Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 19/196,421

CONE TOSSING GAME

Non-Final OA §101§102
Filed
May 01, 2025
Priority
May 01, 2024 — provisional 63/641,025
Examiner
IANNUZZI, PETER J
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Playcones LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 1m
Est. Remaining
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
369 granted / 540 resolved
-1.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
560
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§103
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§102
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
§112
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 540 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
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 § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception. The claims will be analyzed with respect to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test at MPEP§2106. Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 1 (see MPEP§2106.03) The claims recite one of the four statutory categories of subject matter. Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 1 (see MPEP§2106.04(a-c)) The claims recite abstract ideas in the following categories; Methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) see specifically ii. rules for conducting a wagering game, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); (MPEP§2106.04(a)(2)II) (hereinafter “MOHA”). The abstract ideas have been noted in the claims below. Regarding claim 1, two ropes for establishing a rectangular area for playing the game (game rules regarding types of elements required, these are rules insofar as the types of elements required are described and required), wherein a first rope is extended and placed on a playing surface, and a second rope is extended and placed on the playing surface oriented parallel to and located a distance away from the first rope (game rules regarding arrangement of elements); and a set of four cones for playing the game (game rules regarding types of elements required), wherein each cone of the set includes a conical tip having a smaller opening at a first end and a larger opening at a second end, and a base having an octagonal outer perimeter and a central circular opening, wherein the second end of the tip is configured to fit within the circular opening and mechanically attach to the base, and wherein two of the set have a tip of a first color and two of the set have a tip of a second color (game rules regarding the type of elements required). Regarding claim 2, the system for playing a game of Claim 1, wherein each of the two ropes is six feet long, and the distance is six feet (game rules regarding the type of elements required). Regarding claim 3, the system for playing a game of Claim 1, wherein a foul line includes the first rope and extends along the first rope in both directions, a far line includes the second rope and extends along the second rope in both directions, a neutral zone is located between the foul line and the far line, and a fair zone is located opposite the neutral zone from the far line (game rules regarding the type or arrangement of elements). Regarding claim 4, the system for playing a game of Claim 1, wherein a player attempts to score one or more points by standing behind the foul line and tossing a cone so that it rotates one turn in the air and lands in the fair zone (game rules regarding scoring and game progression). Regarding claim 5, the system for playing a game of Claim 1, wherein a player scores zero points if one of the following occurs: the player enters the neutral zone while tossing a cone, the cone fails to complete one turn in the air, the cone contacts the neutral zone, or the cone fails to land in a scoring configuration (game rules regarding scoring and game progression). Regarding claim 6, the system for playing a game of Claim 1, wherein a scoring configuration includes the following: a cone that contacts the playing surface with its base and remains in an upright position; a cone that lands so that a portion of the cone rests on another cone; a cone that contacts the playing surface or another cone and moves to an upright position; a cone that is contacted by another cone and moves to an upright position; and a cone that stacks on an upright cone and both cones remain upright (game rules regarding scoring and game progression). Regarding claim 7, the system for playing a game of Claim 1, wherein a first player steals points from a second player by stacking a first cone on a second cone, wherein the second cone was previously tossed by the second player (game rules regarding scoring and game progression). Regarding claim 8, the system for playing a game of Claim 1, wherein a first player wins the game upon scoring at least 21 points with a lead of at least 2 points over a second player (game rules regarding scoring and game progression). Regarding claim 9, the system for playing a game of Claim 1, wherein the game is played by two players or four players (game rules regarding scoring and game progression). Regarding claims 10-20, these claims recite abstract game rules as noted above regarding claims 1-9, mutatis mutandis. Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 2 (see MPEP§2106.04(d)) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are physical implements; insignificant extra solution activity such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data. These additional elements individually and in combination provide for limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements (1) add “insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) and (2) generally link “the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I). These additional elements individually and in combination are not limitations that provide for “improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) apply or use the “judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) implement the “judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) effect “a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) or apply or use “the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I). As such the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2B (see MPEP§2106.05) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional generic computer hardware and insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP§2106.05). Examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of cones, ropes and other generic physical implements. 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)(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(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2023/0191217 by Stieneker. Regarding claims 1-9, Steineker discloses the claimed ropes and cones, see para. 21-29, with the arrangement and use of the particular elements being intended use that does not provide for a limit to the claims in the same manner as the method claimed in claims 10-20. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER J IANNUZZI whose telephone number is (571)272-5793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM EST. 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. /PETER J IANNUZZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 01, 2025
Application Filed
Oct 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12766393
SINGLE PUCK DRIBBLING PLATE AND MODULAR PUCK DRIBBLING PLATE
2y 6m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12758866
POSITIONING METHOD AND LOCATOR OF COMBINED CONTROLLER, CONTROLLER HANDLE AND VIRTUAL SYSTEM
3y 2m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12752172
SWING PATH TRAINING APPARATUS
3y 10m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12741209
SELECTING AN INTERPRETATION OF INPUT ACTUATION INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM A CONTROLLER
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12734445
ANNOTATING PLAYER OR SPECTATOR SENTIMENT FOR VIDEO GAME FRAGMENT GENERATION
2y 10m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+12.6%)
2y 7m (~1y 1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 540 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month