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 § 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 2 and 4 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.
Specifically claim 2 depends upon claim 2 as currently written. This is clearly a typographical mistake as a claim may not depend upon itself. For the purposes of examination claim 2 will instead be seen to depend upon claim 1.
Claim 4 depends upon claim 2, and as such inherits this rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (US 4136871) in view of Sulger (US 20200047943).
With respect to claim 1, Meyers discloses, a top game board (fig. 1) comprising:
a floor plate (playing surface 28 in fig. 1) on which a field is formed in which a rotationally energized top runs around (36 in fig. 1; details a game piece such as a ball; the use of a ball or a rotationally energized top is seen as a matter of intended use of the game board. Applicant has expressly claimed a game board in the preamble, and not actively claimed the inclusion of a rotationally energized top. Rather this claim limitation merely requires a floor plate. Certainly the claim offers as one use the placement of a rotationally energized top on the floor plate, but this is not explicitly required); and
a fence erected with respect to the floor plate to prevent the top from jumping out from the floor plate (sidewalls, 30 in fig. 1, prevent the game piece from leaving the floor plate),
wherein the floor plate includes a plurality of floor plate portions that can be linked and unlinked (the floor plates in figs. 1-3 are not individually labeled, but are mapped to the left and right portions of the playing surface 28, shown in linked, fig. 1, and unlinked, fig. 3, states),
the plurality of floor plate portions are linked to configure the floor plate (linked state of the floor plate portions is shown in fig. 1), and are configured so that the floor plate portions can be overlapped on each other in the thickness direction by unlinking (unlinked state of the floor plate portions overlapped in the thickness direction shown in fig. 3).
Meyers does not expressly disclose that the fence portions cane be linked and unlinked.
Sulger discloses, a top game board comprising:
a floor plate on which a field is formed (2 in fig. 2; bottom part plate); and
a fence erected with respect to the floor plate (plates 3, 4, 5, 6 in fig. 2) to prevent the top from jumping out from the floor plate,
wherein the fence includes a plurality of fence portions that can be linked and unlinked (figs. 3 and 5; detail how the fence portions 5 and 6 can be linked and unlinked to fence portions 3 and 4, respectively), the plurality of fence portions configure the fence by being linked (upon being linked as shown in fig. 2 the fence portions configure the fence), and are configured to be able to be overlapped in a face-down state on the overlapping floor plate portions by unlinking (figs. 4 and 5 detail the transition from a linked to an unlinked state, and specifically in fig. 5 the overlapping of the fence portions).
Sulger and Meyers are analogous art because they address similar problems, namely compact and portable containers.
At the time of filing the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of foldable fence portions, as taught by Sulger, in the game board of Meyers. Such a combination would have had the predictable result of Meyers’ sidewalls unlinking as taught by Sulger, and had an advantage of a more compact and portable design.
With respect to claim 2, Meyers in view of Sulger disclose, the top game board according to claim 2 (see above; as discussed in the 112 rejection, for the purposes of rejection claim 2 will be seen to be dependent upon claim 1), wherein the plurality of floor plate portions are overlapped by folding by unlinking (Meyers; fig. 2 and fig. 3 detail the overlapping of the two playfield, 24, portions).
With respect to claim 3, Meyers in view of Sulger disclose, the top game board according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the floor plate is configured by two floor plate portions (the floor plates in figs. 1-3 are not individually labeled, but are mapped to the left and right portions of the playing surface 28, shown in linked, fig. 1, and unlinked, fig. 3, states), and by unlinking, the two flow plate portions are folded in half in a direction in which the back surfaces approach each other to be overlapped (Meyers; fig. 2 and fig. 3 detail the overlapping of the two playfield, 24, portions).
With respect to claim 4, Meyers in view of Sulger disclose, the top game board according to claim 2 (see above), wherein the plurality of fence portions configure one or more set (Sulger discloses two sets in figs. 3 and 5, specifically the fence portions 5 and 6 can be linked and unlinked to fence portions 3 and 4, respectively, each pair forming a ‘set’), and the fence portions configuring each set are overlapped by folding (Sulger; figs. 4 and 5 detail the transition from a linked to an unlinked state, and specifically in fig. 5 the overlapping of the fence portions).
With respect to claim 5, Meyers in view of Sulger disclose, the top game board according to claim 3 (see above), wherein
the plurality of fence portions configure a set corresponding to each of the two floor plate portions (Sulger discloses two fence portion sets, as discussed above in claim 4, which in combination with Meyers would correspond to the two floor plate portions discussed in above in claim 1), and
the fence portions configuring each set are each configured to be foldable, and each of the folded fence portions is further configured to be foldable onto the corresponding floor plate portion (Sulger; figs. 4 and 5 detail the transition from a linked to an unlinked state, and specifically in fig. 5 the overlapping of the fence portions; Sulger’s base 2 is seen as equivalent to Meyers’ floor plate).
With respect to claim 6, Meyers in view of Sulger disclose, the top game board according to claim 5 (see above), wherein
the fence is rectangular in plan view when in an erect state (Meyers; sidewalls 30 in fig. 1 form a rectangular shape when viewed from above, i.e. plan view; Sulger also discloses rectangular fence),
the fence portions configuring each set comprise a pair of first fence portions that are parallel to the fold of the floor plate and face each other (Sulger discloses in fig. 1 wherein the fence portion pairs, 3 and 4 in fig. 2 that are parallel to the combined floor fold of Meyers), and a pair of second fence portions that are orthogonal to the fold and face each other (Sulger discloses in fig. 1 wherein the fence portion pairs, 5 and 6 in fig. 2 that are orthogonal to the combined floor fold of Meyers), and
in each set, the second fence is connected to be foldable with respect to the first fence portion (Sulger; 5 and 6 are foldable with respect to 3 and 4, shown in fig. 1).
With respect to claim 7, Meyers in view of Sulger disclose, the top game board according to claim 6 (see above), wherein the second fence portion is configured so that a free end thereof can connect to the first fence portion of another set (Sulger; second fence portions, 5 and 6, have a free end, unlabeled, but is the elongated end away from hinge 13, that connects with 16 from the other set; fig. 3).
With respect to claim 8, Meyers in view of Sulger disclose, the top game board according to claim 7 (see above), wherein the first fence portions are configured to be connectable to each other in a state in which the two floor plate portions are folded (the current limitation merely requires that the first fence portions be “configured to be connectable to each other”; as currently interpreted this limitation is given little patentable weight as it merely requires that the fence portions be capable of being connected in any manner. Meyers contemplates the sidewalls being connected to each other via the floor portions and the interconnectedness of the entire game board; similarly Sulger disclose that the fence portions are connected to each other via the base member), and the first fence portions are folded onto the floor plate portion (Sulger; fig. 4 shows fence portions folded onto the floor plate).
With respect to claim 9, Meyers in view of Sulger disclose, the top game board according to claim 8 (see above), wherein
the first fence portion has a bent part formed at each end in the longitudinal direction, being bent in a direction orthogonal to the fold (Sulger; 16 in fig. 1), and
when the first fence portion is folded with respect to the floor plate portion (Sulger; fig. 4), the bent part of one of the first fence portions and the bent part of the other of the first fence portions are in contact with each other (Sulger; bent portions 16 in fig. 1; will be in contact with each other in the folded position of fig. 4 via the base floor portion; should applicant wish that the fence portions directly contact each other such a limitation should be explicitly claimed.).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (US 4136871) in view of Sulger (US 20200047943) and further in view of Heape (US 2919920).
With respect to claim 10, Meyers in view of Sulger disclose, the top game board according to claim 5 (see above), wherein
the two floor plate portions are connected to be foldable using a hinge provided on the bottom surface (Meyers; hinge 14 in fig. 1),
on the hinge, a first grounding part that is grounded when the top game board is installed is formed (Meyers; 16 and 14 in fig. 1).
Neither Meyers or Sulger expressly disclose a second grounding part on a fence portion.
Heape discloses, on the first fence portion (4 or 5 in fig. 1-2), a second grounding part that is grounded when the top game board is installed is formed (as shown in fig. 2, sidewalls 4 and 5 extend below the floor 1, and support the game board off the ground).
Heape, Meyers and Sulger are analogous art because they are address the same problem namely compact and portable containers.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the fence portions of the Meyers/Sulger combination such that the include a second grounding part as taught by Heape. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more level playing surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bowser (US 20260034433) discloses a board game with removable fencing
Bainbridge (US 20250375697) discloses a collapsable board game
Xu (US 20220193533) discloses a foldable board game
Bellehumeur (US 20100102056) discloses in fig. 16 a collapsable container
Wang (US 20100032903) discloses a foldable board game
Holden (US 7568702) discloses a foldable board game with folding piece holsters
Coleman (US D556834) discloses a foldable game with sidewalls
Ng (US 6485017) discloses reconfigurable toy top maze board
Woods (US 1552530) discloses a toy top board with fences
Haigh (US 0505826) discloses a rectangular toy top board with fences
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William L Boddie whose telephone number is (571)272-0666. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4:15 M-F.
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, Alex Beck can be reached at 571-272-3750. 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.
/WILLIAM BODDIE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights