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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandoren in view of Cheng as set forth in the previous office action. Regarding the newly amended limitation regarding “circular” openings, it has been held that the configuration or shape is a matter of design choice unless there is some unexpected result from the particular shape. In this case, there is no apparent criticality to the “circular” openings as the opening is merely proving a mating surface to the spherical members that are engaging with the openings.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandoren in view of Cheung and Wheeler as set forth in the previous office action.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandoren in view of Allision as set forth in the previous office action. Regarding the newly amended limitation regarding “circular” openings, it has been held that the configuration or shape is a matter of design choice unless there is some unexpected result from the particular shape. In this case, there is no apparent criticality to the “circulr” openings as the opening is merely proving a mating surface to the spherical members that are engaging with the openings.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandoren in view of Allison and Cheng as set forth in the previous office action. Regarding the newly amended limitation regarding “circular” openings, it has been held that the configuration or shape is a matter of design choice unless there is some unexpected result from the particular shape. In this case, there is no apparent criticality to the “circular” openings as the opening is merely proving a mating surface to the spherical members that are engaging with the openings.
Claims 6 and 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to “circular opening” as claimed, the examiner has pointed out that there is no apparent criticality to the shape of the opening. As noted by the applicant, the openings of Vandoren appear to be semi-circular in shape which matches the shape of the hemi-spherical shape of the puzzle pieces. This is equivalent to applicant’s spherical shape which matches the circular opening shape to promote a complementary fit. Furthermore, the secondary reference Cheng was used to teach the puzzle pieces to be of a spherical shape with mate with circular openings.
Regarding applicants argument with respect to blocking groove of Vandoren failing to teach the limitation “movable through the blocking groove, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant. Applicant contends that the obstruction/blocking pieces 21 of Vandoren have a cross-shaped rib 22 that is held in two intersecting grooves. The examiner notes that paragraph 67 provides two embodiments for the blocking pieces 21. One embodiment is directed to have a rib on its contact surface and not a cross-shaped ribbed. Furthermore, even with a cross-shaped rib, the cross-shaped ribs can move upwardly and downwardly through the groove which broadly reads on being movable through the groove.
Regarding applicants argument with respect to claim 14 with the limitation of the dead position, the examiner first notes that limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. The area 6 in Vandoren is identified as an exit and a POSA would understand that blocking an exit in a game board would not make sense as there would not be no point of having an exit if it is blocked. Applicant is reading the specification into the claim as there is no special definition for dead position in applicant’s specification. The examiner relied on BRI interpreting the area 6 to read on a dead position as claimed as this position represents the exit area which is an area in gameboards that can not be blocked.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE LEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6am-4pm.
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.
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.
/EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights