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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the trapezoidal shape must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It is noted that the drawings currently show six-sided polygon shaped stakes not trapezoidal shaped stakes. A trapezoid is defined as a quadrilateral with at least one pair of parallel sides and is currently not shown in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “easily” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easily” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person may consider being easy may not be the same as another; therefore, claim 1 is indefinite.
The term “typically” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “typically” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if the targets are always a plurality of stakes or just sometimes, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of targets are of various lengths and shapes and sizes”. However, claim 2 previously stated that the targets are a trapezoidal shape. Therefore claim 5 conflicts with the 2 by now stating that the targets can be various shapes, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 19 recites that the bean bag bowling device comprises a plurality of indicia. It is unclear as to what item the indicia is placed on. With many parts to the bean bag bowling device, by not stating what items the indicia is located on, renders the claim indefinite as it cannot be determined if there is a functional relationship between the indicia and the substrate on which it is printed.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the center hole" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Florentino US 2018/0093152 A1. Florentino discloses a bean bag bowling device that provides a user with a fun and unique outdoor game that can be played with family and friends (Fig. 1), the bean bag bowling device comprising: a plurality of targets (Fig 3 #30); and a plurality of bean bags (Fig 3 #12); wherein the plurality of targets are set up on a playing field (Fig 3); wherein players knock down the plurality of targets with the plurality of bean bags to score points (¶0009); and further wherein the plurality of targets and the plurality of bean bags are easily set up and portable for any outdoor location or social event (¶0030, ¶0035).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan et al. US 3,975,014 in view of Florentino US 2018/0093152. Ryan discloses a bean bag bowling device that provides a user with a fun and unique outdoor game that can be played with family and friends (Fig. 1 & abstract) the bean bag bowling device comprising: a plurality of targets (Fig 1 #12); and a bean bag (Fig. 8 #16); wherein the plurality of targets are set up on a playing field (Fig. 1); wherein players knock down the plurality of targets with the plurality of bean bags to score points (Fig 2); and further wherein the plurality of targets and the plurality of bean bags are easily set up and portable for any outdoor location or social event (Fig 3, abstract).
While Ryan discloses at least one bean bag, Ryan lacks in explicitly disclosing a plurality of bean bags. Florentino disclosing a lawn bowling game where multiple bean bags are used (Florentino Fig. 1 #12). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to include a plurality of bean bags in the invention of Ryan so that multiple players could play the game thereby making it more enjoyable for everyone.
Alternatively, Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trifonov US 6,241,251 B1 in view of Florentino US 2018/0093152 A1. Trifonov discloses a beach game that provides a user with a fun and unique outdoor game that can be played with family and friends (Trifonov abstract), the game device comprising: a plurality of targets (Trifonov Fig. 1, #10); wherein the plurality of targets are set up on a playing field (Trifonov Fig. 10); wherein players knock down the plurality of targets with an assault ring to score points (Trifonov col. 4 lines 47-63, capturing and destroying the soldiers is equivalent to scoring points); and further wherein the plurality of targets and the plurality of rings are easily set up and portable for any outdoor location or social event (Trifonov col. 2 lines 7-10).
Trifonov lacks in disclosing using a plurality of bean bags to knock down the targets. Florentino discloses a lawn bowling game in which bean bags are used to knock down the targets (Florentino Fig. 3 #12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use bean bags to knock down the targets in Trifonov. Bean bags are heavy weighted projectiles that are commonly used in law games and would work equally well as Trifonov’s assault ring to knock down the targets.
Claim(s) 2-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trifonov in view of Florentino as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rivas US 4,593,912.
Regarding claim 2, Trifonov discloses that the targets are a plurality of cylindrical stakes (Trifonov Fig. 1 #10) but lack in disclosing that they are trapezoidal shaped. Rivas discloses a lawn target game that utilizes stakes that are generally trapezoidal shaped (Rivas Fig. 2 #15, col. 2 lines 15-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute the trapezoidal shaped planar stakes described in Rivas in the invention of Trifonov so that the stakes had a pointed end for easy insertion into the sand or ground (Rivas col. 2 lines 4-10). It is further noted that the shape of the stakes is a mere design choice and obvious to one skilled in the art. Rectangular, cylindrical, or trapezoidal stakes all work equally well for the stated purposed of being a target for a game and do not provide a patentable distinction. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, Rivas further teaches wherein each of the plurality of targets has a planar front face and a planar back face, as well as a top end, a bottom end and opposing side ends (Rivas Fig. 2 #15). It would have been obvious to substitute Rivas’ stakes for the stakes in Trifonov as they serve the same function of a target in order to have flat planar stakes that can easily be manufactured.
Regarding claim 4, Rivas further teaches wherein the plurality of targets are multifaced targets, with the front face being a mirror of the back face and multi-positionable such that the plurality of targets can be positioned with the front face forward or the back face forward (Rivas Fig. 2 #15, col. 2 lines 4-15). The front and back of Rivas’ stakes are identical and it would have been obvious to substitute Rivas stakes for the stakes in Trifonov in order to have flat planar stakes that can easily be manufactured.
Regarding claim 5, Trifonov discloses wherein the plurality of targets are of various lengths and shapes and sizes (Trifonov Fig. 10, #12, #14, col. 3 lines 1-33).
Regarding claim 6, Trifonov discloses multiple playing fields so multiple players can play (Trifonov col. 4 lines 12-22) but lacks in disclosing specifically twelve targets with a set of six arranged on either side of the playing field. Florentino discloses wherein the plurality of targets in the lawn bowling game can consist of any number of targets per player (Florentino ¶0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art at the time the invention was filed to include twelve targets with a set of six targets arranged on either side of a playing field in the invention of Trifonov so that different combinations of targets can be used providing a unique game. For multiple players. It is noted that the number of targets used is merely a design choice for the inventio and provides no criticality regarding how the game is played.
Regarding claim 7, Trifonov discloses, wherein the two sets of targets are set up approximately 5-25 feet apart (Trifonov 4 lines 34-36).
Regarding claim 8, Trifonov discloses, wherein the plurality of targets are vertically spaced upright, about a ground surface and supported by being embedded into the ground surface (Trifonov Fig. 10, col. 3 lines 16-25).
Regarding claim 9, Trifonov lacks in disclosing wherein the plurality of targets are supported by a separate stand. Florentino teaches of supporting the targets in his lawn bowling game by a stand using magnets (Florentino ¶0046, Fig. 2, Fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the targets of Trifonov supported by a separate stand so that play of the game is not limited to outdoor soft surfaces. By having the targets displayed on a stand such as in Florentino, game play may occur indoors or on other hard surfaces so as to make the game more versatile in the location it may be played.
Regarding claim 10 Trifonov lacks in disclosing, wherein the two sets of targets are painted different colors or have different stripes of color to signify different teams or players. However, Trifonov does teach that the stakes can be painted different colors in general (Trifonov col. 3 lines 11-15). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have different color stakes for the various player sets so as to further distinguish one player’s targets from another. It is well known to provide different color game pieces when more than one person is playing a game for easy identification of each player’s pieces/targets.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trifonov in view of Florentino in view of Rivas as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Gamertsfelder US 3,480,280.
Regarding claim 11 Trifonov and Rivas lack disclosing bean bags. Florentino as previously mentioned discloses bean bags but lacks in specifically disclosing rubber pellets. Gamertsfelder teaches of a bean bag projectile approximately five inches by five inches square and are approximately 1/3 full with rubber pellets (Gamertsfelder Fig. 1, col. 1 lines 11-20, col. 2 lines 19-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the bean bags of Gamertsfelder in the inventions of both Florentino and Trifonov to knock down the targets. Gamertsfelder’s projectile bags offer best results when 5 x 5 inches and 1/3 filled with rubber pellets (Gamertsfelder col. 1 lines 54-58). The bags are easily catchable by children and light weight to not prevent injury.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trifonov in view of Florentino in view of Rivas in view of Gamertsfelder as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Weston et al. 2023/0285819 A1. Florentino teaches the plurality of bean bags includes two bean bags per team (Florentino ¶0058). However, Florentino and Gamertsfelder are silent on the color of the bean bags. Weston teaches of a beach target game in which bean bags are used and are in different colors for each team (Weston ¶0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have different color bean bags for each team competing. It is well known throughout the art to have each team distinguished by color and to have the game equipment be a specific color for each team in order to readily be able to identify the game pieces of each team.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trifonov in view of Florentino in view of Rivas in view of Gamertsfelder, in view of Weston as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ryan US 3,978,014. Trifonov lacks in disclosing wherein each of the plurality of targets has a through hole preferably positioned toward a middle of each target, through which a piece of cord is threaded through for easy collection and transportation. Ryan teaches in an analogous invention of a lawn bowling apparatus a plurality of targets with a through hole preferably positioned toward a middle of each target, through which a piece of cord is threaded through for easy collection and transportation (Ryan Fig 3, Fig 4, col. 2 lines 67-68, col. 3 lines 1-6, col. 3 lines 27-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a through hole in the stakes of Trifonov with a cord threaded through as shown in Ryan in order so the game pieces are not lost from one another and can be easily collected and transported.
Claim(s) 14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trifonov in view of Florentino in view of Rivas in view of Gamertsfelder, in view of Weston. Regarding claim 14, Trifonov discloses a game provides a user with a fun and unique outdoor game that can be played with family and friends (Trifonov abstract), a plurality of targets that are a plurality of stakes (Trifonov Fig. 1, #10). The plurality of targets are vertically spaced upright, about a ground surface and supported by being embedded into the ground surface (Trifonov Fig. 10, col. 3 lines 16-25). The plurality of targets and throwing devices are easily set up and portable for any outdoor location or social event (Trifonov Fig. 10).
Trifonov discloses that the targets are a plurality of cylindrical stakes (Trifonov Fig. 1 #10) but lack in disclosing that they are trapezoidal shaped. Rivas discloses a lawn target game that utilizes stakes that are generally trapezoidal shaped (Rivas Fig. 2 #15, col. 2 lines 15-23). Rivas further teaches wherein each of the plurality of targets has a planar front face and a planar back face, as well as a top end, a bottom end and opposing side ends (Rivas Fig. 2 #15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute the trapezoidal shaped planar stakes described in Rivas in the invention of Trifonov so that the stakes had a pointed end for easy insertion into the sand or ground (Rivas col. 2 lines 4-10). It is further noted that the shape of the stakes is a mere design choice and obvious to one skilled in the art. Rectangular, cylindrical, or trapezoidal stakes all work equally well for the stated purposed of being a target for a game and do not provide a patentable distinction. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Trifonov lacks in disclosing bean bags. Gamertsfelder teaches of a bean bag projectile approximately five inches by five inches square and are approximately 1/3 full with rubber pellets (Gamertsfelder Fig. 1, col. 1 lines 11-20, col. 2 lines 19-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the bean bags of Gamertsfelder in the inventions Trifonov to knock down the targets. Gamertsfelder’s projectile bags offer best results when 5 x 5 inches and 1/3 filled with rubber pellets (Gamertsfelder col. 1 lines 54-58). The bags are easily catchable by children and light weight to not prevent injury.
Gamertsfelder is silent on the color of the bean bags. Weston teaches of a beach target game in which bean bags are used and are in different colors for each team (Weston ¶0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have different color bean bags for each team competing. It is well known throughout the art to have each team distinguished by color and to have the game equipment be a specific color for each team in order to readily be able to identify the game pieces of each team.
Trifonov discloses multiple playing fields wherein the two sets of targets are set up approximately 5-25 feet apart (Trifonov 4 lines 34-36) so multiple players can play (Trifonov col. 4 lines 12-22) but lacks in disclosing specifically twelve targets with a set of six arranged on either side of the playing field. Florentino discloses wherein the plurality of targets in the lawn bowling game can consist of any number of targets per player (Florentino ¶0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art at the time the invention was filed to include twelve targets with a set of six targets arranged on either side of a playing field in the invention of Trifonov so that different combinations of targets can be used providing a unique game. For multiple players. It is noted that the number of targets used is merely a design choice for the inventio and provides no criticality regarding how the game is played.
Trifonov lacks in disclosing, wherein the two sets of targets are painted different colors or have different stripes of color to signify different teams or players. However, Trifonov does teach that the stakes can be painted different colors in general (Trifonov col. 3 lines 11-15). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have different color stakes for the various player sets so as to further distinguish one player’s targets from another. It is well known to provide different color game pieces when more than one person is playing a game for easy identification of each player’s pieces/targets.
Trifonov discloses players standing back behind the set of targets and each player takes turns tossing assault ring at a time toward the set of targets to knock them down to score points (Trifonov col. 4 lines 47-63, capturing and destroying the soldiers is equivalent to scoring points). Trifonov lacks in disclosing two bean bags per team. Florentino teaches a lawn game where the plurality of bean bags includes two bean bags per team (Florentino ¶0058). After all the plurality of bean bags are tossed, a score is calculated to determine a winner (Florentino ¶0055-¶0059). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed in allow players two chances, i.e. two bean bags to knock down the targets in Trifonov and keep score after the bags have been tossed so that all players know who is winning and who is losing the game after various rounds of play.
Regarding claim 16, Trifonov lacks in disclosing a scorecard for each player or team to track their respective scores during game play. Florentino teaches of a scorecard for each player or team to track their respective scores during game play (Florentino Fig. 2 #14, ¶0040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the scorecard of Florentino into the game of Trifonov so that players could keep track of their score and know who is winning or losing the game as it is played.
Regarding claim 17, Trifonov lacks in disclosing a carrying bag. Weston teaches of a carrying bag that is sized to hold the plurality of targets, the stands, and the plurality of bean bags, and other items and may be a sling backpack style of bag or a drawstring style of bag (Weston Fig. 3 #45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a carrying bag in the invention of Trifonov in order to easily transport the game items to and from a location.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Trifonov lacks in disclosing an instruction card and a plurality of indicia. Weston teaches of an instruction card that sets forth instructions regarding preparation and game play and includes indicia (Weston Fig. 3 #55, Figs 6 & 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include an instruction card with indicia in the game of Trifonov so that all players know how to set up the game and the rules for the game. Furthermore, it is noted that an instruction card and indicia is printed matter and is not given patentable weight when there is no functional relationship to the substrate on which it is printed on. MPEP 2111.05.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trifonov in view of Florentino in view of Rivas in view of Gamertsfelder, in view of Weston as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ryan US 3,978,014. Trifonov lacks in disclosing wherein each of the plurality of targets has a through hole preferably positioned toward a middle of each target, through which a piece of cord is threaded through for easy collection and transportation. Ryan teaches in an analogous invention of a lawn bowling apparatus a plurality of targets with a through hole preferably positioned toward a middle of each target, through which a piece of cord is threaded through for easy collection and transportation (Ryan Fig 3, Fig 4, col. 2 lines 67-68, col. 3 lines 1-6, col. 3 lines 27-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a through hole in the stakes of Trifonov with a cord threaded through as shown in Ryan in order so the game pieces are not lost from one another and can be easily collected and transported.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan et al. US 3,975,014 in view of Florentino US 2018/0093152 in further view of Trifonov US 6,241,251 B1. Ryan discloses a method of tossing a bean bag at a plurality of targets to knock them over to win the game (Fig. 1 & col. 4 lines 11-22). A bean bag bowling device is provided with a plurality of targets (Fig. 1 #12). The targets are inserted on respective sides of the playing field such that they are standing up in a vertical position (Fig. 1). Players take turns throwing a bean bag at the targets to knock them down (col, 4 lines 11-22). A piece of cord is threaded through the center hole of each stake to gather the set of stakes for easy collection and transportation (Fig 3, Fig 4, col. 2 lines 67-68, col. 3 lines 1-6, col. 3 lines 27-47). While Ryan discloses at least one bean bag, Ryan lacks in explicitly disclosing a plurality of bean bags. Florentino disclosing a lawn bowling game where multiple bean bags are used (Florentino Fig. 1 #12). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to include a plurality of bean bags in the invention of Ryan so that multiple players could play the game thereby making it more enjoyable for everyone. Ryan also lacks in disclosing stakes as targets. Trifonov discloses a toss game in which the targets are stakes in which players compete to knock down (Trifonov Fig. 1, abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to utilize stakes in the invention of Ryan. Having stakes be the targets provides increased stability of the targets so they do not fall down until acted upon by the bean bag. It further makes the game more challenging as a stronger force would be needed to knock down the stake targets as well as allowing for the game to be played at different locations such as the beach.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bunnell-Harvey US 2018/0178100 – discloses a bean bag game with a bag to store the game, scorecard and instruction card.
Carr US 4,330,130 – discloses a flying saucer bowling game in which players knock down targets
Fernandez US 9,155,950 – discloses a bean bag toss game using bean bags made of rubber pellets.
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