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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 12-14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eanniello et al (US 2021/0236897) in view of Starnes (US 5,351,968).
Regarding claim 1, Eanniello discloses: A game assembly for use with a hacky sack, the game assembly comprising: at least a pair of game boards for use with a hacky sack (Fig 2, Fig 18, ¶0044); wherein each one of said at least a pair of game boards has a plurality of pivoting legs attached to a bottom surface (Fig. 11, #78 & #82, ¶0029) and a central hole therethrough (Fig 18); wherein said central hole during game play is a target for the hacky sack (Fig 18 ¶0043); and further wherein each of said plurality of legs transition between a folded position during non-game play and an unfolded position during the game play (¶0029, ¶0035).
Eanniello lacks in disclosing that the game boards are circular in shape. Starnes teaches of a cap toss game in which the game board is circular in shape (Starnes Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing the invention to use a circular game board in Eanniello. Eanniello does disclose that the shape of the boards may be any suitable shape for the game (¶0027). Having a circular game board is a mere change in shape and is obvious In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 11, Eanniello discloses: at least a pair of game boards having a first game board and a second game board, wherein said first game board having a top surface with a plurality of scoring zones, and further wherein said second game board having a top surface with said plurality of scoring zones (Fig 1, Fig 18, ¶0048).
Regarding claim 12, Eanniello discloses: A game assembly for use with a hacky sack, the game assembly comprising: at least a pair of game boards for use with a hacky sack (Fig 2, Fig 18, ¶0044); wherein each one of said at least a pair of game boards has a plurality of pivoting legs attached to a bottom surface (Fig. 11, #78 & #82, ¶0029) and a central hole therethrough (Fig 18); wherein said central hole during game play is a target for the hacky sack (Fig 18 ¶0043); wherein said at least a pair of game boards having a first game board and a second game board; wherein said first game board having a top surface with a plurality of scoring zones; and further wherein said second game board having a top surface with said plurality of scoring zones (Fig 1, Fig 18, ¶0048).
Eanniello lacks in disclosing that the game boards are circular in shape. Starnes teaches of a cap toss game in which the game board is circular in shape (Starnes Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing the invention to use a circular game board in Eanniello. Eanniello does disclose that the shape of the boards may be any suitable shape for the game (¶0027). Having a circular game board is a mere change in shape and is obvious; In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 13, Eanniello discloses wherein each one of said at least a pair of game boards having a net (#90) attached thereunder and circumscribing an underside of said central hole for capturing the hacky sack dropping through said central hole (Fig 2, Fig 3, ¶0090).
Regarding claim 14, Eanniello discloses wherein said first game board having a slanted top surface, and further wherein said second game board having a slanted top surface (Fig. 2, ¶0006).
Regarding claim 17, Eanniello discloses a method of playing a game using a hacky sack (¶0044), the method comprising the steps of: providing a game assembly having at least a pair of game boards for use with a hacky sack (Fig. 2, Fig 18), wherein each one of said at least a pair of game boards has a plurality of pivoting legs attached to a bottom surface (Fig. 11, #78 & #82, ¶0029) and a central hole therethrough (Fig. 18), further wherein said at least a pair of game boards having a first game board and a second game board (Fig. 2, Fig. 18); targeting said central hole of a designated said first game board and said second game board during game play with the hacky sack; hitting the hacky sack towards the designated one of said first game board and said second game board; landing the hacky sack on a top surface of the designated one of said first game board and said second game board; scoring the hacky sack with a first score for landing the hacky sack on said top surface of the designated one of said first game board and said second game board; and scoring the hacky sack with a second score for hitting the hacky sack into said central hole of the designated one of said first game board and said second game board Fig. 2, (¶0048).
Eanniello lacks in disclosing that the game boards are circular in shape. Starnes teaches of a cap toss game in which the game board is circular in shape (Starnes Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing the invention to use a circular game board in Eanniello. Eanniello does disclose that the shape of the boards may be any suitable shape for the game (¶0027). Having a circular game board is a mere change in shape and is obvious In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 18, Eanniello discloses wherein said top surface of said first game board having a plurality of scoring zones, and further wherein said top surface of said second game board having said plurality of scoring zones (Fig. 2, ¶0048).
Regarding claim 19, Eanniello discloses wherein each one of said at least a pair of game boards having a net attached thereunder, and further wherein said net circumscribing an underside of said central hole for capturing the hacky sack dropping through said central hole (Fig. 3, ¶0028).
Regarding claim 20, Eanniello discloses wherein said first game board having a slanted said top surface, and further wherein said second game board having a slanted said top surface (Fig. 2, ¶0006).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eanniello et al (US 2021/0236897) in view of Starnes (US 5,351,968) in further view of Maginnis (US 9,764,211).
Regarding claim 2, Eanniello lacks in disclosing a strap for securing the pair of game boards together. Maginnis teaches of a pair of game boards wherein one of said first game board and said second game board having a strap (#82) for securing said pair of game boards together when said game assembly is not used for playing a game (Maginnis Fig, 10, Fig. 11, col.5 lines 28-45). It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a strap in Eanniello for securing the game boards together for easy transport to and from a game playing location. Using straps to secure items is well known in the art.
Claim(s) 3-5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eanniello et al (US 2021/0236897) in view of Starnes (US 5,351,968) in view of Maginnis (US 9,764,211) in further view of Florentino (US 2018/0093152).
Regarding claim 3, Eanniello, lacks in specifically disclosing using a strap for securing the legs in a folded position. Morgan teaches of a target game in which elastic straps are used for holding game components in place on the game board when the game is being transported (Florentio ¶0035). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include another strap for securing said plurality of pivoting legs in said folded position in the game board of Eanniello. It is common to use straps to secure items for ease of transport.
Regarding claim 4, Eanniello discloses wherein each one of said at least a pair of game boards having a handle strap (#98) for moving each one of said pair of game boards (Fig. 3), ¶0029).
Regarding claim 5, Eanniello discloses wherein each one of said at least a pair of game boards having a net (#90) attached thereunder and circumscribing an underside of said central hole for capturing the hacky sack dropping through said central hole (Fig 2, Fig 3, ¶0028).
Regarding claim 7, Eanniello discloses wherein said first game board having a slanted top surface (Fig. 2, ¶0006).
Regarding claim 8, Eanniello discloses wherein said second game board having a slanted top surface (Fig. 2, ¶0006).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eanniello et al (US 2021/0236897) in view of Starnes (US 5,351,968) in view of Maginnis (US 9,764,211) in view of Florentino (US 2018/0093152) in further view of Studier (US 7,607,666).
Regarding claim 6, Eanniello lacks in specifically disclosing that the net is a nylon sack. Studier teaches of a bean bag toss game in which the net to catch the bean bag is a nylon sack (Studier col. 5 lines 6-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use nylon material for the nets in Eanniello due to their durable structure.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eanniello et al (US 2021/0236897) in view of Starnes (US 5,351,968) in view of Maginnis (US 9,764,211) in view of Florentino (US 2018/0093152) in further view of Morgan (US 2022/0289089).
Regarding claim 9 and 10, Eanniello lacks in disclosing that the plurality of legs are telescoping allowing for height adjustments. Morgan teaches of a gaming platform with a plurality of legs that are telescoping. Each of said plurality of legs adjustable to a selected height for placing each one of said at least a pair of game boards at a selected height (Morgan Fig. 4, ¶0015, ¶0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use adjustable height telescoping legs in the invention of Eanniello so as to be able to change the height of the game boards according to the different tertian the game may be placed on. Furthermore, being able to adjust the height of the boards allows for players to adjust the height for the game as they wish due to heights of the players or difficulty level of game play.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eanniello et al (US 2021/0236897) in view of Starnes (US 5,351,968) in further view of Morgan (US 2022/0289089).
Regarding claim 15 and 16, Eanniello lacks in disclosing that the plurality of legs are telescoping allowing for height adjustments. Morgan teaches of a gaming platform with a plurality of legs that are telescoping. Each of said plurality of legs is adjustable to a selected height for placing each one of said at game boards at a selected height (Morgan Fig. 4, ¶0015, ¶0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use adjustable height telescoping legs in the invention of Eanniello so as to be able to change the height of the game boards according to the different tertian the game may be placed on. Furthermore, being able to adjust the height of the boards allows for players to adjust the height for the game as they wish due to heights of the players or difficulty level of game play.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE K BROCKETTI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0206. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/JULIE K BROCKETTI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3700