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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
(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, 2, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a1)(a2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0212094 to Onulak.
In Reference to Claims 1, 2, and 20
Onulak discloses a role playing game {toy} game table (Titl.), comprising:
a housing comprising a game board coupled thereto (Fig. 1 showing a six-sided housing and OLED screen under game table top A coupled thereto, [0010], Claim 3);
a magnet disposed within the housing below the game board and moveable about an area defined by the game board (Fig. 2 base plate puck and magnet Q to move the game pieces [0011] about OLED screen);
a figurine magnetically coupled to the magnet (game piece [0011] with avatar image Claim 15);
wherein the figurine comprises magnetic material (game piece is magnetic as it is able to be moved around the table by magnet Q [0010-0011], Claim 14);
a motor assembly (Fig. 1 y-axis movement mechanism E, F, see also stepper motor Claim 1);
control circuitry electrically coupled to the motor assembly and configured to controllably operate the motor assembly in response to receiving an input signal (computer controls the movement of the piston F and carriage E [0010] corresponding to user input [0010]); and
an input device capable of generating the input signal and configured to controllably move the figurine over the game board (Fig. 1 external screen G and input cables M [0010].
In Reference to Claim 2
Onulak discloses y-axis {first} and x-axis {second} linear rail assemblies (Fig. 1 H, Claim 5).
In Reference to Claim 10
Onulak discloses enabling signals wherein users make changes to the game and the table automatically moves the corresponding pieces [0004].
In Reference to Claims 12, 14, and 15
Onulak discloses a top A {enclosure} over the game board, speakers B, and touch screen sensor on a lower portion of the enclosure (Fig. 1, [0010], Claims 2 and 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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.
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
7. Claims 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onulak.
In Reference to Claims 18-19
Applicant discloses conventional metal material in toys of metal filings or iron powder which is an Applicant admission (Spec. [0004]).
8. Claims 3-9, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onulak in view of U.S. Pat. No. 9,539,496 to Shoemaker.
In Reference to Claims 3 and 4
Onulak discloses the invention substantially as claimed with a movement mechanism comprising stepper motors, pistons, carriages, and a cable chain belt system. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose pullies.
One of skill in the art would be aware of the crane game of Shoemaker (Titl.). According
to Shoemaker, an arcade game employs a belt drive system wherein belts goes around pulleys
to move a carriage forward and back (Col. 1, ll. 58- - Col. 2, ll. 1-14). Shoemaker invents this system in response to changes in type of targets and lighter weight toys that may not need a heavy-duty worm drive system but can be of a less expensive construction (Col. 1, ll. 15-54).
Here, one of skill in the art may modify the belt chains of Onulak with the belt and pulleys of Shoemaker in order to achieve the predictable result of lowering manufacturing costs but noit at the expense of reliability. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claims 5 and 6
Onulak discloses wherein a first end of the second linear rail assembly is coupled to the first platform of the first linear rail assembly and a second end of the second linear rail assembly is coupled to a third rail, wherein the first platform moves along a first axis and wherein the second linear rail assembly moves along the first axis in unison with the first platform (Fig. 1 showing joined carriages at a juncture of rails configured to move in x- and y-axis directions, Claim 8).
In Reference to Claim 7
Onulak discloses wherein the puck is coupled to the piston (Figs. 1 and 2) to move the puck in x- and y-axis directions ([0010, 0011]).
In Reference to Claims 8 and 9
Onulak discloses programming {control circuitry} to the stepper motors (Claims 10 and 11) for a plurality of control signals to the motors (plurality of commands Claim 12).
In Reference to Claims 12, 14, and 15
Onulak discloses a top A {enclosure} over the game board, speakers B, and touch screen sensor on a lower portion of the enclosure (Fig. 1, [0010], Claims 2 and 4).
9. Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onulak in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 5,884,911 to Guridi.
Onulak discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a ball launching device extending thru an aperture of the game board and to dispense a game ball onto the game board.
Guridi discloses a table game wherein balls are dispensed thru aperture 124 (Fig. 5) to deliver a ball to the game board surface (Col. 6, ll. 47-50) and manipulated by player paddles 110 (Col. 6, ll. 55-56).
Here, one of skill in the art would modify the table game and puck of Onulak with the paddles, game puck (Col. 4, ll. 15-48) and game balls of Guridi in order to expand the enjoyment and engagement of games that can be played on the game table reminiscent of familiar arcade games according to Guridi (Col. 1 ll. 32-Col. 2, ll. 25). The Courts have held that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to be indicia of obviousness. Further, Examiner deems that the recitation of dispensing game balls is a matter of design choice. The gaming aspect of balls serves not particular purpose or solves and particular problem and the puck and game balls of Onulak and Guridi would work equally as well.
10. Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onulak in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 5,884,911 to Guridi. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0103069 to Hansen.
Onuluk discloses the invention substantially as claimed and includes an enclosure of a top A (Fig. 1 [0010]). However, if Applicant disagrees to the Examiner’s claim construction then Applicant is directed to the teachings of Hansen.
Hansen discloses a motor driven turntable hockey game (Titl.) comprising a hockey game board with a clear cover over the game field. Hansen provides this spinning table game to build upon other motorized game tables but that lacked novel features such as variable speed and the use of multiple play pieces ([004-0006]).
Here, it would take only routine skill in the art to modify top A of Onulak with the clear cover of Hansen in order to provide an enclosure that can be used during game play and keep game pieces from leaving the game field. The Courts have held that applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 16, and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
the prior art is silent as to a magnetic scoop, recycling and depressed areas. The closest prior art of U.S. Pat. No. 4,993,985 to Bass describes a magnetic toy and with the aid of magnetic filings the magnetic properties of the fields can be visualized about a figure toy car. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0212094 discloses an electronic game table and a pair of motors and rails and magnets to move game pieces on a table however the game pieces.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
15. 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.
16. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
17. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715