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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the roll in device of claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). It is noted that Figure 1 and paragraph [0040] indicate that reference numeral 112 refers to a roll in device. However, it appears that reference numeral is directed to a sidewall of the play surface and it is not seen how the sidewall allows a ball to gain momentum as it is placed onto the surface nor is it shown to have a U-shaped channel that is slight bigger than the ball as described in the specification. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended”. If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims are inconsistent with the specification in that claims 7 and 9 describe first and second controllers at one end of the surface and third and fourth controllers at the other end of the surface but the specification (paragraph [0031]) describe first and third controllers at one end of the surface and second and fourth controllers at the other end of the surface. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
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.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Number 3,834,706 (Leonhart).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Figures 1-3 of Leonhart shows a projector including the recited base 5 and pivot shaft 6’. The piston 10 that slides within body 9 correspond to the recited slide rail. Padded head element 13 corresponds to the recited bumper.
Regarding claim 2, Figure 2 of Leonhart further shows a spring 17 biased in the resting position.
Regarding claim 3, pistol type grip handle 22 corresponds to the recited rear handhold. See Leonhart, Figure 2.
Regarding claim 4, clamp 8 is inherently graspable by a user’s hand and broadly corresponds to a front handhold. See Leonhart, Figures 2-3.
Claims 6, 7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 5,186,462 (Biagi et al., hereinafter Biagi).
Regarding claim 6, Figures 1 and 5 of Biagi show a pinball machine with a playing surface 18. Projecting mechanism 1 corresponds to the first controller and is pivotally mounted to playing surface 18 about a vertical axis. Also, see Figure 2 of Biagi. Plunger 12 corresponds to the recited bumper and moves in a horizontal direction and therefore in a direction transverse to the vertical axis; plunger 12 also moves between a resting position (home position) and a forward position (activated position). Also, see Biagi, column 2, lines 39+. Biagi only shows one projecting mechanism, not four. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide three additional projecting mechanisms on the Biagi playfield, since such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of parts. To provide duplicate parts for a multiple effect is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., Inc., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to put the Biagi projecting mechanisms anywhere about the playing surface, including in pairs at opposite sides of the playing surface since it has generally been recognized that shifting the location of parts involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 11, Biagi discloses that playing a pinball game involves scoring points and therefore would inherently include a counter. Also, see Biagi, column 1, lines 8-11.
Regarding claim 12, the Biagi ball plunger that initiates pinball gameplay is considered to broadly correspond to a ball roll in device.
Regarding claim 13, Biagi does not disclose the felt material. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the Biagi pinball machine to cover the playing surface with a felt material, since applicant has not disclosed that having this specific material solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the playing surface would perform equally well with any reasonable material. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to cover the playing surface material with felt, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biagi as applied above in view of U.S. Patent Number 4,243,222 (Grabel et al., hereinafter Grabel).
Regarding claims 8-10, Biagi does not disclose the recited end bell. Grabel teaches that it is old and well-known in the pinball art to use bells in combination with targets. See Grabel, column 1, lines 28-34. To provide the Biagi pinball targets with bells would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of Grabel, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more that predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, i.e., one skilled in the art would have recognized that the bells used in Grabel would allow the player to hear when the targets are hit by the ball.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Raleigh Chiu whose telephone number is (571) 272-4408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim, can be reached on (571) 272-4463.
The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
It is noted that all practice before the Office is in writing (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2) and the proper authority for action on any matter in this regard are the statutes (35 U.S.C.), regulations (37 C.F.R.) and the commentary on policy (MPEP). Therefore, no telephone discussion may be controlling or considered authority of Petitioner’s/Caller’s action(s).
/RALEIGH W CHIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711