Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/534,081

SHUFFLEBAGS BAG TOSS GAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 08, 2023
Examiner
WALTER, AUDREY BRADLEY
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
943 granted / 1163 resolved
+11.1% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1196
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
§103
34.8%
-5.2% vs TC avg
§102
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§112
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1163 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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)(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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liang et al. (US 2024/0115917 A1; hereinafter Liang). Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses a bag toss game system (Figure 1), comprising: a rectilinear board [1] comprising a hole [11]; and a display surface [12] of the rectilinear board [1] comprising a triangle [13] with a first apex of the triangle [13] at a first corner (see bottom left corner in Figure 3), a second apex of the triangle [13] at a second corner (see bottom right corner in Figure 3) and a third apex of the triangle [13] at the hole [11] (paragraphs 0001, 0061-0062, 0069-0073, and Figures 1 and 3-4). Regarding the italicized claim limitations, although taught by Liang, the examiner would like to point out that the claim limitations amount to printed matter. Such indicia only serves to convey a message or meaning to a human user independent of the supporting product. There is no new feature of physical structure and no new relation of printed matter to the physical structure. Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01. The indicia has no physical tie to the substrate. Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Any differences residing in meaning and information conveyed by printed matter are not considered patentable subject matter. No patentable weight is given to the printed matter unless there is an unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. See MPEP 2111.05. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is a functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate, the examiner does not find there to be an unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate as the printed matter is merely conveying meaning to a human user in an obvious and routine matter. As such, no patentable weight is given to the claimed printed matter. Regarding claim 2, Liang discloses the bag toss game system as recited in claim 1, wherein the rectilinear board [1] is 4 feet in length by 2 feet in width (paragraphs 0002 and 0061). 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. Claims 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Cornhole Boards. Regarding claim 3, Liang discloses the bag toss game system as recited in claim 2, wherein the rectilinear board [1] is set at an angle (paragraph 0002 and Figures 1 and 3-4). Liang discloses sizing of a regulation cornhole board (paragraph 0002) but is silent as to the board angle. Cornhole Boards, however, teaches a similar rectilinear cornhole board having the same dimensions, wherein the rectilinear board is set at an angle of 10 degrees (pages 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Liang’s board to be set an angle of 10 degrees because Cornhole Boards teaches that this is the appropriate angle for regulation cornhole boards having the same dimensions as Liang (pages 1-2). Regarding claim 4, the modified Liang discloses the bag toss game system as recited in claim 3, wherein the hole [11] is 6 inches in diameter (paragraph 0002). Regarding claim 5, the modified Liang discloses the bag toss game system as recited in claim 4, wherein a center of the hole [11] is 9 inches from a rear edge of the rectilinear board [1] (paragraph 0002). Regarding claim 6, the modified Liang discloses the bag toss game system as recited in claim 5, wherein the triangle [13] is segregated into three (3) zones [14] on the display surface [12] (paragraphs 0071-0073 and Figures 1 and 3; wherein there are at least three sub-scoring regions [14]). Additionally, regarding the italicized claim limitations, although taught by Liang, these limitations amount to printed matter which is not given patentable weight. See paragraph 4 above regarding printed matter. Regarding claim 7, the modified Liang discloses the bag toss game system as recited in claim 6, wherein the triangle [13] is segregated into the three (3) zones by horizontal lines [15] parallel to a front edge and the rear edge of the rectilinear board [1] (paragraphs 0071-0073 and Figures 1 and 3; wherein there are at least three sub-scoring regions [14]). Additionally, regarding the italicized claim limitations, although taught by Liang, these limitations amount to printed matter which is not given patentable weight. See paragraph 4 above regarding printed matter. Regarding claims 8-12, although the modified Liang does not disclose the display surface comprising a rectangle or numbering, these limitations amount to printed matter which is not given patentable weight. See paragraph 4 above regarding printed matter. As the modified Liang discloses all the structural limitations of the claims, claims 8-12 are rendered obvious. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Lutz (US 2021/0121763 A1), Kowtko (US 2021/0038958 A1), and I sink you drink drinking game Cornhole Boards which all disclose similar bag toss game systems with surface indicia. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY B. WALTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm. 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. /AUDREY B. WALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 08, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584477
Packing Leakage Detection System and Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569810
A SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION CATALYST AND A PROCESS FOR PREPARING A SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION CATALYST
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571378
GEOTHERMAL POWER GENERATION SYSTEM AND SILICA SCALE DEPOSITION CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12553374
EXHAUST PIPE, METHOD FOR OPTIMIZING AND DESIGNING EXHAUST PIPE, AND ENGINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12546247
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.6%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1163 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month