DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is made Final in response to applicant’s Amendments / Request for Reconsideration filed 5/4/26. Claims 11-18 are withdrawn; claim 6 is amended; claims 1-10 and 19-20 are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The recitation in claims 1 and 19 of “wherein the circumferential ridge surface is arranged in parallel with an upper surface of the dice plate” is indefinite. Paragraph [0013] of the specification teaches that the dice plate 10 “aligns” with the circumferential ridge surface 40. Fig.’s 2-3 appear to show these surfaces aligned and concentric, not parallel. Parallelism, as a person ordinary skill in the art would understand, refers to lines (or even planes) that do not intersect. The ridge surface and dice plate present define intersecting planes. It is recommended to recite that the claim elements “align” to overcome this rejection. For examining purposes, a broad and reasonable view of “parallel” will be taken commensurate with applicant’s specification. Claims 2-10 and 20 are rejected based on their respective dependencies to 1 and 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 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.
4. Claims 1-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robert (US Pat. No. 1,626,148).
With respect to claims 1-2 and 19, Robert teaches a dice shaker device arranged to provide a randomized state of a die, said dice shaker device comprising: a dice plate 23; a dice plate actuator 21/29/32 configured to apply a reciprocating force to the dice plate 23 (lines 38-57; 82-94); a casing 17; a circumferential ridge surface 15 extending around an outer perimeter of the dice plate 23; and a dice rolling space that is at least partly defined by the casing 17, the dice plate 23, and the circumferential ridge surface 15 (See annotated Fig. 1 showing portion of dice plate and flange 15 that defines a dice rolling space); wherein the circumferential ridge surface 15 is arranged in parallel with an upper surface of the dice plate 23 (best seen in Fig. 1 – See also interpretation of “parallel” set forth above; See also lines 44-46 – “The floating platform when in a position of rest, normally lies level with the flange 15”).
PNG
media_image1.png
282
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per 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, no width of the die is being positively claimed and there can be a die sized such that the dice shaker structure of Robert is capable of randomizing a die that has a width that satisfies the following: the width of the circumferential ridge surface is less than 50% of the Die width and greater than 36% of the Die width.
With respect to claim 3, Robert teaches wherein the circumferential ridge surface 15 extends from the casing 17 and towards the dice plate 23 (Fig. 1).
With respect to claims 4 and 20, Robert teaches wherein the dice plate 23 and the circumferential ridge surface 13 are arranged to form a gap between the dice plate 23 and the circumferential ridge surface 13 (Fig. 1).
With respect to claims 5-7, Robert teaches wherein the dice plate actuator 21/29/32 is configured to apply the reciprocating force to the dice plate 23 such that the dice plate is movable between a first position (i.e. rested/uncompressed position) and a second position (i.e. spring is compressed), wherein the first position is such that the upper surface of the dice plate is arranged in parallel with (Fig. 1 – lines 44-46 – “The floating platform when in a position of rest, normally lies level with the flange 15”) or above the circumferential ridge surface, wherein the second position is such that the upper surface of the dice plate 23 is arranged below the circumferential ridge surface 15. See MPEP 2114 - In re Schreiber.
With respect to claim 8, Robert teaches wherein the circumferential ridge surface 15 is arranged perpendicular to a lower portion of the casing 17 (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 9, Robert teaches wherein the circumferential ridge surface 15 is an integral part of a device frame to which the casing 17 and the dice plate actuator 21/29/32 are connected (i.e. ridge surface 15 is statically connected to frame 16 which holds in place casing 17, each being connected to the actuator). Examiner notes the Federal Court has set forth wherein "connected to" includes being joined together, but can also be broader than that, wherein two things can be "connected" to each other by way of their common connection to something else. See Kreis AG v. American Hospital Supply Corp. (DC NIII) 192 USPQ 585.
With respect to claim 10, Robert teaches wherein the casing 17 has a cylindrical lower portion (shown via Figures 1-2; See also “annular base plate”, “annular wall”, a rim that “encircles”, “annular pad” – column 1).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “flat, planar surfaces may be arranged in parallel planes” and thus the 112(b) rejection is improper. Examiner concedes that “flat, planar surfaces may be arranged in parallel planes”. However, to be parallel, these flat planar surfaces should not intersect with each other. Parallelism, as a person ordinary skill in the art would understand, by definition cannot have intersection.
Regarding the applied art, applicant argues that the claim element of the dice rolling space being at least partially defined by the circumferential ridge surface is not met. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner provides annotation to Fig. 1 showing the flat planar portion of flange that defines a dice rolling space. Applicant notes Drawings may not be used to supply precise dimensions. Examiner agrees. Examiner is not citing to the drawings to say the flange is, for example, 1 mm wide. Rather, the flange planar surface shown in annotated Fig. 1 is part of a space that is construed as a dice rolling space. Moroever, this space is clearly inside the dice shaker and not external. Lastly, applicant notes Robert teaches a pad 25 positioned on an internal surface of the lower portion of bell 17. Examiner agrees, this is clearly shown in Fig. 1. However, this does not negate the position that the flange portion identified above in Fig. 1 is part of the dice rolling space.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Stevens (US Pat. No. 2,693,962 – Fig. 21).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights