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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed August 14, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. In this instance, a copy of the WO 2022/124533 Yogi Corporation reference was not provided. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on January 18, 2025 are acceptable subject to correction of the informalities indicated below. In order to avoid abandonment of this application, correction is required in reply to the Office action. The correction will not be held in abeyance.
First of all, per 37 CFR 1.84(t), drawing sheets should be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, and placed in the middle of the top of each sheet. Additionally, the numbering of each sheet should be shown by two Arabic numerals separated by an oblique line. For example, since there are six pages of drawings, the first page should read 1/6 at the top of the page, the second page should read 2/6 at the top of the page, and so on, where the font size of the numbers is clearly bigger than the reference numerals used in the drawings.
Second, per 37 CFR 1.84(l), every line, number, and letter must be, inter alia, sufficiently dense and dark to permit satisfactory reproduction. Some of the measurements found in Figure 11 are very difficult to make out and the R28.2 figure in Figure 9 is also difficult to make out.
Third, per 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3), numbers or letters should not cross or mingle with one another so as to not interfere with the comprehension of a drawing. In Figure 10, the “R20.22” measurement and the “H2” (?) measurement below the aforementioned measurement is difficult or impossible to see and the same may be the case with the measurement in Figure 11 found at the same approximate location as the “H2” (?) measurement in Figure 10. Furthermore, the numeral “3” with two arrows pointing to it in Figure 10 also requires amendment, as the number crosses two lines.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10, 13 and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claims 2 and 8, the language “targets slot” should instead read “target slots,”
In regards to claim 13, “width said aperture” should instead read “width of said aperture”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 to 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.
In regards to claims 3-4, 9-10, and 16-17, the claims recite “said wings”, whereas claims 2, 8 and 15, in which, respectively, claims 3-4, 9-10, and 16-17 depend, recite “at least one wing”. As “at least one wing” encompasses a single wing whereas “wings” do not, the foregoing claims as recited are indefinite.
In regards to claims 5, 11, and 18, the claims recite “…. when a beanbag is received in said aperture” when a beanbag was already recited in the independent claims. One cannot tell if Applicant means the at least one beanbag recited in the independent claims in which the foregoing dependent claims depend upon or whether Applicant means something other than the at least one beanbag recited in the independent claims. Claims 6, 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on its dependency to claims 5, 11 and 18 respectively.
In regards to claims 7, 13, and 14, both claim 7 and claim 13 recite “at least one beanbag” and then subsequently recite “said beanbag”. Additionally, claim 14, which depends on claim 13, also recites “said beanbag”. As “at least one beanbag” encompasses more than one beanbag whereas “said beanbag” does not, this results in indefinite claim scope. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on its dependency to claims 7 and 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haner (US Pat. No. 8403723).
Regarding claim 1, Haner teaches a game board having at least two opposing bars defining an aperture between them (FIG. 39, col. 28, lines 28-52, col. 24, lines 21-32) and at least one beanbag adapted to be captured in said aperture (FIG. 39, col. 28, lines 12-20, 45-52).
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.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haner (US Pat. No. 8403723) in view of Lockwood (US Pat. No. 2710753).
In regards to claim 2, Haner teaches a bar tip (FIGs. 30A-30C, 39 (anchor hub 226)), wherein target slots are defined between adjacent bar tips (FIG. 39 (target area 336), col. 28, lines 39-43, col. 29, lines 9-24). Additionally, in regards to claim 5, Haner teaches each bar further comprising a bar vertical support extending downwardly from said bar tip (FIGs. 1-2, column 6, lines 55-63, column 23, lines 32-38) and in regards to claim 6, Haner teaches target slots that are approximately 70 millimeters in width and where the said aperture is approximately 20.5 millimeters in width (Column 28, lines 33-38, column 53, line 66 to column 57, line 21 (“so long as the basic criteria for proper functioning of the Olympic Game Kit are satisfied, namely, be sufficiently large to construct adult-sized playing fields and be sufficiently sturdy to maintain the integrity of the playing fields when under duress, any suitable dimensions are acceptable and within the scope of the appended claims.”)). Furthermore, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
However, in regards to claims 2-5, Haner does not teach a bar tip with at least one wing, wherein said wings comprise a flat portion extending from a first end downwardly from said bar tip, and a curved portion at a second end of said flat portion, said curved portion terminating at a wing tip, wherein said wings are elastically deformable and each wing elastically deforms toward said vertical support when a beanbag is received in said aperture.
Lockwood teaches a bar comprising a bar tip with at least one wing (FIGs. 1-3 (wings 19, 20), col. 2, lines 5-12, where the tops of members 16 and 17 are being interpreted as bar tips), wherein said wings comprise a flat portion (FIG. 1, FIG. 3) extending from a first end downwardly from said bar tip (FIG. 1, where the tops of members 16 and 17 are being interpreted as bar tips and the lengths along members 16, 17 are being interpreted as first ends), and a curved portion at a second end of said flat portion (the ends of wings 19 and 20 closest to handle 10 in FIG. 3, with the sections where the wings start to curve in FIG. 3 near handle 10 being interpreted as second ends), said curved portion terminating at a wing tip (the curved “peaks” of wings 19 and 20 in FIG. 1 are being interpreted as wing tips), wherein said wings are elastically deformable (FIGs. 3-4, column 2, lines 5-9) and each wing elastically deforms toward said vertical support when a beanbag is received in said aperture (FIGs. 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the bar tips of Haner with the bar tips including wings of the racquet game device as taught by Lockwood to use known resilient capturing means of projectiles to provide more adjustability for receiving projectiles.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haner (US Pat. No. 8403723) in view of Cooper (US 2021/0121757 A1) and in further view of Lockwood (US Pat. No. 2710753).
In regards to claim 7, Haner teaches a game board having at least two opposing bars defining an aperture between them (FIG. 39, col. 28, lines 28-52, col. 24, lines 21-32) and at least one beanbag adapted to be captured in said aperture (FIG. 39, col. 28, lines 12-20, lines 45-52). Additionally, in regards to claim 8, Haner teaches a bar tip (FIGs. 30A-30C, 39 (anchor hub 226)), wherein target slots are defined between adjacent bar tips (FIG. 39 (target area 336), col. 28, lines 39-42, col. 29, lines 9-24). Additionally, in regards to claim 11, Haner teaches each bar further comprising a bar vertical support extending downwardly from said bar tip (FIGs. 1-2, column 6, lines 55-63, column 23, lines 32-38) and in regards to claim 12, Haner teaches target slots that are approximately 70 millimeters in width and where the said aperture is approximately 20.5 millimeters in width (Column 28, lines 32-38, column 53, line 66 to column 57, line 21 (“so long as the basic criteria for proper functioning of the Olympic Game Kit are satisfied, namely, be sufficiently large to construct adult-sized playing fields and be sufficiently sturdy to maintain the integrity of the playing fields when under duress, any suitable dimensions are acceptable and within the scope of the appended claims”) ). Furthermore, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
However, in regards to claim 7, Haner does not explicitly teach a beanbag having a fill with a density of approximately 0.55 g to 0.80 g per cubic cm, a head space of approximately of 12.7 mm to 50.8 mm, and a bead size of approximately 2 mm in diameter and approximately 3 mm to 8 mm in length. Cooper implicitly teaches the foregoing claim limitations. (Paragraph [0003] “Although corn kernels were used in the past to fill the bags, hence the name “cornhole,” nowadays the bags are filled with plastic resin beads or other material that will maintain a consistent weight and shape. Bags are usually dual sided, with each side of the bag being a different material that reacts faster or slower on the board. Faster bags are preferred in humid conditions where bags will not slide as readily. Additionally, professional players may use different materials depending on their personal throwing styles.”) Long standing legal precedent stipulates that “a change of form, proportions, or degree” is simply a change in kind and not entitled to patentable weight. See In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the beanbag teachings of Cooper to the game apparatus as taught by Haner to arrive at claim 7 of Applicant’s claimed invention, as paragraph [0003] of Cooper teaches that beanbags are commonly modified in accordance with the throwing style of the player and the environmental conditions of the game, which suggests that the properties of beanbags are routinely modified and that the recited measurements lack criticality to the claimed invention. The modified Haner inherently has a fill with a density, a head space and bead size but does not explicitly disclose these dimensions/properties. The examiner notes that it has been held that optimum ranges via experimentation are not a patentable advance unless there is some criticality or unexpected result from the particular claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modifed Haner with the claimed ranges as a matter of design choice of discovering optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 458-59 (CCPA 1955) (holding that the differences between the applicant’s claimed invention and a prior art journal article were differences in degree and not in kind and that the claimed ranges were not critical and within the routine purview of one of ordinary skill in the art).
However, in regards to claims 8-11, neither Haner nor Cooper teach a bar tip with at least one wing, wherein said wings are elastically deformable, wherein said wings comprise a flat portion extending from a first end downwardly from said bar tip, and a curved portion at a second end of said flat portion, said curved portion terminating at a wing tip, wherein each wing elastically deforms toward said vertical support when a beanbag is received in said aperture.
Lockwood teaches a bar comprising a bar tip with at least one wing (FIGs. 1-3 (wings 19, 20), col. 2, lines 5-12, where the tops of members 16, 17 are being interpreted as bar tips), wherein said wings are elastically deformable (FIGs. 3-4, column 2, lines 5-9) and said wings comprise a flat portion (FIG. 1, FIG. 3) extending from a first end downwardly from said bar tip (FIG. 1, where the tops of members 16 and 17 are being interpreted as bar tips and the lengths along the members 16, 17 are being interpreted as first ends), and a curved portion at a second end of said flat portion (the ends of wings 19 and 20 closest to handle 10 in FIG. 3, with the sections where the wings start to curve in FIG. 3 near handle 10 being interpreted as second ends), said curved portion terminating at a wing tip (the “peaks” of wings 19 and 20 in FIG. 1 are being interpreted as wing tips), and wherein each wing elastically deforms toward said vertical support when a beanbag is received in said aperture (FIGs. 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the bar tips of Haner (as well as the teachings of Cooper) with the bar tips including wings of the racquet game device as taught by Lockwood to use known resilient capturing means of projectiles to provide more adjustability for receiving projectiles.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haner (US Pat. No. 8403723) in view of Cooper (US 2021/0121757 A1) and in further view of Lockwood (US Pat. No. 2710753).
In regards to claim 13, Haner teaches a game board having at least two opposing bars defining an aperture between them (FIG. 39, col. 28, lines 28-52, col. 24, lines 21-32) and at least one beanbag adapted to be captured in said aperture (FIG. 39, col. 28, lines 12-20, 45-52). Additionally, in regards to claim 15, Haner teaches a bar tip (FIGs. 30A-30C, 39 (anchor hub 226)), wherein target slots are defined between adjacent bar tips (FIG. 39 (336), col. 28, lines 39-42, col. 29, lines 9-24). Furthermore, in regards to claim 18, Haner teaches each bar further comprising a bar vertical support extending downwardly from said bar tip (FIGs. 1-2, column 6, lines 55-63, column 23, lines 32-38) and in regards to claim 19, Haner teaches target slots that are approximately 70 millimeters in width and where the said aperture is approximately 20.5 millimeters in width (Column 28, lines 32-38, column 53, line 66 to column 57, line 21 (“so long as the basic criteria for proper functioning of the Olympic Game Kit are satisfied, namely, be sufficiently large to construct adult-sized playing fields and be sufficiently sturdy to maintain the integrity of the playing fields when under duress, any suitable dimensions are acceptable and within the scope of the appended claims”)). Furthermore, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
However, in regards to claim 13, Haner does not explicitly teach a beanbag with a width of approximately between 90% and 110% of the width of said aperture. Additionally, in regards to claim 14, Haner does not explicitly teach a beanbag having a fill with a density of approximately 0.55 g to 0.80 g per cubic cm, a head space of approximately of 12.7 mm to 50.8 mm, and a bead size of approximately 2 mm in diameter and approximately 3 mm to 8 mm in length. Cooper implicitly teaches both of the foregoing claim limitations. (Paragraph [0003] “Although corn kernels were used in the past to fill the bags, hence the name “cornhole,” nowadays the bags are filled with plastic resin beads or other material that will maintain a consistent weight and shape. Bags are usually dual sided, with each side of the bag being a different material that reacts faster or slower on the board. Faster bags are preferred in humid conditions where bags will not slide as readily. Additionally, professional players may use different materials depending on their personal throwing styles.”) Long standing legal precedent stipulates that “a change of form, proportions, or degree” is simply a change in kind and not entitled to patentable weight. See In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the beanbag teachings of Cooper to the game apparatus as taught by Haner to arrive at claims 13-14 of Applicant’s claimed invention, as paragraph [0003] of Cooper teaches that beanbags are commonly modified in accordance with the throwing style of the player and the environmental conditions of the game, which suggests that the properties of beanbags are routinely modified and that the recited measurements lack criticality to the claimed invention. The modified Haner inherently has a fill with a width, a density, a head space and bead size but does not explicitly disclose these dimensions/properties. The examiner notes that it has been held that optimum ranges via experimentation are not a patentable advance unless there is some criticality or unexpected result from the particular claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modifed Haner with the claimed ranges as a matter of design choice of discovering optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 458-59 (CCPA 1955) (holding that the differences between the applicant’s claimed invention and a prior art journal article were differences in degree and not in kind and that the claimed ranges were not critical and within the routine purview of one of ordinary skill in the art).
However, in regards to claims 15-18 and 20, Haner does not teach a bar tip with at least one wing, wherein said wings comprise a flat portion extending from a first end downwardly from said bar tip, and a curved portion at a second end of said flat portion, said curved portion terminating at a wing tip, wherein said wings are elastically deformable and each wing elastically deforms toward said vertical support when a beanbag is received in said aperture and wherein said curved portion has a radius of approximately 20 millimeters.
Lockwood teaches a bar comprising a bar tip with at least one wing (FIGs. 1-3 (wings 19, 20), col. 2, lines 5-12, where the tops of members 16, 17 are being interpreted as bar tips), wherein said wings comprise a flat portion (FIG. 1, FIG. 3) extending from a first end downwardly from said bar tip (FIG. 1, where the tops of members 16 and 17 are being interpreted as bar tips and the lengths along the members 16, 17 are being interpreted as first ends), and a curved portion at a second end of said flat portion (the ends of wings 19 and 20 closest to handle 10 in FIG. 3, with the sections where the wings start to curve in FIG. 3 being interpreted as second ends), said curved portion terminating at a wing tip (the “peaks” of wings 19 and 20 in FIG. 1 are being interpreted as wing tips), wherein said wings are elastically deformable (FIGs. 3-4, column 2, lines 5-9) and each wing elastically deforms toward said vertical support when a beanbag is received in said aperture (FIGs. 3-4) and a curved portion with a radius of approximately 20 millimeters (FIG. 3, (wings 19, 20 are slightly curved). Also, as stated earlier, long standing legal precedent stipulates that “a change of form, proportions, or degree” is simply a change in kind and not entitled to patentable weight. See In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the bar tips of Haner (as well as the teachings of Cooper) with the bar tips including wings of the racquet game device as taught by Lockwood to use known resilient capturing means of projectiles to provide more adjustability for receiving projectiles.
Conclusion
Prior art pertinent to this application not directly used in this response includes Bradley (US Pat. No. 9248357), Boi (CA 2843498), Voden (US 2009/0115136 A1), Hudak (US 2021/0101059 A1), Turner (US 2023/0065061 A1), Klotz (US Pat. No. 12029964), and Burdan (CA 2944176).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK FURY whose telephone number is (571) 272-0215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
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.
/FRANK JUSTIN FURY/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
