DETAILED ACTION
Second Non-Final Action
Claims 11-16 were erroneously rejected under 35 USC 102 over Johnson et al. but were intended to be rejected under 35 USC 103 over Nireki in view of Johnson et al.
Thus, a new rejection has been applied to non-amended claims.
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.
In respect to the amended subject matter, Johnson et al. disclose that the first and second winding adjust the speed of the magnetic piston.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 6, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nireki (JP 2005-185323) (See NPL for English Translation) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2022/0109361).
Nireki discloses a ball launch system comprising: an electromagnetic coil 4 comprising a winding along a path; a magnetic piston 7 configured to travel along the path; and a control system that is configured to receive a “launch signal” to strike a pachinko ball (all intents and purposes the same functionality as a ball for roulette) (0024; Fig. 11); the launch signal may be from a player-activated firing handle (“launch controller”) 13a (Fig. 1; 0018); the electromagnetic coli and magnetic piston are angled (such that a ball may return via gravity) (Fig. 5).
Nireki does not disclose using multiple windings in the electromagnetic coil, however this is taught in Johnson et al. as detailed above. It would have been obvious to modify the electromagnetic coil taught in Nireki to include multiple windings in view of Johnson et al. to precisely control the direction and speed of the magnetic plunger (0048).
In respect to claims 11-16, Nireki in view of Johnson et al. teach the claimed invention for the reasons detailed above.
Claims 17, 18, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhoten (US 2005/0014550) and Nireki (JP 2005-185323) (See NPL for English Translation) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2022/0109361).
In respect to claim 17, Rhoten discloses a method of controlling a speed and timing of a ball launch into a rotating roulette wheel via a player-activated launch controller (Abstract); Rhoten further discloses that the ball launch may comprise an electromagnetic device (0011; Fig. 3a). Nireki teaches a particular ball launch device as detailed above. It would have been obvious use the electromagnetic ball launch device taught in Nireki, as a suitable device for launching a very similar ball. All of the claimed elements were known in prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The generic “electromagnetic device” in Rhoten is generic as it does pertain to the invention, so long as the device can launch the ball upon electronic command. The particular structure used in Nireki for a very similar ball launch would seamlessly integrate with no unexpected result. Johnson et al. further teach modifying the coils on the suitable ball launching device as multiple coils, as detailed above, for controlling the speed/motion of the magnetic plunger. This “adjustment or variation” is a key element of Rhoten (0014).
In respect to claim 18, Rhoten further discloses that the player-activated launch controller includes adjusting a speed of rotation of the roulette wheel based on a first wheel command (0043).
In respect to claim 19, Rhoten further discloses that the input for the wheel rotation can be changed at any time, at least before launch of the ball (via a “momentary switch”). The limitation “after bets close” is arbitrary and not drawn to any particular time (e.g. a person could determine, at any time, “bets close”. Although Rhoten does not disclose a person selecting a first and then a second energy level “a second wheel command”, The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary common sense, e.g. someone may select a first speed, change their mind, then select a second speed. The structure is configured for such use.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhoten (US 2005/0014550) and Nireki (JP 2005-185323) (See NPL for English Translation) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2022/0109361) as applied to claims 17 and 18 above, and further in view of Acton et al. (US 2017/0136344).
Rhoten, Nireki, and Johnson et al. substantially teach the claimed invention, including a player-activated launch controller, varying any of the launch speed, launch time, and/or rotation of the roulette wheel speed, but do not explicitly teach a second launch command for a second roulette ball into the roulette wheel. However, Acton et al. teach a very similar invention with variable launch roulette ball launch speeds, and further teaches the ball launch connecting to a first and second guide to launch at least two roulette balls (Abstract). It would have been obvious to provide the launch controller taught in Rhoten, Nireki, and Johnson et al. with a second launch command in view of Acton et al. to launch a second ball into the roulette wheel (Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/26 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
In respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection over Johnson et al., the applicant contends that Johnson et al. fails to disclose 1) a launch signal from a roulette gaming device 2) a “ball path” or 3) “launching a roulette ball positioned within the ball path through an exit point at a timing and speed associated with the launch signal. However, none of these limitations are structural limitations of the ball launch system: a roulette gaming device, ball path, or launch signal are structural components of the system, only functional and/or intended uses of the system.
Rather the claim recites a control system configured to receive a launch signal. The ball launch system in Johnson et al. receives an electric signal to execute the magnetic launch, and thus is structurally capable of receiving an electric [launch] signal from a roulette gaming device.
The other two contentions are drawn to the recitation “wherein the accelerated launches a roulette ball positioned in a ball path through an exit point of the ball path at a timing and a speed associated with the launch signal” with is entirely intended use. The system claimed is structurally anticipated by Johnson et al. which further has the functional capability to receive a electric [launch] signal from a roulette gaming device. The system is capable of using to launch a ball down a ball path of a roulette gaming device.
The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1, 5, and 6, the applicant relies on similar logic above about the alleged deficiencies of the prior art. Structurally a “roulette ball” and a “pachinko ball” are structurally synonymous as broadly claimed, with “roulette” merely being an intended use of the ball after launch. Arguments that Johnson et al. teaches against Nireki are not persuasive. Both prior art references are directly concerned with a magnetic plunger, and Nireki teaches that modifying the magnetic coils to provide two or more windings provides for precise control of direction and speed of the magnetic plunger, which is the motivation for combination.
The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 8 and 10 are argued to be incorrect for the same reasons argued above, and thus are not persuasive.
The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 17-20 are obviated by argument.
The 35 USC 112 rejection has been obviated by amendment.
Conclusion
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