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. 18/761,350 for a ROTATING ASSEMBLY AND MOVABLE PUZZLE PLATFORM USING THE SAME filed on 7/2/2024. 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The term “the same” is not descriptive.
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VanTassell et al. (U.S. Pat. 10,419,054).
Regarding claim 17, VanTassell teaches support rotation assembly (see below), configured to be connected to a puzzle board assembly (puzzle board assembly can be located on the mobile device screen) , wherein the support rotation assembly comprises: a kickstand (50), configured to be connected to the puzzle board assembly; a rotating assembly, arranged on the kickstand, wherein, the rotating assembly comprises: a first moving member, a second moving member movably connected to the first moving member, and a plurality of ball bearings are rotatably disposed between the first moving member and the second moving member to enable the first moving member and the second moving member to rotate relative to each other; and a plane on which the rotating assembly rotates intersects with a plane on which the kickstand is folded and unfolded relative to the puzzle board assembly.
[AltContent: textbox ()]
PNG
media_image1.png
296
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (kickstand)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (2nd moving member)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Rotating assembly)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (1st moving member)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Ball bearings)]
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) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crammond (U.S. Pat. 10,576,365) in view of VanTassell et al. (U.S. Pat. 10,419,054).
Regarding claim 8, Crammond teaches a movable puzzle platform (Fig. 25) for placing a plurality of puzzle pieces thereon, wherein, the puzzle platform comprises: a puzzle board assembly; a kickstand, pivotally connected to the puzzle board assembly; wherein, an end of the kickstand is pivotally connected to the puzzle board assembly and the other end of the kickstand is a free end that is configured to be folded or unfolded relative to the puzzle board assembly; but does not teach a rotating assembly, arranged on the kickstand, wherein, the rotating assembly comprises: a first moving member, a second moving member movably connected to the first moving member, and a plurality of ball bearings are rotatably disposed between the first moving member and the second moving member to enable the first moving member and the second moving member to rotate relative to each other; and a plane on which the rotating assembly rotates intersects with a plane on which the kickstand is folded and unfolded relative to the puzzle board assembly. VanTassell, however, teaches an assembly (see figure above) with a kickstand (50) and a rotating assembly, arranged on the kickstand, wherein, the rotating assembly comprises: a first moving member, a second moving member movably connected to the first moving member, and a plurality of ball bearings are rotatably disposed between the first moving member and the second moving member to enable the first moving member and the second moving member to rotate relative to each other; and a plane on which the rotating assembly rotates intersects with a plane on which the kickstand is folded and unfolded relative to the puzzle board assembly. 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 kickstand of Crammond with a rotating assembly, arranged on the kickstand, wherein, the rotating assembly comprises: a first moving member, a second moving member movably connected to the first moving member, and a plurality of ball bearings are rotatably disposed between the first moving member and the second moving member to enable the first moving member and the second moving member to rotate relative to each other; and a plane on which the rotating assembly rotates intersects with a plane on which the kickstand is folded and unfolded relative to the puzzle board assembly in order to provide adjustability to the board assembly in order to allow users to use the platform in multiple orientations, in view of VanTassell.
[AltContent: textbox (Puzzle pieces)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Puzzle board assembly)]
PNG
media_image2.png
370
354
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pivotally connected)]
[AltContent: textbox (kickstand)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Free end)][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 9, Crammond and VanTassell teach the platform of claim 8, wherein VanTassell teaches that an outer diameter of the rotating assembly is less than a length of the kickstand (see Fig. 10).
Claim(s) 10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crammond (U.S. Pat. 10,576,365) in view of VanTassell et al. (U.S. Pat. 10,419,054) in further view of Juenger (U.S. Pub. 2002/0105138).
Regarding claim 10, Crammond and VanTassell teach the platform of claim 8, but do not teach that the puzzle board assembly comprises: a puzzle board; and a support portion that is connected to a bottom surface of the puzzle board and is configured to support the puzzle board. Juenger teaches a puzzle board assembly that comprises: a puzzle board (30); and a support portion (24) that is connected to a bottom surface of the puzzle board and is configured to support the puzzle board in order to provide a puzzle and support as a conventional form of amusement and entertainment. 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 platform of Crammond and VanTassell wherein the puzzle board assembly comprises: a puzzle board; and a support portion that is connected to a bottom surface of the puzzle board and is configured to support the puzzle board in order to provide a stable support for support of the puzzle pieces, in view of Juenger.
Regarding claim 12, Crammond , VanTassell and Juenger teach the platform of claim 10, wherein the combination teaches that the kickstand is pivotally connected to the support portion since the support portion is on a bottom surface of the puzzle board and the kickstand is connected to the puzzle board assembly for providing support.
Regarding claims 13 and 14 Crammond , VanTassell and Juenger teach the platform of claim 10, wherein Juenger teaches that the puzzle board assembly further comprises a base (26) connected to the support portion and the combination teaches that the kickstand is pivotally connected to the base since the base is on a bottom surface of the puzzle board and the kickstand is connected to the puzzle board assembly for providing support.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are allowed.
Claims 11, 15-16 and 18-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 12239915, 11388990, 6997512, 5533857, USPub 2009/0045311 (movable platforms).
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 8, 2026