DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is made Final in response to applicants Amendments / Request for Reconsideration filed 2/9/26. Claims 12 and 16 are cancelled; claims 1, 8, 11, 14-15, 17 and 20 are amended; claims 1-11, 13-15 and 17-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-2, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plumer et al. (US Pat. No. 11,623,134) in view of Mower et al. (US Pat. No. 5,294,913).
With respect to claim 1, Plumer et al. teaches a control system comprising: a table game 100; a control system 206 (column 3, lines 20-29; column 5, lines 55-61; column 14, lines 65-67; column 15, lines 1-17; Fig.’s 2A, 7); a visual system 206/408; a sensor system 304; a computing system 700; the table game comprising a first surface, wherein the first surface is a gaming surface of the table game 1 (Fig. 2a); the control module 206 being mounted onto a second surface of the table game, wherein the second surface is laterally offset (i.e. lateral) from the first surface; the visual system 206/408, the sensor system 304, and the computing system 700 being mounted onto the game table (Fig. 2a); and the visual system 206/408, the sensor system 304, and the computing system 700 being electronically connected to the control module 206. Plumer et al. recites the use of a processor(s) 700 as part of the control system 206, but also contemplates the use of a microcontroller – column 3, lines 20-29 – “microcontroller, an application specific integrated circuit”. A person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a microcontroller, in lieu of a processor, as they are known to be smaller in size and consume less power. Moreover, a person ordinary skill in the art would understand that the integrated circuit inherently includes a board.
Admittedly, Plumer et al. does not expressly teach wherein the control system 208 is a detachably mounted control board, or wherein the visual system is an audio-visual system, or wherein the control board, the audio-video visual system, the sensor system, and the computing system being configured to mount to the table game, and being configurated to be removed from the table game to be mounted to a different table game. However, within the art of sports and games, Mower et al. teaches the following to be known in the art: a control board 16 detachably mounted to a game body (i.e. goal), an audio and visual system 57/18; wherein the control board 16, the audio visual system 57/18, a sensor system 22, and a computing system (“microprocessors”) are configured to be removed from the game to be mounted to a different game (column 2, lines 15-53; column 5, lines 28-58; column 6, lines 50-67; column 7, lines 65-67; column 8, lines 26-67; column 9, lines 1-18, column 10, lines 26-32)(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. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The rationale to combine these features into the game of Plumer is multi-faceted. As Mower et al. expressly teaches that its game system is beneficially “portable” and “can be removed and stored” for security reasons, wherein the system can be “retrofit” to other game bodies and “installed quickly”. The audio feature will expectantly add entertainment value to the game table. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the functionality of the game table is not frustrated. Furthermore, per MPEP 2144.04, removability, if it is desirable for any reasons, is obvious in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Examiner cites to the following extrinsic references to establish a prior art need for game tables to be retro-fitted with removable game components – Trabert (US Pub. No. 2018/0091776), Cosenza (US Pub. No. 2008/0220913) and Hume et al. (US Pat. No. 6,199,861). By retrofitting existing games tables with removable game components, game designers are able to provide updated and diverse gaming options for existing game tables. This will be appealing to players tired of playing the same game table. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success, as these components can be removably detached without compromising the functionality of the underlying game. Once detached, a person ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these components could be removably attached to other game tables using known mounting means such as straps, tape, brackets, etc. See also In re Schreiber - MPEP 2114. Examiner notes applicant’s specification does not provide any guidance on how the game components attach or mount to the different game tables. This is pointed out only to emphasize that a person ordinary skill in the art would recognize many removable attachment methods and can be easily accomplished without adversely affecting the functionality of the components.
With respect to claim 2, Plumer teaches wherein the sensor system comprises: a plurality of sensor devices 304; the plurality of sensor devices being mounted adjacent to the first surface of the game table 1; and the plurality of sensor devices 304 being electronically connected to the control system 206 (column 7, lines 37-67).
With respect to claim 9, Plumer et al. as modified by Mower et al. teaches wherein the computing system 700 is electrically coupled to the audio-visual system (i.e. the audio-visual system is coupled with processor(s) 700 of electronic control system 208); and the sensor system 304 being electrically coupled to the computing system (i.e. the sensors are coupled with processor(s) 700 of electronic control system 208)(column 7, lines 11-14, 36-67). The motivation to combine the audio system of Mower et al. with the video system of Plumer is the same as stated above.
With respect to claim 13, Plumer does not expressly teach wherein the microcontroller is electrically connected to a power source. However, examiner submits that, for Plumer to function properly, it is inherent that the microcontroller is connected to a power source. Should applicant traverse this position, in the alternative, examiner cites to Mower et al. for its teaching that it is known to provide a battery power source for its electrnic components of its game systems – column 3, lines 25-32. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a battery power source to the game system of Plumer, and connect it with the microcontroller. The rationale to combine is to provide power to the microcontroller to operate the game.
4. Claims 3 and 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plumer et al. (US Pat. No. 11,623,134) in view of Mower et al. (US Pat. No. 5,294,913) and further in view of Dayal et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0304146).
With respect to claim 3, Plumer teaches wherein the plurality of sensor devices 304 comprises a sound-based sensor (i.e. SONAR - column 7, lines 37-67; column 8, lines 1-25), but does not expressly teach wherein it is ultrasonic. Plumber also fails to teach wherein the sensor devices is at least one of force sensitive resistors, or speed sensors. Within the art, it is known to use each of ultrasonic, force sensitive and speed sensors as evidenced by Dayal et al. at paragraph [0037]. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize one of the sensors presented by Dayal et al. for the sensor system of Plumer. The rationale to combine is to detect a ball position and speed. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as Plumer is not limited in its sensor type.
With respect to claim 14, Plumer et al. teaches a control system comprising: a table game 100; a control system 206 (column 3, lines 20-29; column 5, lines 55-61; column 14, lines 65-67; column 15, lines 1-17; Fig.’s 2A, 7); a visual system 206/408; a sensor system 304; a computing system 700; the control system 206 comprising a wireless communication module 702 (column 16, lines 43-62); the table game comprising a first surface, wherein the first surface is a gaming surface of the table game 1; the control module 206 being mounted onto a second surface of the table game, wherein the second surface is laterally offset from the first surface; the visual system, the sensor system, and the computing system being electronically connected to the control module 206. Plumer et al. recites the use of a processor(s) 700 as part of the control system 206, but also contemplates the use of a microcontroller as part of the logic of the control system 206 – column 3, lines 20-29 – “microcontroller, an application specific integrated circuit”. A person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a microcontroller in lieu of a processor, as they are known to smaller in size and consume less power. Moreover, a person ordinary skill in the art would understand that the integrated circuit includes a board.
Admittedly, Plumer et al. does not expressly teach wherein the control system 208 is a detachably mounted control board, or wherein the visual system is an audio-visual system, or wherein the control board, the audio-video visual system, the sensor system, and the computing system being configured to mount to the table game, and being configurated to be removed from the table game to be mounted to a different table game. However, within the art of sports and games, Mower et al. teaches the following to be known in the art: a control board 16 detachably mounted to a game body (i.e. goal), an audio and visual system 57/18; wherein the control board 16, the audio visual system 57/18, a sensor system 22, and a computing system (“microprocessors”) are configured to be removed from the game to be mounted to a different game (column 2, lines 15-53; column 5, lines 28-58; column 6, lines 50-67; column 7, lines 65-67; column 8, lines 26-67; column 9, lines 1-18, column 10, lines 26-32)(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. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The rationale to combine these features into the game of Plumer is multi-faceted. As Mower et al. expressly teaches that its game system is beneficially “portable” and “can be removed and stored” for security reasons, wherein the system can be “retrofit” to other game bodies and “installed quickly”. The audio feature will expectantly add entertainment value to the game table. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the functionality of the game table is not frustrated. Furthermore, per MPEP 2144.04, removability, if it is desirable for any reasons, is obvious in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Examiner cites to the following extrinsic references to establish a prior art need for game tables to be retro-fitted with removable game components – Trabert (US Pub. No. 2018/0091776), Cosenza (US Pub. No. 2008/0220913) and Hume et al. (US Pat. No. 6,199,861). By retrofitting existing games tables with removable game components, game designers are able to provide updated and diverse gaming options for existing game tables. This will be appealing to players tired of playing the same game table. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success, as these components can be removably detached without compromising the functionality of the underlying game. Once detached, a person ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these components could be removably attached to other game tables using known mounting means such as straps, tape, brackets, etc. See also In re Schreiber - MPEP 2114. Examiner notes applicant’s specification does not provide any guidance on how the game components attach or mount to the different game tables. This is pointed out only to emphasize that a person ordinary skill in the art would recognize many removable attachment methods and can be easily accomplished without adversely affecting the functionality of the components.
Plumer teaches wherein the plurality of sensor devices 304 are positioned along a wall or side of the game table, wherein the sensor devices 304 comprises a sound-based sensor (i.e. SONAR - column 7, lines 37-67; column 8, lines 1-25), but does not expressly teach wherein it is ultrasonic. Plumber also fails to teach wherein the sensor devices is at least one of force sensitive resistors, or speed sensors. Within the art, it is known to use each of ultrasonic, force sensitive and speed sensors as evidenced by Dayal et al. at paragraph [0037]. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize one of the sensors presented by Dayal et al. for the sensor system of Plumer. The rationale to combine is to detect a ball position and speed. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as Plumer is not limited in its sensor type.
With respect to claim 15, Plumer teaches the plurality of sensor devices 304 being mounted adjacent to the first surface of the game table 1; and the plurality of sensor devices 304 being electronically connected to the control system 206 (column 7, lines 37-67), wherein the plurality of sensor devices 304 is at least one of force sensitive resistors, infrared sensors, speed sensors and ultrasonic sensors Id.
With respect to claim 18, Plumber teaches wherein the computing system 700 is electrically coupled to the visual system 206/408 (Fig. 7) and the sensor system 304 being electrically coupled to the computing system 700 Id.
5. Claims 4-5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plumer et al. (US Pat. No. 11,623,134) in view of Mower et al. (US Pat. No. 5,294,913) and further in view of Grant et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0016479).
With respect to claims 4-5, Plumer teaches : at least one display device 206, and a plurality of lighting devices 408, wherein the plurality of lighting devices is LEDs (light emitting diodes) (Plummer – column 11, lines 25-44; examiner notes an LED screen that displays various graphics and game content will necessarily comprise a plurality of LEDs); and the at least one display device 206, the plurality of lighting devices being mounted about the table game such that the at least one display device is positioned facing outward (i.e. not facing inward towards the game play surface)(See Plummer Figures 2A, column 11, lines 25-44). Plumer, nor Mower et al., teach wherein the audio visual system includes a plurality of speakers and a camera configured to record gameplay being mounted about a game table. However, analogous art reference Grant et al. teaches the following to be known in the art: a foosball game table comprising a plurality of speakers (paragraph [0091], speakers 318); and at least one camera device 102 mounted about the game table such that it is configured to record gameplay (paragraphs [0058], [0066], [0083]-[0085]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a camera and speakers to the visual-audio system of Plummer + Mower. This will enable replay of game events, simulating a common feature of going to a real professional game which are known to show replays of goals and include audio for entertainment or game information effect.
With respect to claim 7, Grant et al., cited above for its teachings of the speakers 318, further teaches wherein the plurality of speakers 318 are mounted adjacent to a first surface of the game table (Fig. 4 showing speakers 318 adjacent (i.e. near) the first surface). The motivation to combine is the same as stated above.
With respect to claim 8, Plumer et al. does not expressly teach an enclosure for the display device as claimed. Analogous art reference Grant et al. teaches the following to be known in the art: at least one enclosure 313; the enclosure 313 being mounted onto the table game (paragraph [0079]); and the enclosure 313 encompassing a display device 103 (paragraph [0082]; Fig.’s 3, 5-6, 9-10). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to position the display device in an enclosure. This will expectantly improve viewing angled being elevated, and protect the display from damage caused by stray balls.
6. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plumer et al. (US Pat. No. 11,623,134) in view of Mower et al. (US Pat. No. 5,294,913) and further in view of Grant et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0016479) and even further in view of Nally et al. (US Pub. No. 2005/0167908).
With respect to claim 6, Plumer et al. teaches wherein the plurality of lighting devices is positioned under the playing surface, as opposed to being mounted perimetrically along inner sidewalls of the table game. However, analogous art reference Nally et al. teaches that it is known to position lighting devices perimetrically along inner sidewalls of the game table (Fig. 4; paragraph [0018]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to position the lighting devices as taught by Nally et al. The motivation to combine is to position the lights at a known position convenient for game players and onlookers to view the lights. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success. Plumer utilizes a sidewall, and there is enough space between the playing rods to accommodate the displays on the perimeter.
7. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plumer et al. (US Pat. No. 11,623,134) in view of Mower et al. (US Pat. No. 5,294,913) and further in view of ADMITTED PRIOR ART.
With respect to claims 10-11, Plumber teaches a wireless communication module 702; a remote-control device (“mobile devices of players”); and a human interface device (HID) (i.e. player “activation buttons 204”); the wireless communication module 702 and the HID 202/204 being electronically connected to the microcontroller 700 (examiner notes the rejection of claim 1 indicates that interchanging a processor with a microcontroller is obvious and even contemplated by Plumber) (Fig. 7); the remote control device being communicably coupled to the wireless communication module 702 (column 16, lines 43-62); wherein the HID 202/204 is mounted adjacent to the first surface of the game table (Fig. 2A)
Plumber teaches wherein the HID 202/204 is operably coupled to field display screen 408 (column 11, lines 45-62). As such, the combination of Plumber and Mower, which was cited for its teaching of providing audio to the visual system, teaches the claim element that the HID is operably coupled to the audio-visual system, wherein operating the HID governs working of the audio-visual system. The motivation to combine Mower is the same as stated above. Admittedly, Plumber fails to expressly teach wherein operating the remote-control device governs working of at least one of the audio-visual systems, the sensor system, and the computing system. However, is ADMITTED PRIOR ART it is old and well known to control video/audio content using a remote smart phone. At time of applicant’s invention, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to allow game content control with a smart device. This will allow players and other viewers to see their preferred content. Such modification has a reasonable expectation of success as Plumber expressly teaches communications between the game controller and remote mobile device view the wireless communication module 702. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. See MPEP 2144.03
Regarding the location of the wireless communication module 702, Plumber teaches wherein the computing components 208 includes circuitry and logic to carry out the game, wherein the computing components also includes the wireless communication module 702 (column 15, lines 13-16). Whether the wireless communication module 702 is mounted directly onto the control board is unclear. However, the Federal Circuit has held that integrating components is obvious in the art absent critical evidence demonstrating a solution to a perceived need in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349(CCPA 1965) and Schenck v. Nortron Corp.,713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, it would have been obvious to integrate, or mount, the communication module 702 to the control board. This would facilitate the necessary circuitry between the controller and communication module, and also reduce costs and space by avoiding the need for separate control boards.
8. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plumer et al. (US Pat. No. 11,623,134) in view of Mower et al. (US Pat. No. 5,294,913) and further in view of Dayal et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0304146) and even further in view of Grant et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0016479).
With respect to claim 17, Plumer teaches at least one display device 206, and a plurality of lighting devices 408 (column 11, lines 25-44); and the at least one display device 206, the plurality of lighting devices being mounted about the table game such that the at least one display device is positioned facing outward (i.e. not facing inward towards the game play surface)(See Figures 2A, column 11, lines 25-44). Plumer, nor Mower et al., teach wherein the audio-visual system includes a plurality of speakers and a camera configured to record gameplay being mounted about a game table. However, analogous art reference Grant et al. teaches the following to be known in the art: a foosball game table comprising a plurality of speakers (paragraph [0091], speakers 318); and at least one camera device 102 mounted about the game table such that it is configured to record gameplay (paragraphs [0058], [0066], [0083]-[0085]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a camera and speakers to the visual-audio system of Plummer + Mower. This will enable replay of game events, simulating a common feature of going to a real professional game which are known to show replays of goals and include audio for entertainment or game information effect.
9. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plumer et al. (US Pat. No. 11,623,134) in view of Mower et al. (US Pat. No. 5,294,913) and further in view of Dayal et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0304146) and even further in view of ADMITTED PRIOR ART.
With respect to claim 19, Plumber teaches a remote-control device (“mobile devices of players”); and a human interface device (HID) (i.e. player “activation buttons 204”); the HID 202/204 being electronically connected to the microcontroller 700 (examiner notes the rejection of claim 1 indicates that interchanging a processor with a microcontroller is obvious and even contemplated by Plumber) (Fig. 7); the remote control device being communicably coupled to the wireless communication module 702 (column 16, lines 43-62).
Plumber teaches wherein the HID 202/204 is operably coupled to field display screen 408 (column 11, lines 45-62). As such, the combination of Plumber and Mower, which was cited for its teaching of providing audio to the visual system, teaches the claim element that the HID is operably coupled to the audio-visual system, wherein operating the HID governs working of the audio-visual system is met. The motivation to combine Mower is the same as stated above.
Admittedly, Plumber fails to expressly teach wherein operating the remote-control device governs working of at least one of the audio-visual system, the sensor system, and the computing system. However, is ADMITTED PRIOR ART it is old and well known to control video/audio content using a remote smart phone. At time of applicant’s invention, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to allow game content control with a smart device. This will allow players and other viewers to see their preferred content. Such modification has a reasonable expectation of success as Plumber expressly teaches communications between the game controller and remote mobile device view the wireless communication module 702. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. See MPEP 2144.03
10. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plumer et al. (US Pat. No. 11,623,134) in view of Lebensfeld et al. (US Pat. No. 6,328,651) and further in view of Grant et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0016479) and further in view of Dayal et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0304146) and even further in view of ADMITTED PRIOR ART.
With respect to claim 20, Plumer et al. teaches a modular control system comprising: a table game 100; a control system 206 (column 3, lines 20-29; column 5, lines 55-61; column 14, lines 65-67; column 15, lines 1-17; Fig.’s 2A, 7); a visual system 206/408; a sensor system 304; a computing system 700; the control system 206 comprising a wireless communication module 702 (column 16, lines 43-62); the table game comprising a first surface, wherein the first surface is a gaming surface of the table game 1; the control module 206 being mounted onto a second surface of the table game, wherein the second surface is laterally offset from the first surface; the visual system, the sensor system, and the computing system being electronically connected to the control module 206. Plumer et al. recites the use of a processor(s) 700 as part of the control system 206, but also contemplates the use of a microcontroller as part of the logic of the control system 206 – column 3, lines 20-29 – “microcontroller, an application specific integrated circuit”. A person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a microcontroller in lieu of a processor, as they are known to smaller in size and consume less power. Moreover, a person ordinary skill in the art would understand that the integrated circuit includes a board.
Plumber further teaches a wireless communication module 702; a remote control device (“mobile devices of players”); and a human interface device (HID) (i.e. player “activation buttons 204”); the wireless communication module 702 and the HID 202/204 being electronically connected to the microcontroller 700 (examiner notes that interchanging a processor with a microcontroller is obvious and even contemplated by Plumber) (Fig. 7); the remote control device being communicably coupled to the wireless communication module 702 (column 16, lines 43-62).
Admittedly, Plumer et al. does not expressly teach wherein the control system 208 is a detachable control board. However, within the gaming art, it is known for a control board to be detachably mounted to the game body portion as evidenced by Lebensfeld et al. at Fig. 4; column 10, lines 62-67; column 11, lines 1-27. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the control system 208 of Plummer et al. as a detachably mounted control board as taught by Lebensfeld et al. The rationale to combine is to provide convenient access to the control board. This will allow the electrical components, including hardware, to be upgraded without having to take apart the game table. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the functionality of the game table is not frustrated.
Plumber teaches wherein the visual system, the sensor system, and the computing system are mounted onto the game table, but does not expressly teach wherein these components are “detachably mounted” as claimed. However, per MPEP 2144.04, removability, if it is desirable for any reasons, is obvious in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Examiner cites to the following extrinsic references to establish a prior art need for game tables to be retro-fitted with removable game components – Trabert (US Pub. No. 2018/0091776), Cosenza (US Pub. No. 2008/0220913) and Hume et al. (US Pat. No. 6,199,861). By retrofitting existing games tables with removable game components, game designers are able to provide updated and diverse gaming options for existing game tables. This will be appealing to players tired of playing the same game table. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success, as these components can be removably detached without compromising the functionality of the underlying game.
Plumer does not expressly disclose wherein the visual system is an audio-visual system. Analogous art reference Grant et al. teaches this feature to be known in the art (paragraph [0142]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add audio to the visual system. This will expectantly add entertainment value to the game table.
Plumer teaches a plurality of sensor devices 304, wherein the sensor devices 304 comprises a sound-based sensor (i.e. SONAR - column 7, lines 37-67; column 8, lines 1-25), but does not expressly teach wherein it is ultrasonic. Plumber also fails to teach wherein the sensor devices is at least one of force sensitive resistors, or speed sensors. Within the art, it is known to use each of ultrasonic, force sensitive and speed sensors as evidenced by Dayal et al. at paragraph [0037]. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize one of the sensors presented by Dayal et al. for the sensor system of Plumer. The rationale to combine is to detect a ball position and speed. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as Plumer is not limited in its sensor type.
Plumber teaches wherein the HID 202/204 is operably coupled to field display screen 408 (column 11, lines 45-62). As such, the combination of Plumber and Grant, which was cited for its teaching of providing audio to the visual system, teaches the claim element that the HID is operably coupled to the audio-visual system, wherein operating the HID governs working of the audio-visual system. The motivation to combine Grant is the same as stated above.
Admittedly, Plumber fails to expressly teach wherein operating the remote-control device governs working of at least one of the audio-visual system, the sensor system, and the computing system. However, it is ADMITTED PRIOR ART that it is old and well known to control video/audio content using a remote smart phone. At time of applicant’s invention, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to allow game content control with a smart device. This will allow players and other viewers to see their preferred content. Such modification has a reasonable expectation of success as Plumber expressly teaches communications between the game controller and remote mobile device view the wireless communication module 702. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. See MPEP 2144.03
Plumer does not expressly teach wherein the microcontroller is electrically connected to a power source. However, examiner submits that, for Plumer to function properly, it is inherent that the microcontroller is connected to a power source. Should applicant traverse this position, in the alternative, examiner cites to Lebensfeld et al. for its teaching that it is known to provide both a battery power source and low voltage output power source for game systems – column 10, lines 12-13; column 11, lines 39-50. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a power source to the game system of Plumer, and connect it with the microcontroller. The rationale to combine is to provide power to the microcontroller to operate the game.
Lastly, the combination of references teaches wherein the audio-visual system (Plumber + Grant), the sensor system, and the computing system being electronically connected to the control board through the microcontroller (Plumber).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-15, 17-19 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.
With respect to claim 6, applicant argues Nally fails to teach mounting lighting perimetrically along inner sidewalls of the game. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The lighting of primary reference Plumer et al is a display type LED lighting that is positioned under the playing surface, provides game related information. Analogous art reference Nally et al. teaches that it is known to position display type lighting devices perimetrically along inner sidewalls of the game table (Fig. 4; paragraph [0018]). Applicant appears to be arguing that a display is not lighting. However, examiner maintains that a display is a type of lighting. The combination of Plumber and Nally teach wherein the LED lighting display (Plumber) is positioned perimetrically along inner sidewalls of a game table (Nally – Fig. 4; paragraph [0018])
With respect to claim 20, and in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the control board, the audio-video visual system, the sensor system, and the computing system being configured to mount to the table game, and being configurated to be removed from the table game to be mounted to a different table game”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Regarding the claimed “detachably mounted” functionality of the audio-visual system, the sensor system, and the computing system, examiner maintains that per MPEP 2144.04, removability, if it is desirable for any reasons, is obvious in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Examiner cites to the following extrinsic references to establish a prior art need for game tables to be retro-fitted with removable game components – Trabert (US Pub. No. 2018/0091776), Cosenza (US Pub. No. 2008/0220913) and Hume et al. (US Pat. No. 6,199,861). By retrofitting existing games tables with removable game components, game designers are able to provide updated and diverse gaming options for existing game tables. This will be appealing to players tired of playing the same game table. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success, as these components can be removably detached without compromising the functionality of the underlying game.
Conclusion
12. 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 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