the apparatus is created or when the method steps are carried out. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP § 2173.05(p). For the purpose of examination, independent claim 1 is clearly understood to be an apparatus claim because it is directed to the structure of the game (“comprising of a paper target”). Dependent claim 5 is thus interpreted as describing an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
In addition, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for “the round,” recited in claim 5, line 2. For the purpose of examination, “the round” will be interpreted to mean --a round--.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gun Fun (https://gunfun.com, hereinafter Gun Fun, archived by the Internet Archive on or before February 3, 2022).
Regarding claim 1, Gun Fun discloses a target shooting game comprising a paper target (“paper shooting targets that feature full color printing,” pg. 1; see examples including Sink-A-Sub, Valentines Day, Mini-Darts, and Lucky Shot, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
674
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
710
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
622
466
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
586
380
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Gun Fun further discloses that the paper target is divided into two, three, or four player sections (e.g., upper and lower sections in the Sink-A-Sub target, three heart sections in the Valentine’s Day target, four dartboards in the Mini-Darts target, or four bullseyes in the Lucky Shot target).
Regarding claim 3, Gun Fun further discloses that the paper target is a single paper target sheet (see, e.g., the single sheets illustrated above), and sections of the single paper target sheet are designed in such a manner that each shooter has the same set of sections on the single sheet (e.g., the same submarine images, the same heart bullseyes, the same dartboards, or the same round bullseyes).
Regarding claim 4, Gun Fun further discloses each section of the target is assigned a positive or negative point value based on the difficulty of the shot (see Lucky Shot target, where each outer ring is assigned 6 points and each inner ring is assigned 10 points).
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “wherein a number of shots is determined and each player competes for a high score in the round” describes an intended use of the claimed paper target. (See notes on claim interpretation in the rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 112(b) above.) The examiner notes that a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II). In this case, GunFun teaches a target shooting game comprising a paper target as claimed. The paper target of GunFun is inherently capable of use as claimed, by players shooting a number of shots at the target and competing for a high score in a round (e.g., by manual scoring based on observation of the shooting targets). Therefore, the method step recited in claim 5 does not patentably distinguish the claimed target shooting game from that of GunFun.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ghani (US Patent No. 9,891,028, hereinafter Ghani).
Regarding claim 1, Ghani discloses a target shooting game (Fig. 1; col. 3:20-37) comprising a paper target (103; col. 4:27-30).
Regarding claim 2, Ghani further discloses the paper target (103) is divided into two, three, or four player sections (e.g., two, three, or four rings of the bullseye illustrated in Fig. 1, for use by two to four players, col. 3:33-35).
Regarding claim 3, Ghani further discloses that the paper target is a single paper target sheet (103, Fig. 1), and sections of the single paper target sheet are designed in such a manner that each shooter has the same set of sections on the single sheet (with each shooter aiming at the same set of bullseye sections on the same target sheet 103, in use; col. 3:20-30).
Regarding claim 4, Ghani further discloses each section of the target is assigned a positive or negative point value based on the difficulty of the shot (“shooter’s score is determined based on the position of holes made in the target, and scoring markings,” col. 1:34-39; col. 2:33-54).
Regarding claim 5, Ghani further discloses a number of shots is determined (“Each shooter gets 5, 7, 10, 14 or 20 shots,” col. 3:35-36) and each player competes for a high score in a round (col. 2:33-43).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Biggs (US Patent Pub. 2024/0068786) discloses a multi-player target shooting game comprising a paper target (“game mode may enable one user or multiple users to play tic-tac-toe, for example, on targets shaped like a tic-tac-toe board, for example,” ¶ 55; “Conventional, off-the-shelf paper targets may be used,” ¶ 5).
Mincenburg et al. (US Patent Pub. 2008/0277875) discloses a multi-player target shooting game comprising a paper target (“paper target,” ¶ 27; e.g., for a golf-type game, Figs. 5 and 7; a racing-type game, Figs. 9a-b and 10a-b; or a baseball-type game, Figs. 11a-b and 12a-b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura L. Davison whose telephone number is (571)270-0189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571)272-6928. 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.
/Laura Davison/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993