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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application no. 18/737,905 for a MOVABLE PUZZLE PLATFORM, filed on 6/7/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bottom surface" in multiple instances therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-13 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the side" in multiple instances therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 is rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 3.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the side" therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 5.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the bottom surface" therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9-13 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 8.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the bottom surface" therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 11.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the bottom surface" in multiple instances therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 15-20 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 14.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the side" therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the bottom surface" therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 18-19 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palma (U.S. Pat. 4,687,202).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Palma teaches a movable puzzle platform comprising: a board assembly comprising: a puzzle board comprising a puzzle plate configured for playing a plurality of puzzle pieces thereon and a fixing portion (edge portion of puzzle plate located within member 14) extending from the puzzle plate; a supplement arrangement comprising a first main supporting wall stacked on the bottom surface of the fixing portion and a second main supporting wall (on opposite side, not shown) stacked on the bottom surface of the fixing portion and disposed apart from the first main supporting wall; and a base substantially parallel to the puzzle plate and stacked on the first and second main supporting walls; wherein the fixing portion and the first main supporting wall are successively stacked on the base; and wherein the fixing portion and the second main supporting wall are successively stacked on the base.
[AltContent: textbox (Puzzle plate)][AltContent: textbox (1st main supporting wall)]
[AltContent: textbox (Fixing portion)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
195
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Base)][AltContent: textbox (Base)]
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Palma teaches the platform, as recited in claim 1, wherein the puzzle plate is coplanar with the fixing portion.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palma (U.S. Pat. 4,687,202) in view of Vanderhoof (U.S. Pat. 4,591,161).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, as best understood, Palma teaches the platform, as recited in claim 1, but does not teach that the movable puzzle platform further comprises a rotating assembly attached on the board assembly, wherein the rotating assembly is attached on the base. Vanderhoof, however, teaches movable puzzle platform (Fig. 1) comprising a rotating assembly (124) attached on a board assembly (100), wherein the rotating assembly is attached on a base (122) in order to rotate the board assembly for viewing in multiple directions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to construct the movable puzzle platform of Palma further comprising a rotating assembly attached on the board assembly, wherein the rotating assembly is attached on the base in order to provide adjustability to the board assembly in order to allow users to use the platform in multiple orientations, in view of Vanderhoof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3, 4, 7-13 and 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 5651547, 5624118, 4687202, 4154339 (puzzle plates)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 January 30, 2026