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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 9 recites “a pair of lower support leg,” which should be “legs.”
Claim 2 line 3 recites “target holes is,” which should be “are”.
Claim 4 line 2 recites “top poles is,” which should be “are.”
Claim 7 line 2 recites “support legs is,” which should be “are.”
Claim 9 line 2 recites “support legs is,” which should be “are.”
Claim 10 lines 1-2 recites “each of the pair of lower support leg” which should be either “each leg of the pair of lower support legs” or “the pair of lower support legs” or similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janeri (US Patent No. 9,550,101 B2) in view of Vavala et al. (US Patent No. 5,833,234).
In Reference to Claims 1 and 8
Janeri teaches (Claim 1) A multi-game system: a target board (item 1, fig’s 1-7); the target board comprising a front surface (front of item 2), a back surface (back of item 2, fig’s 1-7), a top end surface (item 3), a bottom end surface (item 4), and a pair of opposite sidewalls (items 5); the target board further comprising a primary target hole traversing from the front surface to the back surface (item 6); the target board further comprising a plurality of target board legs [connected to and supporting] the bottom end surface of the target board (items 25 / 27 / and 29 and column 6 line 59 – column 7 line 4); and the target board further comprising a pair of lower support leg pivotably attached to the pair of sidewalls of the target board at a middle portion of the sidewalls, allowing a tilt angle of the target board to change as the pair of lower support leg pivots (items 13 and column 6 lines 1-7);
(Claim 8) wherein the target board further comprises a pair of upper support legs pivotably attached to the pair of sidewalls of the target board at a location adjacent to the top end surface of the target board (items 8, fig’s 1-7).
Janeri fails to teach the location of the target legs of claim 1.
Vavala teaches (Claim 1) target legs extending from the bottom end surface of [a] target (items 22 and 24, fig’s 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided target device of Janeri wit the feature of target legs extending from a bottom end surface of the target as taught by the target device of Vavala for the purpose of supporting the device further off of a floor or ground surface as taught by Vavala (column 2 lines 63-67), elevating and protecting the end surface of the target from damage, making the device more durable, more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that rearrangement of parts is not a patentable advance where the operation of the device is not modified. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Since Janeri teaches target legs that serve the function of securing the bottom of the device to the ground, merely claiming a slightly different arrangement or location for these legs that serve the same purpose would not change the operation of the device and is, therefore, not a patentable advance.
In Reference to Claims 7 and 9
The modified device of Janeri teaches all of claims 1 and 8 as discussed above.
Janeri fails to teach the feature of claim 7.
Vavala teaches (Claim 7) wherein [a] pair of lower support legs is telescopic legs (items 40/42 and 50/52, fig’s 1 and 2);
(Claim 9) wherein [a] pair of [] support legs is telescopic legs (items 40/42 and 50/52, fig’s 1 and 2, note both upper and lower legs are already taught in Janeri, Vavala is only being used to teach the feature of legs being telescoping).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the target device of Janeri with the feature of telescoping legs as taught by the target device of Vavala for the purpose of allowing for a wider variety of adjustable positions as taught by Vavala (column 3 lines 45-52), making the device more versatile, and more attractive to the users.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janeri in view of Vavala et al. and further in view of Eanniello et al. (US PGPub. No. 2021/0236897 A1).
In Reference to Claim 2
The modified device of Janeri teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Janeri fails to teach the feature of claim 2.
Eanniello teaches (Claim 2) wherein [a] target board further comprises a plurality of secondary target holes traversing from the front surface to the back surface, and wherein the plurality of secondary target holes is smaller than [a] primary target hole (items 38, 42, 46, and 50, fig. 1, all smaller than item 54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the target device of Janeri with the feature of additional smaller holes as taught by the target device of Eanniello for the purpose of allowing the device to be used to play more complex games as well as provide different amounts of points for different difficulties as taught by Eanniello (paragraph 0048), making the system more versatile, and more interesting and attractive to the users.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janeri in view of Vavala et al. and further in view of Andrews (US Patent No. 4,625,974).
In Reference to Claim 3
The modified device of Janeri teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Janeri fails to teach the features of claim 3.
Andrews teaches (Claim 3) wherein [a] target board further comprises a plurality of top poles extending from [a] top end surface of the target board (items 64, fig. 1);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the target device of Janeri with the feature of top poles as taught by the target device of Andrews for the purpose of allowing a safety net to be attached to the device, making the device safer for use around pets, persons, and objects as taught by Andrews (column 4 lines 41-65), making the device more attractive to the users.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janeri in view of Vavala et al. and further in view of Andrews and further in view of Alvarez (US PGPub. No. 2023/0191218 A1).
In Reference to Claims 4-6
The modified device of Janeri teaches all of claims 1 and 3 as discussed above.
The modified device of Janeri further teaches (Claim 6) wherein the target board further comprises a top net attached between the plurality of top poles (Andrews, item 74, fig. 1 and 2).
The modified device of Janeri fails to teach the features of claims 4 and 5.
Alvarez teaches (Claim 4) wherein [a] plurality of [] poles is telescopic poles (items 104 and 105, fig’s 1, 2, and 4);
(Claim 5) wherein each of the plurality of top poles comprises a[n] end cap (item 115).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the modified target device of Janeri with the feature of telescoping poles and an end cap for the purpose of adding adjustability and more versatile attachment points for a safety net system as taught by the target device of Alvarez (paragraph 0010 and 0053), making the system more versatile, and more interesting and attractive to the users.
Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that making components of a device removable is an obvious matter of engineering design choice. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Simply making the end cap or other components of the device removable, where desirable, would not change the operation of the device, does not produce any new or unexpected results, and is, therefore, an obvious matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable advance.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janeri in view of Vavala et al. and further in view of Schmidt (US PGPub. No. 2018/0256954).
In Reference to Claim 10
The modified device of Janeri teaches all of claims 1, 8, and 9 as discussed above.
Janeri further teaches a pair of upper and lower legs as discussed above.
Janeri fails to teach the feature of a locking mechanism of claim 10.
Schmidt teaches (Claim 10) a locking mechanism to prevent [a] pair of leg from pivoting (item 116, fig’s 1 and 8, paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the target device of Janeri with the feature of locking mechanisms for the legs as taught by the target device of Schmidt for the purpose of allowing the device to be more securely positioned in multiple orientations as taught by Schmidt (paragraph 0037), making the device more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Since Schmidt teaches that it may be desirable to lock the legs of a target device, merely providing locking mechanisms to each set of legs would be an obvious matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable advance.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janeri in view of Vavala et al. and further in view of Andrews (US Patent No. 4,625,974).
In Reference to Claims 11-12
The modified device of Janeri teaches all of claims 1 and 8-10 as discussed above.
Janeri fails to teach the additional center leg of claims 11-12.
Andrews teaches (Claim 11) wherein [a] target board further comprises a center support leg attached to [a] back surface of the target board via a hinge (item 27, fig’s 1 and 2, and column 3 lines 25-26);
(Claim 12) wherein the center support leg is a telescopic leg (item 27, column 3 line 15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the target device of Janeri with the feature of an additional center leg as taught by the target device of Andrews for the purpose of allowing the device to be more conveniently and stably set up on uneven ground as taught by Andrews (column 3 lines 62-68), making the device more versatile, more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janeri in view of Vavala et al. and further in view of Lee (US Patent No. 9,533,210 B2).
In Reference to Claim 13
The modified device of Janeri teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Janeri fails to teach the feature of claim 13.
Lee teaches (Claim 13) wherein [a] target board further comprises a hoop removably attached to [a] front surface of the target board (fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the target device of Janeri with the feature of a hoop as taught by the target device of Lee for the purpose of allowing the device to be used to play or practice additional games / sports as taught by Lee (summary), making the device more versatile, and more interesting and attractive to the users.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janeri in view of Vavala et al. and further in view of Schmidt (US PGPub. No. 2018/0256954 A1).
In Reference to Claims 14-16
The modified device of Janeri teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Janeri fails to teach the additional board of claims 14-20.
Schmidt teaches (Claim 14) further comprising: a base board; the base board comprising a top surface, a bottom surface, an upper end surface, and a pair of opposite sidewalls (item 14, fig’s 1-17); a plurality of base legs extending from the bottom surface of the base board, adjacent to the upper end surface of the base board, such that the top surface is oriented at an angle with respect to a ground surface (items 128, fig’s 13-16);
(Claim 15) wherein the base board further comprises a ramp board having a top surface, front end surface, and a pair of opposite sidewalls (item 18, fig’s 1 and 13-16), and wherein the top surface of the base board further comprises a cutout portion that has a shape complementary to the ramp board such that the top surface of the base board and the top surface of the ramp board form a planar surface when the ramp board is received within the cutout portion (opening in item 14 where item 18 sits flush in the orientation of fig’s 13-16);
(Claim 16) wherein the ramp board is tiltable relative to the base board such that the top surface of the ramp board is oriented at an angle with respect to the top surface of the base board (fig’s 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the modular game system of Janeri with the feature of an additional board with a modular ramp surface as taught by the modular game system of Schmidt for the purpose of adding further modular game elements to the system, allowing a wider variety of games to be played with the system, making the system more versatile and more interesting and attractive to the users.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janeri in view of Vavala et al. and further in view of Schmidt, and further in view of Rowan (US PGPub. No. 2025/0134001 A1).
In Reference to Claims 17-20
The modified device of Janeri teaches all of claims 1 and 14-16 as discussed above.
The modified device of Janeri further teaches (Claim 17) wherein the base board further comprises an angle adjustment mechanism, the angle adjustment mechanism comprising a first adjustment pin on a sidewall of the ramp board, a second adjustment pin on a sidewall of the base board (Schmidt, paragraph 0031, pins through items 48, 50, 62, 64), [].
(Claim 19) wherein the base board further comprises a [] locking mechanism, the [] locking mechanism comprising a first locking pin on [an] end [] of the [] board, a second locking pin on [a,] end [] of the [] board, and a locking bar having two locking holes to receive the first locking pin and the second locking pin respectively (item 116, fig’s 1 and 8, and respective holes for locking).
The modified device of Janeri fails to teach the adjustment holes, and threaded pins with wingnuts of claims 17-20.
Rowan teaches (Claim 17) and an [] adjustment bar having a plurality of adjustment holes to receive [an] adjustment pin (item 30, fig. 2, paragraph 0054);
(Claim 18) wherein [an] adjustment pin [is] threaded, and [the] adjustment pin is provided with a wingnut to hold [a] adjustment mechanism in position (items 84 / 86, fig. 7, paragraphs 0061 and 0062);
(Claim 20) [a] locking pin [is] threaded, [a] locking pin is provided with a wingnut[] (items 84 / 86, fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the modified modular multi-game system of Janeri with the feature of additional adjustment holes with threaded pins and lock nuts as taught by the modular multi-game system of Rowan for the purpose of allowing the angles and heights of the device to be adjusted in a wider range of angles and heights reliably, making the system more versatile, and more attractive to the users.
Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Since Schmidt teaches that it may be desirable to lock the various components of a target device in a variety of orientations and angles, merely providing additional locking mechanisms or locking holes at a variety of positions in order to provide additional locking heights and angles would be an obvious matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable advance.
Further still, the examiner notes that it has been held that rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of engineering design choice where the operation of the device is not modified. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Merely locating additional adjustment holes, pins, or other adjustment mechanisms at locations on the device that are already disclosed to be adjustable would not modify the operation of the device, but would simply provide a further range of the functionality already disclosed, therefore, this minor rearrangement of parts is not a patentable advance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references disclose inventions similar to applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH B BALDORI whose telephone number is (571)270-7424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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.
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711