ARTICULATED GAMEBOARD

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 . Response to Amendment The amendment filed 07/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 are pending in the application. 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. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leight (20140057523) in view of Winter (6241248). Regarding claim 1, Leight (Figures 1-26) teaches a configurable playing surface comprising: an array of addressable elements, each addressable element defining a prism wherein an upper base of each prism defines a portion of said configurable playing surface (See fig. 5; Para. 0098-0099) (See fig. 17; Para. 121); and each addressable element has a mechanical communication with each adjacent addressable element of the array of addressable elements so that each addressable element is selectively movable relative to each adjacent addressable element (See fig. 5,; Para. 0098-0099) (See fig. 17; Para. 121), wherein each mechanical communication comprises an upper bound that prevents the relative movement between respective adjacent addressable elements when the upper bound is engaged (See fig. 5,; Para. 0098-0099) (See fig. 17; Para. 121), and wherein each adjacent addressable element has a parallel orientation relative to each adjacent addressable element (See fig. 5,; Para. 0098-0099) (See fig. 17; Para. 121), whereby Leight does not teach at said engagement of the upper bound, the mechanical communication transitions from enabling relative movement to enforcing synchronous movement between the adjacent addressable elements. Winter teaches at said engagement of the upper bound (Fig. 3, Part No. 49) (Col. 7, Lines 5-13 and Lines 42-52), the mechanical communication transitions from enabling relative movement to enforcing synchronous movement between the adjacent addressable elements (Col. 7, Lines 42-52). It is noted that the prior art of Winter is fully capable performing the recited limitation as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Winter. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 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 (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Leight with the mechanical communication transitions from enabling relative movement to enforcing synchronous movement between the adjacent addressable elements as taught by Winter as a means of simple substitution of one known element (interlocking elements mechanically connected) for another (addressable elements mechanically connected by means of a stud sliding into a groove and having an upper bound) to obtain predictable results (interlocking elements mechanically connected) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (See Leight: Fig. 3; Col. 7, Lines 42-52). Regarding claim 2, the modified Leight (Figures 1-26) teaches in an absence of said selective movement, the moved addressable element maintains a repositioned elevation (See fig. 5; Para. 0098-0099) (See fig. 17; Para. 121). Regarding claim 3, the modified Leight (Figures 1-26) teaches the array is a matrix (See fig. 5; Para. 0098-0099) (See fig. 17; Para. 121). Regarding claim 4, the modified Leight (Figures 1-26) teaches each addressable element has at least one first connector and at least one second connector on orthogonal longitudinal faces of the prism (See fig. 5b), respectively, and wherein each first connector operatively associates with an adjacent second connector of the adjacent addressable element to form the mechanical connection (See fig. 5; Para. 0098-0099). Regarding claim 5, the modified Leight (Figures 1-26) teaches each first connector and the adjacent second connector are dimensioned and shaped to provide sufficient frictional engagement to form a locked engagement with each other during mechanical communication so that when not subject to an external force the repositioned addressable element maintains said elevation (See fig. 5; Para. 0098-0099). Regarding claim 6, the modified Leight (Figures 1-26) teaches a majority of the array of addressable elements forms respective mechanical communications with two adjacent addressable elements (See fig. 5; Para. 0098-0099). Regarding claim 7, the modified Leight (Figures 1-26) teaches the first connector is a tenon and the second connector is a groove (See fig. 5; Para. 0098-0099). As an alternative rejection, the prior art of Winter (Fig. 3) teaches the first connector is a tenon (Fig. 3, Part No. 48) and the second connector a groove (Fig. 3, Part No. 43) (Col. 7, Lines 5-13 and Lines 42-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Leight with t the second connector is a groove as taught by Winter as a means of simple substitution of one known element (interlocking elements mechanically connected) for another (addressable elements mechanically connected by means of a stud sliding into a groove and having an upper bound) to obtain predictable results (interlocking elements mechanically connected) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (See Leight: Fig. 3; Col. 7, Lines 42-52). Regarding claim 8, the modified Leight (Figures 1-26) teaches each tenon (See fig. 5; Para. 0098-0099) defines a geometric shape projecting from an associated longitudinal face, and wherein each groove (See fig. 5; Para. 0098-0099) defines a corresponding geometric shape projecting inward from another associated longitudinal face. The modified Leight does not teach each tenon defines a multiple-sided geometric shape, and wherein each groove defines a corresponding multiple-sided geometric shape. Winter (Fig. 3) teaches each tenon defines a multiple-sided geometric shape (See fig. 3), and wherein each groove defines a corresponding multiple-sided geometric shape (See fig. 3) (Col. 7, Lines 5-13 and Lines 42-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Leight with each tenon defines a multiple-sided geometric shape as taught by Winter as a means of simple substitution of one known element (interlocking elements mechanically connected) for another (addressable elements mechanically connected by means of a stud sliding into a groove and having an upper bound) to obtain predictable results (interlocking elements mechanically connected) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (See Leight: Fig. 3; Col. 7, Lines 42-52). Regarding claim 9, the modified Leight (Figures 1-26) teaches each tenon and each groove define a shape (See fig. 5; Para. 0098-0099). The modified Leight does not teach each tenon and each groove define a seven-sided T-shape. Winter (Fig. 3) teaches each tenon and each groove define a seven-sided T-shape (See fig. 3) (Col. 7, Lines 5-13 and Lines 42-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Leight with each tenon and each groove define a seven-sided T-shape as taught by Winter as a means of simple substitution of one known element (interlocking elements mechanically connected) for another (addressable elements mechanically connected by means of a stud sliding into a groove and having an upper bound) to obtain predictable results (interlocking elements mechanically connected) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (See Leight: Fig. 3; Col. 7, Lines 42-52). Regarding claim 10, the modified Leight (Figures 1-26) teaches each addressable element defining a prism wherein an upper base of each prism defines a portion of said configurable playing surface (See fig. 5; Para. 0098-0099). The modified Leight does not teach at least one face of said prism has one or more height demarcation. It is noted that the claim recitation of “at least one face of said prism has one or more height demarcation” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. An example in which a product merely serves as a support would occur for a deck of playing cards having images on each card. See In re Bryan, 323 Fed. App'x 898 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (unpublished). In Bryan the applicant asserted that the printed matter allowed the cards to be “collected, traded, and drawn”; “identify and distinguish one deck of cards from another”; and “enable the card to be traded and blind drawn”. However, the court found that these functions do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and were instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. In the instant case, the printed matter on the prism does not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and are instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game (as claim 7 does not require a functional relationship between the prism and the printed matter) and the printed matter on the prism is not new and unobvious as it is known in the art to have printed matter on a prism (See for example: Simonds (20020056964), Goldsen (5554062)). Therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight. Regarding claim 11, the modified Leight (Figures 1-26) teaches each addressable element defining a prism wherein an upper base of each prism defines a portion of said configurable playing surface (See fig. 5; Para. 0098-0099). The modified Leight does not teach selectively moving a corner addressable element of the array of addressable elements elevates the corner addressable element relative adjacent addressable elements until the upper bound of the mechanical communications between the corner addressable element and the adjacent addressable elements is engaged upon which synchronous selective movement between the corner addressable element and the adjacent addressable elements results. Winter (Fig. 3) teaches selectively moving a corner addressable element of the array of addressable elements elevates the corner addressable element relative adjacent addressable elements until the upper bound of the mechanical communications between the corner addressable element and the adjacent addressable elements is engaged upon which synchronous selective movement between the corner addressable element and the adjacent addressable elements results (See fig. 3) (Col. 7, Lines 5-13 and Lines 42-52). It is noted that the prior art of Winter is fully capable performing the recited limitation as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Winter. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 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 (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Leight with the adjacent addressable elements is engaged upon which synchronous selective movement between the corner addressable element and the adjacent addressable elements results as taught by Winter as a means of simple substitution of one known element (interlocking elements mechanically connected) for another (addressable elements mechanically connected by means of a stud sliding into a groove and having an upper bound) to obtain predictable results (interlocking elements mechanically connected) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (See Leight: Fig. 3; Col. 7, Lines 42-52). Regarding claim 12, the modified Leight (Figures 1-26) teaches each addressable element defining a prism (See fig. 5; Para. 0098-0099). The modified Leight does not teach the selective movement is achieved through manual urging. Winter (Fig. 3) teaches the selective movement is achieved through manual urging (See fig. 3) (Col. 7, Lines 5-13 and Lines 42-52). It is noted that the prior art of Winter is fully capable performing the recited limitation as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Winter. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 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 (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Leight with the selective movement is achieved through manual urging as taught by Winter as a means of simple substitution of one known element (interlocking elements mechanically connected) for another (addressable elements mechanically connected by means of a stud sliding into a groove and having an upper bound) to obtain predictable results (interlocking elements mechanically connected) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (See Leight: Fig. 3; Col. 7, Lines 42-52). Regarding claim 13, the modified Leight (Figures 1-26) teaches each addressable element defining a prism (See fig. 5; Para. 0098-0099). The modified Leight does not teach the selective movement is vertical in orientation relative to a supporting surface upon which and underside of the configurable playing surface is supported. Winter (Fig. 3) teaches the selective movement is vertical in orientation relative to a supporting surface upon which and underside of the configurable playing surface is supported (See fig. 3) (Col. 7, Lines 5-13 and Lines 42-52). It is noted that the prior art of Winter is fully capable performing the recited limitation as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Winter. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 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 (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Leight with the selective movement is vertical in orientation as taught by Winter as a means of simple substitution of one known element (interlocking elements mechanically connected) for another (addressable elements mechanically connected by means of a stud sliding into a groove and having an upper bound) to obtain predictable results (interlocking elements mechanically connected) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (See Leight: Fig. 3; Col. 7, Lines 42-52). Regarding claim 14, the modified Leight (Figures 1-26) teaches each addressable element defining a prism (See fig. 5; Para. 0098-0099). The modified Leight does not teach the upper bound of the mechanical communication is defined by a terminus of a groove along one addressable element of two adjacent addressable elements. Winter (Fig. 3) teaches the upper bound of the mechanical communication is defined by a terminus of a groove along one addressable element of two adjacent addressable elements (See fig. 3) (Col. 7, Lines 5-13 and Lines 42-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Leight with the upper bound of the mechanical communication is defined by a terminus of a groove as taught by Winter as a means of simple substitution of one known element (interlocking elements mechanically connected) for another (addressable elements mechanically connected by means of a stud sliding into a groove and having an upper bound) to obtain predictable results (interlocking elements mechanically connected) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (See Leight: Fig. 3; Col. 7, Lines 42-52). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.. 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. /C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711