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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The subject matter of a claim must be directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If it is not, the claim is not eligible for patent protection. The subject matter which courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention is limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (i.e., the judicial exceptions) (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) (citing Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. _, 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979 (2013))). There are two criteria for determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 and both must be satisfied. The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception. The recitation in claim 12 of “standing, by at least one first player, in one of the first and second play zones, and standing, by at least one second player, in another of the first and second play zones; and rallying, by the at least one first player and the at least one second player, the ball back and forth over the at least one crossbar for a predetermined number of rallies, wherein a rally includes: simultaneously jumping and tossing, by one of the at least one first player and the at least one second player, the ball over the at least one crossbar, such that the tossing of the ball is completed whilst said one of the at least one first player and the at least one second player is airborne; simultaneously jumping, catching and return tossing, by another one of the at least one first player and the at least one second player, the ball tossed over the at least one crossbar by said one of the at least one first player and the at least one second player, such that the catching and return tossing of the ball is completed whilst said another one of the at least one first player and the at least one second player is airborne; and wherein one rally is completed once the ball is grounded” and the limitations of depend claims 13-17 are directed to rules governing a game/activity. Methods of managing a game/activity are abstract ideas (See: Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 Fed. Appx. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and a set of rules for a game are drawn to abstract ideas (See: In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Based on the subject matter eligibility test for products and processes, claims 12-17 are not eligible for patent protection because:
(Step 1) claims 12-17 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
(Step 2A) claims 12-17 are directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (a judicially recognized exception) based on the recited limitations of claims 12-17. The recited limitations fall within the subject matter grouping of abstract ideas and are directed to methods of organizing human activity (following instructions/rules governing an activity/game). If a claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea), the claim is evaluated as to whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Integration into a practical application is evaluated by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: a playing court including a court boundary and first and second play zones; a bar assembly positioned at the central line of the playing court, the bar assembly including a pair of parallel vertical bars arranged at opposite sides of the central line and extending vertically upwardly from the playing court, two crossbars arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars at a predetermined height and substantially parallel to the central line of the playing court; and a ball. The recited judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
(Step 2B) claims 12-17 do not recite provide an inventive concept because the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See: Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965-66 (2012)). The examiner takes official notice that the additional elements (a bar assembly positioned at the central line of the playing court, the bar assembly including a pair of parallel vertical bars arranged at opposite sides of the central line and extending vertically upwardly from the playing court, crossbars arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars at a predetermined height and substantially parallel to the central line of the playing court; and a ball) are well-understood, routine, and conventional and are widely prevalent and in common use in the relevant field (See for example: Galvin (4971335), Lynch (20020084588), Fuchs (20070035093), Keller (4022471), Deal (20070257438), Garner (42523762), Nickles (20110037226)), comparable to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Therefore, claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-4, 8-11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvin (4971335) in view of Fuchs (20070035093).
Regarding claim 1, Galvin (Figures 1-2) teaches a ball tossing game apparatus (Col. 2, Lines 67-68; Col. 3, Lines 1-10) comprising: a playing court (Col. 1, Lines 34-42) including a court boundary defined by a pair of longitudinal side lines (See fig. 2) and a pair of lateral end lines (See fig. 2) (Col. 3, Lines 28-39), and first and second play zones defined by a lateral central line (Fig. 2, Part No. 31), splitting the playing court into two equal halves (See fig. 2); a bar assembly positioned at the central line of the playing court, the bar assembly including a pair of parallel vertical bars (11) arranged at opposite sides of the central line and extending vertically upwardly from the playing court (See fig. 2), and at least one line/cord (12) arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars at a predetermined height and substantially parallel to the central line of the playing court (See fig. 2); and a ball (14) configured to be thrown over the at least line/cord by a player (Col. 3, Lines 56-59; Col. 4, Lines 1-2).
Galvin does not teach at least one crossbar.
Fuchs (Figures 1-10) teaches at least one crossbar (Fig. 1, Part No. 22a) (Para. 0021) arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars (24a, 24b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Galvin with at least one crossbar as taught by Fuchs as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a ball tossing game target comprising a line/cord) for another (a ball tossing game target comprising a crossbar) to obtain predictable results (a ball tossing game in which a player throws a ball at a target between vertical posts) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Galvin (Figures 1-2) teaches the pair of vertical bars (11) each include a base (Col. 3, Lines 3-8) attached at a bottom thereof for supporting the bar assembly on the playing court.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Galvin (Figures 1-2) teaches the bar assembly includes at least one line or cord (12) arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars (11).
The modified Galvin does not teach the bar assembly includes one crossbar arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars.
Fuchs (Figures 1-10) teaches the bar assembly includes one crossbar (Fig. 1, Part No. 22b) (Para. 0021) arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars (24a, 24b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Galvin with the bar assembly includes one crossbar as taught by Fuchs as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a ball tossing game target comprising a line/cord) for another (a ball tossing game target comprising a crossbar) to obtain predictable results (a ball tossing game in which a player throws a ball at a target between vertical posts) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Galvin (Figures 1-2) teaches the bar assembly includes at least one line or cord (12) arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars (11).
The modified Galvin does not teach the bar assembly includes a pair of crossbars arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars, the pair of crossbars separated by a predetermined distance and defining a space therebetween, and wherein the ball is configured to be thrown through the space between the pair of crossbars.
Fuchs (Figures 1-10) teaches the bar assembly includes a pair of crossbars (Fig. 1, Part No. 22) (Para. 0021) arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars, the pair of crossbars separated by a predetermined distance and defining a space therebetween, and wherein the ball (50b) (Para. 0021) is configured to be thrown through the space between the pair of crossbars.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Galvin with the bar assembly includes a pair of crossbars as taught by Fuchs as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a ball tossing game target comprising a line/cord) for another (a ball tossing game target comprising a pair of crossbars) to obtain predictable results (a ball tossing game in which a player throws a ball at a target between vertical posts) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Galvin (Figures 1-2) teaches the first and second play zones are each separated into a free zone and a closed zone by first (Fig. 2, Part No. 19) and second (19) lateral zoning lines, respectively.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Galvin (Figures 1-2) teaches the first and second zoning lines (19) are parallel with the central line (31).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Galvin (Figures 1-2) teaches the free zone is a larger area than the closed zone (See fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Galvin (Figures 1-2) teaches the closed zone of each of the first and second play zones spans from the central line (Fig. 2, Part No. 31) to a respective zoning line (19) of the first and second lateral zoning lines, and wherein the free zone of each of the first and second play zones spans from the respective zoning line (19) to one of the pair of lateral end lines (21).
Regarding claim 18, Galvin (Figures 1-2) teaches a ball tossing game apparatus comprising: a playing court (Col. 1, Lines 34-42) including a court boundary defined by a pair of longitudinal side lines (See fig. 2) and a pair of lateral end lines (See fig. 2), and first and second play zones defined by a lateral central line (Fig. 2, Part No. 31), splitting the playing court into two equal halves (See fig. 2), the first and second play zones each separated into a free zone and a closed zone by first (Fig. 2, Part No. 19) and second (19) lateral zoning lines, respectively, the first and second lateral zoning lines parallel with the central line (31), the closed zone of each of the first and second play zones spanning from the central line (31) to a respective zoning line (19) of the first and second lateral zoning lines (See fig. 2), and the free zone each of the first and second play zones spanning from the respective zoning line (19) to one of the pair of lateral end lines (21) (See fig. 2); a bar assembly positioned at the central line (31) of the playing court, the bar assembly including a pair of parallel vertical bars (11) arranged at opposite sides of the central line (31) and extending vertically upwardly from the playing court, and a line/cord (12) arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars at a predetermined height and substantially parallel to the central line (31) of the playing court; and a ball (14) configured to be thrown by a player (Col. 3, Lines 56-59; Col. 4, Lines 1-2).
Galvin does not teach a pair of crossbars arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars; the pair of crossbars separated by a predetermined distance and defining a space therebetween; and a ball configured to be thrown through the space between the pair of crossbars by a player.
Fuchs (Figures 1-10) teaches a pair of crossbars (Fig. 1, Part No. 22) (Para. 0021) arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars (24a, 24b); the pair of crossbars separated by a predetermined distance and defining a space therebetween; and a ball (50b) (Para. 0021) configured to be thrown through the space between the pair of crossbars by a player (Para. 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Galvin with a pair of crossbars arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars as taught by Fuchs as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a ball tossing game target comprising a line/cord) for another (a ball tossing game target comprising crossbars) to obtain predictable results (a ball tossing game in which a player throws a ball at a target between vertical posts) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Regarding claim 19, the modified teaches a ball (14) configured to be thrown by a player, the ball inherently having a size.
The modified Galvin does not teach the ball is a size 5 ball.
It is noted that the prior art of Galvin teaches a ball that inherently has a size. Changing the size of the ball of Galvin would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of (See: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), where the court held that limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art).
Regarding claim 20, the modified teaches a ball (14) configured to be thrown by a player, the ball inherently having a size.
The modified Galvin does not teach the ball is a size 3 ball.
It is noted that the prior art of Galvin teaches a ball that inherently has a size. Changing the size of the ball of Galvin would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of (See: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), where the court held that limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvin in view of Fuchs, further in view of Nickles (20110037226).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Galvin (Figures 1-2) teaches a ball (14) configured to be thrown by a player (Col. 3, Lines 56-59; Col. 4, Lines 1-2).
The modified Galvin does not teach the ball is made from rubber.
Nickles teaches the ball (Fig. 3, Part No. 60) is made from rubber (Para. 0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Galvin with the ball is made from rubber as taught by Nickles as a means of providing a ball tossing game with a ball that is made from a material that has sufficient durability to be used in play (Nickles: Para. 0021), and also as a means of selection of a known material (rubber) based on its suitability for its intended use (a ball used in a ball toss game) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Galvin (Figures 1-2) teaches a ball (14) configured to be thrown by a player (Col. 3, Lines 56-59; Col. 4, Lines 1-2), the ball inherently having a size.
The modified Galvin does not teach the ball is a size 5 ball.
It is noted that the prior art of Galvin teaches a ball that inherently has a size. Changing the size of the ball of Galvin would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of (See: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), where the court held that limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Galvin (Figures 1-2) teaches a ball (14) configured to be thrown by a player (Col. 3, Lines 56-59; Col. 4, Lines 1-2), the ball inherently having a size.
The modified Galvin does not teach the ball is a size 3 ball.
It is noted that the prior art of Galvin teaches a ball that inherently has a size. Changing the size of the ball of Galvin would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of (See: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), where the court held that limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art).
Claim 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvin in view of Fuchs and Remaklus (20070015613).
Regarding claim 12, Galvin (Figures 1-2) teaches a method of playing a ball tossing game, the method comprising the steps of: providing a ball tossing game apparatus, the ball tossing game apparatus including: a playing court (Col. 1, Lines 34-42) including a court boundary defined by a pair of longitudinal side lines (See fig. 2) and a pair of lateral end lines (see fig. 2), and first and second play zones defined by a lateral central line (Fig. 2, Part No. 31), splitting the playing court into two equal halves; a bar assembly positioned at the central line of the playing court, the bar assembly including a pair of parallel vertical bars (11) arranged at opposite sides of the central line (31) and extending vertically upwardly from the playing court, at least one line/cord (12) arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars at a predetermined height and substantially parallel to the central line (31) of the playing court; and a ball (14); standing, by at least one first player, in one of the first and second play zones (See fig. 2), and standing, by at least one second player, in another of the first and second play zones (Col. 3, Lines 56-59; Col. 4, Lines 1-7) (see fig. 2); and rallying, by the at least one first player and the at least one second player, the ball back and forth at the at least one line/cord for a predetermined number of rallies; and wherein one rally is completed once the ball is grounded (Col. 2, Lines 19-26).
Galvin does not teach at least one crossbar; rallying the ball back and forth over the at least one crossbar; a rally includes: simultaneously jumping and tossing, by one of the at least one first player and the at least one second player, the ball over the at least one crossbar, such that the tossing of the ball is completed whilst said one of the at least one first player and the at least one second player is airborne; simultaneously jumping, catching and return tossing, by another one of the at least one first player and the at least one second player, the ball tossed over the at least one crossbar by said one of the at least one first player and the at least one second player, such that the catching and return tossing of the ball is completed whilst said another one of the at least one first player and the at least one second player is airborne.
Fuchs (Figures 1-10) teaches at least one crossbar (Fig. 1, Part No. 22a) (Para. 0021) arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars (24a, 24b); and rallying the ball back and forth over the at least one crossbar (22a) (Para. 0021, 0030).
Remaklus (Figures 1-21) teaches a rally includes: simultaneously jumping and tossing, by one of the at least one first player and the at least one second player, the ball over a cross member (12), such that the tossing of the ball is completed whilst said one of the at least one first player and the at least one second player is airborne (Para. 0073); simultaneously jumping, catching and return tossing, by another one of the at least one first player and the at least one second player, the ball tossed over a cross member (12) by said one of the at least one first player and the at least one second player, such that the catching and return tossing of the ball is completed whilst said another one of the at least one first player and the at least one second player is airborne (Para. 0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Galvin with at least one crossbar as taught by Fuchs as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a ball tossing game target comprising a line/cord) for another (a ball tossing game target comprising a crossbar) to obtain predictable results (a ball tossing game in which a player throws a ball at a target between vertical posts) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)), and to provide Galvin with a rally includes simultaneously jumping and tossing the ball over a cross member as taught by Remaklus as a means of providing a ball tossing game with defending a spiked ball by jumping in an attempt to block the spiked ball (Remaklus: Para. 0073).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Galvin (Figures 1-2) teaches rallying the ball back and forth at the at least one line/cord for a predetermined number of rallies.
The modified Galvin does not teach a point is awarded against a player not airborne during the tossing, catching and return tossing steps.
Remaklus (Figures 1-21) teaches a point is awarded against a player not airborne during the tossing, catching and return tossing steps (Para. 0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Galvin with a point is awarded against a player not airborne during the tossing, catching and return tossing steps as taught by Remaklus as a means of providing a ball tossing game with defending a spiked ball by jumping in an attempt to block the spiked ball (Remaklus: Para. 0073).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Galvin (Figures 1-2) teaches the bar assembly includes one line/cord arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars (11).
The modified Galvin does not teach the bar assembly includes one crossbar arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars, and wherein the tossing and the return tossing steps include tossing and return tossing the ball over the one crossbar.
Fuchs (Figures 1-10) teaches the bar assembly includes one crossbar (Fig. 1, Part No. 22b) (Para. 0021) arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars (24a, 24b).
Remaklus (Figures 1-21) teaches the tossing and the return tossing steps include tossing and return tossing the ball over the one cross member (12) (Para. 0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Galvin with the bar assembly includes one crossbar as taught by Fuchs as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a ball tossing game target comprising a line/cord) for another (a ball tossing game target comprising a crossbar) to obtain predictable results (a ball tossing game in which a player throws a ball at a target between vertical posts) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)), and to provide the modified Galvin with the tossing and the return tossing steps include tossing and return tossing the ball over the one cross member as taught by Remaklus as a means of providing a ball tossing game with defending a spiked ball by jumping in an attempt to block the spiked ball (Remaklus: Para. 0073).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Galvin (Figures 1-2) teaches the bar assembly includes one line/cord arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars (11).
The modified Galvin does not teach the bar assembly includes two crossbars arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars, the two crossbars separated by a predetermined distance and defining a space therebetween, and wherein the tossing and the return tossing steps include tossing and return tossing the ball through the space between the two crossbars.
Fuchs (Figures 1-10) teaches the bar assembly includes two crossbars (Fig. 1, Part No. 22) (Para. 0021) arranged horizontally between the pair of parallel vertical bars (24a, 24b), the two crossbars separated by a predetermined distance and defining a space therebetween (See Fig. 1), and wherein the tossing and the return tossing steps include tossing and return tossing the ball (50b) (Para. 0021) through the space between the two crossbars (Para. 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Galvin with the bar assembly includes two crossbars as taught by Fuchs as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a ball tossing game target comprising a line/cord) for another (a ball tossing game target comprising a crossbar) to obtain predictable results (a ball tossing game in which a player throws a ball at a target between vertical posts) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Galvin (Figures 1-2) teaches the first and second play zones are each separated into a free zone and a closed zone by first and second lateral zoning lines (Fig. 2, Part No. 19), respectively.
The modified Galvin does not teach when the ball lands in the closed zone, no point is awarded, and wherein when the ball lands in the free zone, a point is awarded against a player associated therewith.
Remaklus (Figures 1-21) teaches when the ball lands in the closed zone, no point is awarded, and wherein when the ball lands in the free zone, a point is awarded against a player associated therewith (Para. 0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Galvin with when the ball lands in the closed zone, no point is awarded, and wherein when the ball lands in the free zone, a point is awarded against a player associated therewith as taught by Remaklus as a means of playing a ball tossing game according to rules of volleyball (Remaklus: Para. 0073)..
Regarding claim 17, the modified Galvin (Figures 1-2) teaches a playing court (Col. 1, Lines 34-42) including a court boundary.
The modified Galvin does not teach when the ball lands outside of the court boundary, one point is awarded against a player who caused the ball to land outside of the court boundary.
Remaklus (Figures 1-21) teaches when the ball lands outside of the court boundary, one point is awarded against a player who caused the ball to land outside of the court boundary (Para. 0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Galvin with when the ball lands outside of the court boundary, one point is awarded against a player who caused the ball to land outside of the court boundary as taught by Remaklus as a means of playing a ball tossing game according to rules of volleyball (Remaklus: Para. 0073).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 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, 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.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
