DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al. (US 2022/0109361).
In respect to claim 1, Johnson et al. disclose a ball launch system* comprising: an electromagnetic coil comprising a plurality of windings 301/302/303 along a path; a magnetic piston 308 configured to travel along the path 315; and a control system that is configured to receive a “launch signal” (an electric signal, from any device, including a roulette gaming device) and sequentially activate a first winding 301 and a second winding 302 to accelerate the magnetic piston from a start position. The control system is configured to launch a ball at a speed and timing associated with the applied electronic signal “launch signal”. (0047-0051; Figs. 3A-3B). *Note: the system is capable of launching a ball as the magnetic piston may be a “plunger”. Also, it is noted that a “roulette ball” does not have a standard weight or size, thus there is no particular functionality capability ascribed to the structure of Johnson et al. Johnson et al. disclose that the first and second winding adjust the speed of the magnetic piston.
In respect to the amended subject matter, Johnson et al. disclose all of the amended subject matter for the reasons stated above. The recitation “and generate a ball launch sequence comprising: applying a first current to a first winding of the electromagnetic coil to drive the magnetic piston from a start position along the ball path; and applying a second current to a second winding of the electromagnetic coil to adjust the speed of the magnetic piston” does not provide any distinction from Johnson et al. (See Response to Arguments).
In respect to claims 2, 4, and 9, Johnson et al. disclose a sensor configured to determine a position of the magnetic piston within the path, and automatically adjusts timing of the activation of the first and second windings (adjusting the speed of the magnetic piston) (0056).
In respect to claim 3, Johnson et al. disclose that the polarities of the currents applied to the first and second windings maybe opposite (0054).
In respect to claim 7, Johnson et al. disclose more or less coils may be used “such as, two or four, or more”, which would six would coils “windings” readily be ascertained of one of ordinary skill.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2022/0109361) in view of Shimotsu (US 2015/0198783).
Johnson et al. substantially disclose the claimed invention for the reasons stated above but do not disclose a synthetic bearing or rods to guide the magnetic piston, however, Shimotsu teaches a similar electromagnetic device, wherein the piston has a bearing 18 which is guided by rods 15 and 16. It would have been obvious to provide the piston taught in Johnson et al. with a bearing and rods taught in Shimotsu to only allow axial movement of the piston (preventing rotation) (0059). It is noted that the electromagnetic device is a different embodiment of the voice coil motor used in the invention, with the movable part being electrically coiled and the magnetic part being immovable, however the principle of restricting the movement of the piston in one desired direction is the same. Furthermore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, namely, using a bearing and guides to restrict motion of the piston in a single desired direction, which is extensively well known in the art. Lastly, although Shimotsu does not explicitly teach that the bearing is “synthetic material” this encompasses a vast number of various materials all known in the art, and would be obvious, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 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. As noted in the arguments below, upon reconsideration and amendment, Nireki in view of Johnson et al. does not disclose additional elements such as a player-activated launch controller or an angled piston.
Claim 11 is allowable since the methods require a ball and the specific application of currents to the windings. As noted in the arguments below, upon reconsideration and amendment, Nireki in view of Johnson et al. does not teach the method. Claims 12-16 depend from claim 11.
Claims 17-20 were previously indicated as allowable
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/26 have been fully considered and are partly persuasive.
In respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection over Johnson et al., the applicant argues that Johnson et al. fails to disclose “a defined ball launch sequence” specially the “timing and speed” associated with the launch signal, which is not persuasive. The applicant lists alleged differences between the “control operation” of the application and Johnson et al. however these are drawn to methods. The rejected claims are drawn to a system, specifically an electromagnetic coil, magnetic piston, and a control system configured to receive a launch signal and apply the currents as claimed. Although it is not persuasive that Johnson et al. do not disclose the particular controls of the currents as claimed, it is irrelevant, so long as the structure of Johnson et al. is capable of producing the currents as claimed. Specifically, Johnson et al. disclose that the “current for each coil can be individually controlled and currents I.sub.1, I.sub.2, and I.sub.3, may selected differ between the coils”. The applicant has not persuasively argued how Johnson et al. does not disclose adjustment of the timing and speed of the piston as any applied current (of different values) will provide different acceleration and thus different speeds. Even if Johnston only discloses a desire to move the piston to a certain position with different currents, the recitation “to adjust the speed of the magnetic piston” is only an intended use. Regardless, in adjusting the position, the speed is also adjusted.
The applicant further argues that “around a ball path” and “through an exit point of the ball path” are not merely intended uses but “define structural configuration[s]”, which is not persuasive. Both are directly to the “ball path” which is not a structural configuration, but a hypothetical motion profile of an intended use of the piston, striking a ball. The actually structural configuration of Johnson et al. is capable of striking a ball, which would create a ball path in the locations relative to the structures claimed.
In respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection to claims 8 and 10, the applicant relies upon the alleged deficiencies of Johnson et al. above, and is not persuasive for the same reasons.
In respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection to claims 1, 5 and 6, the applicant relies upon the alleged deficiencies of Johnson et al. above, and is not persuasive for the same reasons. However, it is persuasive that Johnson et al. do not provide sufficient motivation to modify the coil of Nireki, since Johnston et al. is, as argued, a “generalized electromagnetic actuator” which does not provide a reason or teaching for providing different speeds to the actuator. Johnson et al. may actuate a ball in the fashion described, however, this does not appear obvious applied to a Pachinko machine.
Conclusion
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 KYLE ROBERT GRABOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3518. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Daniel Troy, can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/KYLE R GRABOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights