DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II (claims 7-18) in the reply filed on 11/12/25 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 and 19-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “release at least one of items to be captured” should be amended to “release at least one of the items to be captured”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 7-8, 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reis, Jr. (US Pat. No. 5,415,417) in view of Wang (US Pub. No. 2019/0213843) and further in view of Kamakura et al. (US Pat. No. 11,835,713).
With respect to claims 7-8, 10, 12 and 14, Reis teaches an arcade game comprising: a cabinet 10/12 containing an item 58 to be captured; a capturing mechanism 50 adapted to capture and release the item 58 to be captured (column 3, lines 46-67); and a control mechanism (i.e. joysticks) 18/20 that permits a user to at least partially control a position of the capturing mechanism 50 above the item to be captured (column 3, lines 43-47); wherein the control mechanism 18/20 is mounted to an exterior of the cabinet 10/12 (Fig. 1); wherein the capturing mechanism 50 comprises pincers 52 (i.e. “fingers”) that are selectively moved towards each other to capture an item 58 and selectively moved away from each other to release the captured item 58 (column 5, lines 11-67; column 6, lines 1-11).
Reis only teaches a single item to be captured, failing to teach “items to be captured” (i.e. multiple items). However, analogous art reference Wang teaches it is known to provide multiple items 23 to be captured within an arcade game cabinet (Fig. 1). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to offer multiple items to be captured. This will expectantly allow game play after a person has successfully retrieved a first item. Moroever, a user may feel like they have a better chance of success, or give the appearance of less difficulty, if multiple items are present as opposed to just one.
Lastly, Reis utilizes an articulating robotic arm, but fails to expressly teach the base, foot portion and upper body as claimed. Kamakura et al., directed to the analogous art of robots, teaches the following to be known in the art: a robot 2 comprising: a stationary base 21 (column 3, lines 57-60); a foot portion 221 mounted to rotate about a vertical axis “O1” on the base 21; a lower body portion 222 mounted to the foot portion 221 to rotate about a first horizontal axis “O2” between the lower body portion 222 and the foot portion 221; an upper body portion having a proximal portion 224 and a distal portion 225, the proximal portion 224 of the upper body portion mounted to the lower body portion 222 to rotate about a second horizontal axis “O3” between the lower body portion 222 and the upper body portion, with a capturing mechanism 24 (i.e. “end effect”) mounted at the distal portion 225 of the upper body portion; and further comprising a swivel axis “O5” between the distal 225 and proximal portions 224 of the upper body portion that permits the distal portion 225 to swivel relative to the proximal portion 224 (column 3, lines 60-67; column 4, lines 1-30); a control mechanism 5 that permits a user to at least partially control a position of the capturing mechanism 24 above items to be captured (i.e. “target object W”) by controlling an angle of rotation of the foot portion 221 about the vertical axis “O1” relative to the stationary base 21 and by controlling a distance of the capturing mechanism 24 away from the vertical axis “O1”, wherein the distance of the capturing mechanism 24 away from the vertical axis “O1” is controlled by rotation of the lower body portion 222 about the first horizontal axis “O2” and rotation of the upper body portion about the second horizontal axis “O3” (Fig. 1; column 4, lines 38-50); See also MPEP 2114 - 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). If a prior art structure is inherently capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it shifts the burden to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the robot control apparatus is expressly taught to be controlled, including each of the 6 degrees of freedom, using a user interface and a programmable memory. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the robot of Reis with the robot taught by Kamakura et al. The rationale to combine is to provide a known robotic system that “transports” and “removes” an object, allowing for 6 degrees of freedom of movement of the capturing mechanism. With additional degrees of freedom, the capturing mechanism can be moved with tight precision. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success. The primary purpose is not frustrated, and Kamakura expressly teaches wherein the base portion can be fixed to a floor or ceiling portion, as Reis also teaches its robot to be coupled to a ceiling portion of the cabinet. A person ordinary skill in the art, moreover, would view the combination to teach wherein the joystick control mechanism of the arcade game of Reis is configured to articulate the robotic components as intended by Kamakura.
With respect to claim 11, Reis does not disclose a portable control mechanism as claimed. However, analogous art reference Wang teaches the following to be known in the art: a control mechanism that is a portable user device 32 programmed with an app 33 that communicates with a robotic arm 22 via a wireless protocol (paragraph [0027]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to allow control of the robot using a mobile device or tablet as taught by Wang. This will expectantly permit remote play of the arcade game.
5. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reis, Jr. (US Pat. No. 5,415,417) in view of Wang (US Pub. No. 2019/0213843) and further in view of Kamakura et al. (US Pat. No. 11,835,713) and even further in view of Watanabe (US Pub. No. 2006/0170164).
With respect to claim 13, Reis fails to expressly teach wherein each pincer comprises a removable pad. Analogous art reference Watanabe teaches this feature to be known in the art – pads 13 removably attached to pincers 12 (Fig. 3; removable – “exchangeably mounted on the corresponding arms 12” – paragraph [0061]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the pads to the pincers of Reis. The rationale to combine is set forth in Watanabe – “the game difficulty can be adjusted by exchanging … claws 13” Id.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 9 and 15-18 are 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.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL DAVID DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 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.
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711