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 Objections
Claim 4 objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: per 37 CFR 1.121 (4) “When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim. (i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of "canceled" or "not entered.”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-5, 12-15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samarasinghe US 5,607,156 (“Samarasinghe”).
As per claim 1, Samarasinghe discloses a game wheel (game apparatus/clock 20)(Figs. 2-4; 2:61-3:13), comprising: a rotating assembly (construed as circular piece 22)(Fig. 2; 3:1-9), and a plurality of splicing blocks (plurality of sector pieces 23)(Fig. 3; 3:1-9), wherein each of the plurality of splicing blocks comprises a first side and a second side opposite to the first side (Fig. 3); the plurality of splicing blocks is detachably connected to the rotating assembly (sector pieces 23 are detachably connected to circular piece 22)(Figs. 2-4 in conjunction to 3:1-13), and two adjacent splicing blocks of the plurality of splicing blocks are detachably connected (each sector piece detachably connected to each other)(Fig. 3 and 3:1-13); first locking assemblies, wherein the first locking assemblies are fixed on the plurality of splicing blocks, and each of the first locking assemblies is defined with an accommodating space (construed as one of the sector pieces with groove 25)(Fig. 3; 3:2-9); second locking assemblies, wherein the second locking assemblies are fixed on the plurality of splicing blocks, and each of the second locking assemblies is provided with a protruding part (construed as one of the sector pieces, that is not the first sector with tongue 24)(Fig. 3; 3:2-9); when the two adjacent splicing blocks are connected to each other, the protruding part of one of the two adjacent splicing blocks is at least partially inserted into the accommodating space of another one of the two adjacent splicing blocks, and the protruding part is cooperated with a wall forming the accommodating space to restrict a relative movement between the two adjacent splicing blocks in a circumferential direction (the tongue 24, of one sector piece, inserted within a groove 25, of an adjacent sector piece, while the sector pieces are connected to each other)(Figs.1 and 3 in conjunction to 3:2-9). Note: with respect to the “a rotating assembly”, as no specific structure was claimed, such limitations of “rotating” construed as merely an intended used, and to that end it is noted that it has been held that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Exparte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The examiner takes the position that Samarasinghe’s circular piece is fully capable to employed as “a rotating means”; wherein each of the plurality of splicing blocks comprises a display surface (each sector piece includes numeral indicia thereon)(Fig. 2 in conjunction to 3:2-3), and when the two adjacent splicing blocks are connected to each other, the protruding part of one of the two adjacent splicing blocks is inserted axially into the accommodating space of another one of the two adjacent splicing blocks (the tongue 24, of one sector piece, inserted within a groove 25, of an adjacent sector piece, while the sector pieces are connected to each other)(Figs.1 and 3 in conjunction to 3:2-9); a partially of the first side is recessed downward to form the accommodating space, and the protruding part is disposed on the second side, and the protruding part is protruded along the second side (note Fig. 3 as marked hereinafter).
PNG
media_image1.png
683
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 3, with respect to wherein each of the first locking assemblies comprises a first snap, which is disposed on the first side and protrudes outward along the first side, the protruding part is disposed on the second side, and the accommodating space is defined inside the first snap, note Fig. 3 and 3:5-9 as each sector piece includes a tongue 24 on one side and a groove 25 on the other side, as respective locking means. The connection of the “tongue”-to “groove” of adjacent sector construed as such “snap” connection. Once again, as mentioned above a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus. The term “snap” does not imply any specific structure, and the examiner takes the position that Samarasinghe’s locking assemblies is fully capable to employed as “snap”, as claimed.
As per claim 4, with respect to wherein the protruding part comprises a first barbed block, which is in a [[("7")]] shape, the examiner construed the peripheral/structure of tongue 24 to include such shape according to applicant’s disclosure in at least par. [0068] and Fig. 5 (i.e., element 411); with respect to and when the two adjacent splicing blocks are connected to each other, a hook of one of the two adjacent splicing blocks is engaged with an edge of the wall forming the accommodating space of another one of the two adjacent splicing blocks to restrict another one of the two adjacent splicing blocks from moving axially out (the tongue 24, of one sector piece, inserted within a groove 25, of an adjacent sector piece, while the sector pieces are connected to each other; i.e., a “hook” of the tongue 24 engages with the edge of the wall of groove 25)(Figs.1 and 3 in conjunction to 3:2-9).
As per claim 5, Samarasinghe discloses wherein a partially of the first side is inwardly recessed to form the accommodating space, and the wall forming the accommodating space has an axial length, the protruding part is disposed on the second side, and the protruding part is protruded outward along the second side, and a size and a shape of the protruding part are adapted to the accommodating space (such construed as the tongue 24 (related to the protruding part, on one side) and groove 25 (i.e., accommodating space on the other side of the sector piece; the tongue 24, of one sector piece, inserted within a groove 25, of an adjacent sector piece, while the sector pieces are connected to each other)(Figs.1 and 3 in conjunction to 3:2-9).
As per claim 12, Samarasinghe discloses wherein each of the plurality of splicing blocks is provided with a third locking assembly, the rotating assembly is provided with a fourth locking assembly; the third locking assembly is detachably connected to the fourth locking assembly, allowing the plurality of splicing blocks to be detachably connected to the rotating assembly (sector pieces having peg 26 to fit within corresponding slot 27 of circular piece 22)(Figs. 3 and 4; 3:9-12).
As per claim 13, Samarasinghe discloses wherein the third locking assembly is defined with a second slot, the fourth locking assembly is provided with a second barbed block; the second barbed block is engaged with the second slot, allowing the plurality of splicing blocks to be detachably connected to the rotating assembly(sector pieces having peg 26 to fit within corresponding slot 27 of circular piece 22)(Figs. 3 and 4; 3:9-12).
As per claim 14, with respect to wherein each of the plurality of splicing blocks is provided with a first positioning component and a second positioning component; when the two adjacent splicing blocks are connected to each other, the first positioning component of one of the two adjacent splicing blocks is connected with the second positioning component of another one of the two adjacent splicing blocks, construed as any component of the tongue 24, of one sector piece, connected with any corresponding component of groove 25, of an adjacent sector piece, while the sector pieces are connected to each other)(Figs.1 and 3 in conjunction to 3:2-9).
As per claim 15, with respect to wherein each of the plurality of splicing blocks is provided with a third positioning component, and the rotating assembly comprises a fourth positioning component; when each of the plurality of splicing blocks is connected to the rotating assembly, the third positioning component is connected with the fourth positioning component, construed as any sector pieces having any component of peg 26 to fit within corresponding of any component of slot 27 of circular piece 22)(Figs. 3 and 4; 3:9-12).
As per claim 18, with respect to wherein the game wheel further comprises an indicator (construed as hour hand and minute hand)(3:3-4), and when the plurality of splicing blocks is stationary (Figs. 3 and 4 in conjunction to 3:1-12), the indicator (i.e., hands) identifies at least one splicing block of the plurality of splicing blocks (to point to any of the sectors)(3:1-5).
As per claim 20, Samarasinghe discloses wherein when the two adjacent splicing blocks are connected to each other, the protruding part of one of the two adjacent splicing blocks abuts the wall of the accommodating space formed in another one of the two adjacent splicing blocks, limiting the relative movement between the two adjacent splicing blocks in the circumferential direction and the radial direction (the tongue 24, of one sector piece, inserted within a groove 25, of an adjacent sector piece, while the sector pieces are connected to each other)(Figs.1 and 3 in conjunction to 3:2-9).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samarasinghe as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Jang Moon KR20170042850 (“Jang Moon“).
As per claim 6, with respect to wherein each of the plurality of splicing blocks is defined with a first opening, the first opening is oriented parallel to the display surface, construed as groove 25 parallel to the top/display of each sector piece (Fig. 3; 3:2-3).
Samarasinghe is not specific regarding and the first opening is communicated with the accommodating space; a width of the first opening is smaller than a maximum width of the accommodating space.
However, in the field of games/toy, utilizing connecting/locking means of adjacent blocks, Jang Moon discloses a first opening is communicated with an accommodating space; a width of the first opening is smaller than a maximum width of the accommodating space (opening 16 associated with locking groove 10 while adjacent blocks 100 are connected to each other)(Fig. 2 in conjunction to machine translation page 3, paragraphs 6th-8th and page 5, 11th par.). Therefore, 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 to form Samarasinghe wherein the first opening is communicated with the accommodating space; a width of the first opening is smaller than a maximum width of the accommodating space for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical fastening/locking means to enhance s connection of two adjacent blocks, as suggested by Jang Moon (e.g., page 1, abstract).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samarasinghe.
As per claim 9, with respect to wherein a first combining pillar is disposed on the first side of each of the plurality splicing blocks, a second combining pillar disposed on the second side; when the two adjacent splicing blocks are connected to each other, the first combining pillar on one of the two adjacent splicing blocks and the second combining pillar on another one of the two adjacent splicing blocks are interlocked, and a fastening piece is fitted onto outer surfaces of the first combining pillar and the second combining pillar which are interlocked, Samarasinghe in the embodiment of Figs. 2-4 is not specific regarding such “pillars” as claimed. However, Samarasinghe discloses “pillars”, pegs , for each wedge portion 46, within fastening means (holes 50) to interlock with each other while the wedges are connected to each other (Figs. 5 and 7; 3:18-41).
Therefore, 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 to form Samarasinghe’s embodiment of Figs. 2-4 with a first combining pillar is disposed on the first side of each of the plurality splicing blocks, a second combining pillar disposed on the second side; when the two adjacent splicing blocks are connected to each other, the first combining pillar on one of the two adjacent splicing blocks and the second combining pillar on another one of the two adjacent splicing blocks are interlocked, and a fastening piece is fitted onto outer surfaces of the first combining pillar and the second combining pillar which are interlocked for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Samarasinghe’s suggestion to includes such pillar/peg means for additional plying means (3:35-39).
As per claim 11, with respect to wherein a number of the first locking assemblies is at least two, and a number of the second locking assemblies is at least two, the examiner construed the elongated tongue 24 and the elongate groove 25 to comprise at least two portions, sections, parts, etc. that are construed as “at least two locking assemblies” in Fig. 3. If there is any doubt regarding such interpretations, the examiner notes that the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, 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 to form Samarasinghe’s wherein a number of the first locking assemblies is at least two, and a number of the second locking assemblies is at least two for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated merely as matter of user’s choice, that the same predictable results of connecting two adjacent splicing blocks to each other, would have attained.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samarasinghe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nygren et al US 7,513,502 (“Nygren”).
As per claim 16, Samarasinghe is not specific regarding wherein the rotating assembly is provided with a deceleration component; when the game wheel rotates, the deceleration component is sequentially contacted with each of the plurality of splicing blocks and provides resistance to reduce a rotation speed of the game wheel.
However, in a similar field of game wheel devices, Nygren discloses wherein a rotating assembly is provided with a deceleration component; when the game wheel rotates, the deceleration component is sequentially contacted with each of a plurality of splicing blocks and provides resistance to reduce a rotation speed of the game wheel (flexible tab 27 contact with a plurality of blocks/sections pie shapes units 40/41 via stops 30, thereon)(Fig. 1; 4:25-40 and 4:55+).
Therefore, 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 to form Samarasinghe’s wherein the rotating assembly is provided with a deceleration component; when the game wheel rotates, the deceleration component is sequentially contacted with each of the plurality of splicing blocks and provides resistance to reduce a rotation speed of the game wheel for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to enhance the use of Samarasinghe’s device by including amusing and informative wheel game as suggested by Nygren (e.g., 2:49+).
As per claim 17, with respect to wherein each of the plurality of splicing blocks is provided with a protruding column, and the deceleration component is an elastic stopper; when the game wheel rotates, the deceleration component is periodically contacted with the protruding column to reduce the rotation speed of the game wheel, note Nygren’s Fig. 1 in conjunction to 4:25+ as the tab 27 is flexible tab to engages flexible stops 30, upon each pie unit 40/41to reduce the speed of the wheel 20.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samarasinghe as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Owoc US 8,596,638 (“Owoc”).
As per claim 19, Samarasinghe is not specific regarding wherein the rotating assembly comprises a rotating part and a supporting part, and the supporting part is detachably connected to the rotating part.
However, in a similar field of game wheel devices, Owoc discloses wherein a rotating assembly comprises a rotating part and a supporting part, and the supporting part is detachably connected to the rotating part (rotating means 110 and/or 118 of wheel 1; is detachable connected with support 120)(Figs. 1 and 2; 7:27-8:24).
Therefore, 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 to form Samarasinghe wherein the rotating assembly comprises a rotating part and a supporting part, and the supporting part is detachably connected to the rotating part for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using known mechanical means to support the assembly in a firm and secure manner thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 10 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 7 of his remark applicant produce amended claim 1"wherein each of the plurality of splicing blocks comprises a display surface, and when the two adjacent splicing blocks are connected to each other, the protruding part of one of the two adjacent splicing blocks is inserted axially into the accommodating space of another one of the two adjacent splicing blocks: a partially of the first side is recessed downward to form the accommodating space, and the protruding part is disposed on the second side, and the protruding part is protruded along the second side", and concluded “The Samarasinghe does not disclose the added technical features, and the claim rejections under 35 USC §102 are overcame.”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As set forth above, Samarasinghe discloses wherein each of the plurality of splicing blocks comprises a display surface (each sector piece includes numeral indicia thereon)(Fig. 2 in conjunction to 3:2-3), and when the two adjacent splicing blocks are connected to each other, the protruding part of one of the two adjacent splicing blocks is inserted axially into the accommodating space of another one of the two adjacent splicing blocks (the tongue 24, of one sector piece, inserted within a groove 25, of an adjacent sector piece, while the sector pieces are connected to each other)(Figs.1 and 3 in conjunction to 3:2-9); a partially of the first side is recessed downward to form the accommodating space, and the protruding part is disposed on the second side, and the protruding part is protruded along the second side (note Fig. 3 as marked hereinafter).
PNG
media_image1.png
683
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, contradicting to applicant’s assertions, Samarasinghe discloses all the limitations of amended claim 1, and the examiner maintains his position that Samarasinghe discloses the added technical features.
With respect to the rejection under 35USC 103 (remarks pages 7-8), applicant once again copied amended claim 1, and concluded “Compared with the prior arts, the amended claim aims to solve this problem: how to simplify the structure of the game wheel, making it easier to disassemble and store. The prior arts fail to disclose/indicate some technical features as originally filed in partial of claim 7: a partially of the first side is recessed downward to form the accommodating space, and the protruding part is disposed on the second side, and the protruding part is protruded along the second side.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, with respect to the functionality of the device as “to solve this problem: how to simplify the structure of the game wheel, making it easier to disassemble and store”, per MPEP 2114 under II. manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). The claimed invention needs to be distinguish from the prior art in terms of structural limitations rather than functional limitations. Since the device of Samarasinghe includes all the technical features of at least claim 1, the examiner takes the position that the prior art is fully capable as ” how simplify the structure of the game wheel, making it easier to disassemble and store”.
Second, with respect to “The prior arts fail to disclose/indicate some technical features as originally filed in partial of claim 7: a partially of the first side is recessed downward to form the accommodating space, and the protruding part is disposed on the second side, and the protruding part is protruded along the second side.”, the examiner maintains his position that Samarasinghe discloses such limitations in Fig. 3 as marked above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 2/27/2026 /JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711