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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 disclose “two link machines” whereas it should be “two linked machines”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 6 and 7 disclose “they” whereas it should be “each player”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 discloses “machines are configured” appears as if it should be “the two linked machines”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 8 discloses “all player with them compete” whereas it should be “all player with then compete”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "designated area all other machines will release items in their grasp (all machines will lose gripping power, which would result in one winner in all but the closest competitions where prizes may be release simultaneously over a prize areas/chutes or reach the prize area/chute with a prize almost simultaneously” in lines 11-14 has an open parenthesis but no closed parenthesis. From what the Examiner can tell, it appears as if the limitation was taken straight from the specification (page 9, lines 1-5).
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 discloses “the camera” whereas it should be “the cameras”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 7 discloses “a multi-player embodiments” whereas it should be “a multi-player embodiment”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 10 discloses “two link machines” whereas it should be “two linked machines”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 8 discloses “a multi-player embodiments” whereas it should be “a multi-player embodiment”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 11 discloses “two link machines” whereas it should be “two linked machines”. 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.
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 2-15, 17-24, 26-28 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 2 recites the limitation "the game play" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the two machine/claws" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the first to drop a prize in their” in line 3. The Examiner does not understand what means. Did the applicant mean “the first to drop a prize in their prize chute”? The Examiner will assume that this is what the applicant meant to disclose.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the winner" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the machine" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "only dispense one prize, that to the winner" in line 4. The Examiner does not know what that means.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a single cabinet" in line 2. However, there was disclosure of “a single cabinet” previously before in Claim 1 Claim above in line 2. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the shape of the machines" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the number of players " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the two player machine " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the two player machine " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "each having their own full controls, game interface " in line 3-4. The Examiner is confused by the comma in this passage. Did the applicant mean “each having their own full controls and game interface”?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "each having their own full controls, game interface " in line 2-3. The Examiner is confused by the comma in this passage. Did the applicant mean “each having their own full controls and game interface”?
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the shape of a triangle " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the cabinet" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the shape" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the sides of the cabinet" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the same playfield" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the same prizes" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the players " in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the multi-player embodiments" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the PTYW game play” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the maximum players” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "at a cabinet/until” in line 2. The Examiner is confused by what this means. It appears as if it is supposed to be “at a cabinet/unit” but the Examiner is not positive.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the unit or machine” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the side by side multi-player layout” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the four stations” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the corresponding station button” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the game” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the other games” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the machines” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the game” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the machine” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "resets after each prize is one” in line 2. The Examiner is confused by this passage. It appears as if it is supposed to be “resets after each prize is won” but the Examiner is not positive.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "by the s for all active stations” in line 3. The Examiner is confused by this passage and does not know what this means.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the machines” in line 3, 6, 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the optimal usage” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the prize area/chute” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the winning machine” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the prize area, chute, or designated area” in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears as if the applicant is referring to “the prize area/chut” which was disclosed in line 9 but the Examiner is not positive.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "such connected gameplay and competition” in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the prize area/chute” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the sabotage play” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the game” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the cabinet” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the game play fields” in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the players” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the game” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the winning game” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the winning player” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the game play fields” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the gameplay” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the game” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "a single cabinet" in line 2. However, there was disclosure of “a single cabinet” previously before in line 2 of Claim 1. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the machines” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the standard game play” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the crane” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the standard game play” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claim(s) from which they depend and are similarly rejected for the same reason.
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, 18, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shoemaker, Jr. US 9526978 (Shoemaker).
Regarding Claim 1.
Showmaker discloses a play till you win (PTYW) crane claw machine, comprising taking two crane machines and merging them into a single cabinet (Fig 1-5; Abstract, Col 1, lines 8-17; Col 2, lines 13-18. The figures depict multiple games, each having respective side space, that is within a single cabinet.);
a competitive game played between two linked machines, or a dedicated machine which emulates two link machines placed side by side (Fig 3-5; Abstract, Col 1, lines 24-45. The game can be played by two players at the same time as they attempt to win a prize. This is interpreted as a competitive game played between two linked gaming machines.)
Regarding Claim 18.
Showmaker discloses the PTYW crane claw machine of claim 1, wherein multiple machines are connected either wirelessly or have wired means for enabling such connected gameplay and competition among players and machines (Fig 8; Col 3, lines 27-43. Signals are used for enabling game play among the machines which means connections between machines are either wireless and/or wired so that signals could be transmitted.).
Regarding Claim 27. Shoemaker discloses a play till you win (PTYW) crane claw machine, comprising linking two or more crane machines (Fig 1-5; Abstract, Col 1, lines 8-17; Col 2, lines 13-18. The figures depict multiple games, each having respective side space, that is within a single cabinet.);
a main board/controller (Fig 8, elem 65; Col 3, lines 27-43) will control linking of two or more standard crane machines or multi-player machines (Fig 1; Abstract, Col 1, lines 24-45; Col 2, lines 18-19; Col 3, lines 44-49; Col 4, lines 4-6. The figure depicts multiple claw machines within a single cabinet such that it could be used for multiple players.);
the main board/controller provide
the standard crane game play to a single player, or
to multiple players simultaneously in a multi-player embodiments in a single unit/machine or between two or more linked machines (Fig 1; Abstract, Col 1, lines 24-45; Col 2, lines 18-19; Col 3, lines 44-49; Col 4, lines 4-6. The system can provide game play for a single or multiple players.); and a
competitive game played between two linked machines, or a dedicated machine which emulates two link machines placed side by side (Fig 1, 5; Abstract, Col 1, lines 24-45; Col 2, lines 18-19; Col 3, lines 44-49; Col 4, lines 4-6. Since players can play together, this is interpreted as competitive game played between two linked machines.).
Regarding Claim 28. Shoemaker discloses a play till you win (PTYW) crane claw machine, comprising a low-boy type crane embodiment, where the crane is set up like a table top allowing all players to see each other (Fig 1-5; Col 2, lines 20-29. The cabinet can be that of a table top type game.);
a main board/controller (Fig 8, elem 65; Col 3, lines 27-43) will control linking of two or more standard crane machines or multi-player machines (Fig 1; Abstract, Col 1, lines 24-45; Col 2, lines 18-19; Col 3, lines 44-49; Col 4, lines 4-6. The figure depicts multiple claw machines within a single cabinet such that it could be used for multiple players.);
the main board/controller provide the standard crane game play to a single player, or to multiple players simultaneously in a multi-player embodiments in a single unit/machine or between two or more linked machines (Fig 1; Abstract, Col 1, lines 24-45; Col 2, lines 18-19; Col 3, lines 44-49; Col 4, lines 4-6. The system can provide game play for a single or multiple players.); and a competitive game played between two linked machines, or a dedicated machine which emulates two link machines placed side by side (Fig 1, 5; Abstract, Col 1, lines 24-45; Col 2, lines 18-19; Col 3, lines 44-49; Col 4, lines 4-6. Since players can play together, this is interpreted as competitive game played between two linked machines.).
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.
Claims 2-6, 8-9, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shoemaker, Jr. US 9526978 (Shoemaker).
Regarding Claim 2.
Shoemaker discloses the PTYW crane claw machine of claim 1, but failed to disclose wherein the gameplay is a play till you win (PTYW) where each respective player of the two machines/claws is playing against each other in an effort to be the first to drop a prize in their and be declared the winner, as the machine will only dispense one prize, that to the winner, and gameplay will continue until there is a winner.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having it where each respective player of the two machines/claws playing against each other in an effort to be the first to drop a prize and be declared the winner, as the machine will only dispense one prize, that to the winner, and gameplay will continue until there is a winner solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the multiplayer game play of Shoemaker or the Applicant’s instant invention would perform equally well for providing each respective player of the two machines/claws the ability to play against each other in an effort to be the first to drop a prize and be declared the winner, as the machine will only dispense one prize, that to the winner, and gameplay will continue until there is a winner. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have modified Shoemaker such that it allows for such similar game play, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration, which fails to patentably distinguish over Shoemaker.
It should be noted that Shoemaker discloses that the crane claw machine accepts currency for allowing game play (Col 2, lines 30-43) as well as allowing multiple players to playing together to win an award (Fig 1; Abstract, Col 1, lines 24-45; Col 2, lines 18-19; Col 3, lines 44-49; Col 4, lines 4-6). In this case, since Shoemaker discloses multiple players being able to play together to win prize, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that at least two players can continuously play in a competitive attempt to see who wins a prize first. In this case, the first player to successfully pick up a prize would also be the first player to be dispense the prize from the gaming machine as well. Players could consider it a friendly competition where they would continuously compete against one another, and thus continue to keep paying, until one of them wins which and is dispensed a prize, and therefore, considered the winner. In other words, play till you win (PTYW) is interpreted as players continuously playing, and paying currency for each play, until they win a prize, and thus, with the competition against a competing player.
Regarding Claim 3.
Shoemaker discloses the PTYW crane claw machine of claim 1, but failed to disclose wherein a single cabinet is created to house two machines or create a single double machine, the shape of the machines can vary depending on the number of players.
Applicant has not disclosed that having it wherein a single cabinet is created to house two machines or create a single double machine, the shape of the machines can vary depending on the number of players solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that Shoemaker discloses that multiple gaming machines can be housed in a single cabinet (Fig 5; Abstract, Col 1, lines 8-17; Col 2, lines 13-18)
or the Applicant’s instant invention would perform equally well for providing two claw machines within a single cabinet. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have modified Shoemaker such that, instead of having four claw machines within a single cabinet, two claw machines can be houses within a single cabinet, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration, which fails to patentably distinguish over Shoemaker.
Regarding Claim 4.
Showmaker discloses the PTYW crane claw machine of claim 3, wherein the two player machine has a rectangular/square layout for side by side play (Fig 1-5).
Regarding Claim 5.
Showmaker discloses the PTYW crane claw machine of claim 3, wherein the two player machine has a round shape for a more face-off style of competition or even a true face-off cabinet where players are placed on opposing sides, each having their own full controls, game interface (Fig 1. The figure depicts how players can be situated such that they are facing one another.).
Regarding Claim 6.
Showmaker discloses the PTYW crane claw machine of claim 3, wherein players are placed on opposing sides of a square or rectangular cabinet, each having their own full controls, game interface (Fig 1. The figure depicts how players can be situated such that they are facing one another.).
Regarding Claim 8.
Showmaker discloses the PTYW crane claw machine of claim 3, wherein in a four person player embodiment the cabinet may take the shape of a larger cube where a player is position on each of the sides of the cabinet (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 9.
Showmaker discloses the PTYW crane claw machine of claim 3, wherein in a four player, single cabinet embodiment, each side or station presents an identical player experience and play, and control set up, but each player would be competing on the same playfield for the same prizes where they would not play for a fixed period of time or number of grabs/drops, and they compete against each other until one of the players wins (Fig 1; Abstract; Col 1, lines 24-45; Col 2, lines 30-43; Col 2, lines 18-19; Col 3, lines 44-49; Col 4, lines 4-6. Since multiple players can play together to win prize on the same playfield, as depicted in Fig 1, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that players can continuously play for as many attempts to win a respective prize since players could consider it a friendly competition where they would continuously compete against one another, and thus continue to keep paying, until one of them wins which and is dispensed a prize, and therefore, considered the winner. There is no fixed period of time or number of grabs/drops since each respective player will be continuously playing until one of them wins the competition.)
Regarding Claim 26.
Showmaker discloses the PTYW crane claw machine of claim 3, wherein the machines are either wirelessly or have wired means for enabling such connected gameplay and competition among players and machines (Fig 8; Col 3, lines 27-43. Signals are used for enabling game play among the machines which means connections between machines are either wireless and/or wired so that signals could be transmitted.).
Shoemaker failed to explicitly disclose wherein multiple machines are connected physically or merged into a single cabinet or any shape to create a twelve player version; and the twelve player version operated with or without an announcer for use in a theme park or in a larger casino or arcade setting where significant numbers of potential players are congregated.
However, since it was explained above in Claim 3 that it was merely a design choice in how many machines can be housed within a single cabinet, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Shoemaker could also be modified wherein multiple machines are connected physically or merged into a single cabinet or any shape to create a twelve player version. For example, Fig 5 depicts four machines connected into a single cabinet. An obvious design choice from using four machines in a single cabinet would be using twelve machines within a single cabinet to form a twelve player version. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that the location placement of Shoemaker’s invention would also be a design choice such that it could be placed for use in a theme park or in a larger casino or arcade setting where significant numbers of potential players are congregated as it would provide a high number of potential players that may potentially play the machine.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that Shoemaker could be modified such that it comprises a twelve person version that is operated without an announcer for use in a theme park or in a larger casino or arcade setting where significant numbers of potential players are congregated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 25 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY KEITH WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3715