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,
Claim 8: "said pair of upper rear vertical struts are hingedly attached to said pair of lower rear vertical struts,"
Claim 16: "pivoting a pair of upper rear vertical struts of said rear frame with respect to a pair of lower rear vertical struts to reduce the height of the rear frame," and
Claim 20: "pivoting a pair of upper rear vertical struts of said rear frame with respect to a pair of lower rear vertical struts to increase a height of the rear frame"
must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Logically, the insertion of fasteners recited in claim 14 should follow the positioning of the front panel into its expanded configuration at an oblique angle with respect to the vertical struts recited in claim 15. For the instant examination, claims 14 and 15 will be interpreted as appearing in reverse order. Note: Drawings, Figure 8, the flowchart 200 shows the method of moving the frame assembly to the expanded configuration. The first step 205 is “Remove fasteners.” The last step 220 is “Insert fasteners.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 16 discloses, pivoting a pair of upper rear vertical struts of said rear frame with respect to a pair of lower rear vertical struts to reduce a height of the rear frame (Examiner’s emphasis). However, claims 13-16 disclose a method of moving the frame assembly from a collapsed configuration to an expanded configuration (see Figure 8). Therefore, for the instant examination, Examiner interprets claim 16 to read, pivoting a pair of upper rear vertical struts of said rear frame with respect to a pair of lower rear vertical struts to increase a height of the rear frame. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 preamble discloses, A method of moving a frame assembly of an arcade game system from a collapsed configuration to an expanded configuration (Examiner's emphasis). However, the body of claim 17 and following dependent claims disclose a method of moving the frame assembly from an expanded configuration to a collapsed configuration (see Figure 9). Therefore, for the instant examination, Examiner interprets claim 17 to read, A method of moving a frame assembly of an arcade game system from an expanded configuration to a collapsed configuration. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 discloses, removing fasteners from openings in hinged connections that attach said front panel to said front frame [Examiner’s emphasis]. In view of the interpretation of claim 17 above, disclosing a method of collapsing, claim 18 should read, inserting fasteners from openings in hinged connections that attach said front panel to said front frame. Moreover, logically the limitation disclosed in claim 18 should follow claim 19. For the instant examination, Examiner interprets the claim language of claim 18 to be renumbered as claim 19. Note: Drawings, Figure 9, the flowchart 300 shows the method of moving the frame assembly to the collapsed configuration. The first step 305 is “Remove fasteners.” The last step 320 is “Insert fasteners.”
Appropriate action is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 discloses, wherein said front panel is pivoted from a position in which said front panel is at an oblique angle with respect to said front vertical struts to a position in which said front panel is parallel with respect to said front vertical struts [Examiner’s emphasis]. In view of the interpretation of claim 17 above, disclosing a method of collapsing, the limitation of claim 19 logically should follow claim 17. As claim 17 recites, having “hing[ed] a front panel of the frame assembly toward front vertical struts of a front frame of the frame assembly,” it follows that said front frame has not yet been fastened in the collapsed configuration, only hinged toward the vertical struts. It now becomes necessary to fix the front panel in position parallel with respect to the front frame. For the instant examination, Examiner interprets the claim language of claim 19 to follow claim 17 and be renumbered as claim 18. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 20 discloses, pivoting a pair of upper rear vertical struts of said rear frame with respect to a pair of lower rear vertical struts to increase a height of the rear frame (Examiner’s emphasis). However, claims 17-20 disclose a method of moving the frame assembly from an expanded configuration to a collapsed configuration (see claim 17 Objection above). Therefore, for the instant examination, Examiner interprets claim 20 to read, pivoting a pair of upper rear vertical struts of said rear frame with respect to a pair of lower rear vertical struts to decrease a height of the rear frame. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 8 and 9 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "said pair of upper rear vertical struts" and "said pair of lower rear vertical struts" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. (It appears that claim 8 depends on claim 7 and will be interpreted as such for the instant examination.)
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said lower rear vertical struts" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. (It appears that claim 9 depends on claim 7 and will be interpreted as such for the instant examination.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Luo et al (US 10,220,281 B2), hereinafter Luo.
Regarding claim 1, Luo discloses:
An arcade game system comprising: a frame assembly, wherein the frame assembly includes: a rear frame comprising a pair of horizontal rear telescoping struts, wherein each of said rear telescoping struts extends forward see Abstract; Figures 1 and 2, element 4 (which comprises two telescopic rods A; column 3, lines 14-15);
a front frame comprising a pair of front telescoping struts, wherein each of said front telescoping struts extends rearward see Figures 1 and 2, element 4; column 3, lines 21-27;
wherein each rear telescoping strut is telescopingly coupled to one of said front telescoping struts to slidingly attach said rear frame to said front frame see Figures 1 and 2, element 7;
a game play area defined between said rear frame and said front frame see Figures 1 and 2, element 8;
a target attached to said rear frame see Figure 3, element 1;
and wherein the rear frame and the front frame are slidably configured so that when the rear telescoping struts and the front telescoping struts are extended, the frame assembly is in an expanded configuration, and wherein when the rear telescoping struts and the front telescoping struts are retracted, the frame assembly is in a collapsed configuration see column 3, lines 60-67, through column 4, lines 1-12.
Regarding claim 7, Luo discloses:
The arcade game system of claim 1, wherein said rear frame includes a pair of lower rear vertical struts and a pair of upper rear vertical struts see Figures 1 and 2, element 3.
Regarding claim 9 (interpreted in the instant application to depend on claim 7; see Examiner’s note in claim 9 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)), Luo discloses:
a pair of angled support struts, wherein a first end of each of said of angled support struts is attached to a respective one of said lower rear vertical struts, and wherein a second end of each of said angled support struts is attached to a respective one of said rear telescoping struts. See Luo column 2, lines 62-67 and column 3, lines 1-12.
Regarding claim 10, Luo discloses:
The arcade game system of claim 1, further comprising: one or more rims attached to said target see Figure 3, element 2.
Regrading claim 11, Luo discloses:
The arcade game system of claim 1, wherein each of said front telescoping struts are slidable within a respective rear telescoping strut see column 3, lines 7-9.
Regarding claim 12, Luo discloses:
The arcade game system of claim 1, wherein each of said rear telescoping struts are slidable within a respective front telescoping strut see column 3, lines 7-9.
Claim 1 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gregory (US 7,207,906 B1), hereinafter Gregory.
Regarding claim 1, Gregory discloses:
An arcade game system comprising: a frame assembly, wherein the frame assembly includes: a rear frame comprising a pair of horizontal rear telescoping struts, wherein each of said rear telescoping struts extends forward see Figure 1; Abstract;
a front frame comprising a pair of front telescoping struts, wherein each of said front telescoping struts extends rearward see Figure 1; column 2, lines 4-12;
wherein each rear telescoping strut is telescopingly coupled to one of said front telescoping struts to slidingly attach said rear frame to said front frame see column 1, lines 34-42;
a game play area defined between said rear frame and said front frame see Abstract;
a target attached to said rear frame see column 3, lines 37-39, wherein the “tunnel” functions as the target attached to the rear frame;
and wherein the rear frame and the front frame are slidably configured so that when the rear telescoping struts and the front telescoping struts are extended, the frame assembly is in an expanded configuration, and wherein when the rear telescoping struts and the front telescoping struts are retracted, the frame assembly is in a collapsed configuration see column 4, lines 28-35.
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 2-6, 13-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory.
Regarding claim 2, the claim discloses:
a front panel; wherein said front panel is attached to said front frame at a hinged connection so that said front panel may hinge with respect to said front frame.
Gregory discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 1. Gregory further discloses a “discharge chute” 60 (Figures 2 and 3; column 3, lines 40-60) which is attached to the front frame by support arms 70 and 70’, elbows 74 and 74’, and elbows 80 and 80’. While Gregory does not explicitly disclose a hinged connection, telescoping rods are used to rotate, swivel and collapse the discharge chute and supports with respect to the front frame. Substituting rotatable connections for hinged connections is well known in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted rotatable connections for hinged connections with the predictable result of making the arcade game system collapsible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim discloses:
said hinged connection includes a first opening and a second opening, and wherein a fastener is configured to be fit into said first opening or said second opening to prevent said front panel from hinging with respect to said front frame.
Gregory discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 2. Gregory further discloses (column 5, claim 5) a means for releasably locking tubular portions of the claimed invention. While Gregory does not explicitly disclose a fastener configured to fit a first or second opening, releasably locking portions of telescoping tubular portions is well known in the art. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted locking tubular portions for fasteners configured to fit into openings with the predictable result of preventing the discharge chute and supports from rotating with respect to the front frame.
Regarding claim 4, Gregory discloses:
an apron, wherein a first end of said apron is attached to said rear frame and a second end of said apron is attached to said front panel see Abstract; Figure 1, elements 52, 54, 56, and 58 which form a tunnel-like configuration; column 3, lines 37-39.
Regarding claim 5, Gregory discloses:
a first side net, wherein said first side net is attached to said rear frame and said front frame; a second side net, wherein said second side net is attached to said rear frame and said front frame; and wherein said first side net, said second side net, and said apron define a boundary of said game play area see abstract; Figure 1; column 3, lines 14-39.
Regarding claim 6, Gregory discloses:
said first side net is attached to said front panel, and wherein said second side net is attached to said front panel see column 3, lines 37-39.
Regarding claim 13, Gregory discloses:
A method of moving a frame assembly of an arcade game system from a collapsed configuration to an expanded configuration, the method comprising: pivoting a front panel of the frame assembly away from front vertical struts of a front frame of the frame assembly;
pulling the front frame away from a rear frame of the frame assembly, wherein said rear frame includes a pair of rear telescoping struts and wherein said front frame includes a pair of front telescoping struts coupled to said rear telescoping struts; sliding said front telescoping struts and said rear telescoping struts with respect to each other as said front frame is pulled away from said rear frame; and wherein a length of the frame assembly increases as the front frame is pulled away from said rear frame see column 4, lines 28-40, which recite collapsing the device. To return to the device’s fully erected position, the reverse of the steps is executed.
NOTE: For the instant examination, claims 14 and 15 have been interpreted and renumbered. See Claims Objections above.
Regarding claim 14, Gregory discloses:
said front panel is pivoted from a position in which said front panel is parallel with respect to said front vertical struts to a position in which said front panel is at an oblique angle with respect to said front vertical struts see Figure; column 4, lines 28-32, wherein the discharge chute 60 and its supporting arms 70 and 71 function as a pivotable front panel with respect to the front frame.
Regarding claim 15, the claim discloses:
inserting fasteners into openings in hinged connections that attach said front panel to said front frame to lock said front panel in a selected position.
Gregory discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above in claim 13. Gregory further discloses (column 5, claim 5; column 2, lines 34-36) a means such as a snug fit or use of an opposing hole and detent arrangement for releasably locking tubular portions of the claimed invention. While Gregory does not explicitly disclose inserting fasteners into hinged openings, releasably locking portions of telescoping tubular portions in selected positions is well known in the art. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted locking tubular portions for fasteners configured to fit into openings with the predictable result of locking tubular portions from rotating with respect to the front frame.
Regarding claim 17, Gregory discloses:
A method of moving a frame assembly of an arcade game system from an expanded configuration to a collapsed [Examiner’s note: see Claim 17 Objection above] configuration, the method comprising: hinging a front panel of the frame assembly toward front vertical struts of a front frame of the frame assembly see column 3, lines 61-column 4, lines 1-5;
pushing the front frame toward a rear frame of the frame assembly, wherein said rear frame includes a pair of rear telescoping struts and wherein said front frame includes a pair of front telescoping struts coupled to said rear telescoping struts; sliding said front telescoping struts and said rear telescoping struts with respect to each other as said front frame is pushed toward said rear frame; and wherein a length of the frame assembly decreases as the front frame is pushed toward said rear frame see column 4, lines 28-40.
NOTE: For the instant examination, claims 18 and 19 have been interpreted and renumbered. See Claims Objections above.
Regarding claim 18, Gregory discloses:
said front panel is pivoted from a position in which said front panel is at an oblique angle with respect to said front vertical struts to a position in which said front panel is parallel with respect to said front vertical struts see column 4, lines 28-32.
Regarding claim 19, Gregory discloses:
inserting fasteners from openings in hinged connections that attach said front panel to said front frame see column 5, claim 5; column 2, lines 34-36.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo as applied to claim 7 above (see also Examiner’s note on claim 8 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)), and further in view of Farley (US 10,603,559 B1), hereinafter Farley.
Regarding claim 8, the claim discloses:
said pair of upper rear vertical struts are hingedly attached to said pair of lower rear vertical struts. Luo discloses two telescopic upright rods 3 which support the arcade’s backboard and constitute the rear frame (Figure 1; column 3, lines 13-14). Luo fails to disclose that the upper and lower components of the upright rods 3 are hingedly connected. Farley discloses (Figure 4; column 5, lines 7-9) hinges 36 between struts 27 and 29, which correspond to upper and lower rear vertical struts of the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Luo with hinged connections between the components of the upright support rods to adjust the height of the rear frame, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Farley.
Regarding claim 16, Luo fails to disclose:
pivoting a pair of upper rear vertical struts of said rear frame with respect to a pair of lower rear vertical struts to increase [Examiner’s note: see Claim 16 Objection above] a height of the rear frame. Luo discloses two telescopic upright rods 3 which support the arcade’s backboard and constitute the rear frame (Figure 1; column 3, lines 13-14). Luo fails to disclose that the upper and lower components of the upright rods 3 are hingedly connected. Farley discloses (Figure 4; column 5, lines 7-9) hinges 36 between struts 27 and 29, which correspond to upper and lower rear vertical struts of the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Luo with hinged connections between the components of the upright support rods, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Luo fails to disclose:
pivoting a pair of upper rear vertical struts of said rear frame with respect to a pair of lower rear vertical struts to decrease [Examiner’s note: see Claim 20 Objection above] a height of the rear frame Luo discloses two telescopic upright rods 3 which support the arcade’s backboard and constitute the rear frame (Figure 1; column 3, lines 13-14). Luo fails to disclose that the upper and lower components of the upright rods 3 are hingedly connected. Farley discloses (Figure 4; column 5, lines 7-9) hinges 36 between struts 27 and 29, which correspond to upper and lower rear vertical struts of the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Luo with hinged connections between the components of the upright support rods, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDALL J. LOVDAHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6701. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-1700.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/R.J.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711