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 .
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 1, 8, 10-13, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008080191 (hereinafter “Brown”) in view of WO 2023126946 (hereinafter “Frieberger”).
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses a claw machine that has
a machine body (Fig. 1, 10) including a base (Fig. 1, bottom half of 10) that has a prize outlet passage (Fig. 1, 30) and a cabinet (Fig. 1, 12) that is disposed on and above said base and that defines an inner space (Fig. 1, 16) in spatial communication with the prize outlet passage, the inner space having a start zone and a game field (Para. 0190, claw starts in one area and moves to another for play);
a setting module (Fig. 1, components of interior 16 – for example 32, 34, and 38) disposed in the game field of the inner space, and including at least one divider (Fig. 1, wall of 38 or 40.3) that partitions the game field of the inner space into a plurality of game compartments (Fig. 1, 32, 34, Para. 0128), the game compartments being in spatial communication with the prize outlet passage;
a claw (Fig. 1A, 58) disposed in the inner space, and movable within the inner space; and
a control device (Fig. 1, 18) disposed on said machine body, and including a coin module that has a coin slot (Fig. 1, 26) and that is configured to generate a start signal upon detecting a coin put into the coin slot (Para. 004), an operating interface (Fig. 1, 24) that is operable to move said claw and to generate a grab signal for making said claw to perform a grabbing action, and
when said claw is in one of the game compartments, allow said claw to move, by operating said operating interface, only within the one of the game compartments (Para. 0190, playing area 32),
upon receiving the grab signal, control said claw to perform the grabbing action (Para. 0192, “drop” button),
and after the grabbing action is completed, control said claw sequentially to move to a position above the prize outlet passage, to open, and then to move to one of the start zone and another one of the game compartments (Para. 0192).
While Brown also discloses the machine can control said claw to move from the start zone to one of the game compartments (Para. 0190), it does not expressly say this is done by a processing unit that is electrically connected to said coin module and said operating interface, said processing unit being configured to upon receiving the start signal from said coin module. However, Frieberger in the analogous art of claw machines, discloses using a processor to receive and transmit signals between the human interface (including coin slot) and gantry assembly (including claw) (Fig. 1, 12 and Pg. 6 line 24 – Pg. 7 line 5). Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a processor to have the claw and control module communicate as a means of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Further, market pressures would have prompted a person of ordinary skill to use modern electronics (i.e. a processing unit) in the prior art device. See MPEP 2143 – Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Regarding claim 8, modified Brown further discloses the game compartments (Brown, Fig. 1, 32, 34) are arranged along a first direction (Brown, Para. 069 “arranged adjacent”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Brown further discloses that the setting module further includes a separator (Brown, Fig. 1, wall of 38 or 40.3) defining a bonus compartment (Brown, Fig. 1, 36) that is within the game field of the inner space and that is outside of the game compartments,
wherein said claw machine further comprises a bonus gaming module (Brown, Fig. 1, 42, 44, 46) that is disposed in the bonus compartment, that is electrically connected to said processing unit, and that is configured to be controlled by said processing unit (Frieberger, Fig. 1, 12 – reasons for combination of prior art as stated in claim 1) to perform a bonus game for a bonus prize, and
wherein when said claw is in one of the game compartments that is adjacent to the bonus compartment, said processing unit, is further configured to
control said claw to perform the grabbing action upon receiving the grab signal, and
after the grabbing action is completed, control said claw sequentially to move to the bonus compartment, to open, and then to move back to the start zone (Brown, Para. 0192).
Regarding claim 11, modified Brown further discloses that the bonus gaming module includes a motion unit (Brown, Fig. 1, 42) that is configured to be controlled by said processing unit (Frieberger, Fig. 1, 12 – reasons for combination as stated supra in claim 1) to operate in the bonus game.
Regarding claim 12, modified Brown further discloses that the bonus gaming module further includes a processing module (Brown, Para. 0127 and Frieberger, Fig. 1, 12), and that is configured to determine whether to output the bonus prize (Brown, Para. 0196). This is merely how a processor integrates and controls movements of elements during operation based on receiving information including signals from sensed conditions and it is the examiner’s position that the modified Brown would rely on the processing means of Frieberger to determine when to output or release a bonus prize.
Regarding claims 13, 15, and 17, modified Brown further discloses the game compartments (Brown, Fig. 1, 32, 34) are arranged along a first direction, and the bonus compartment (Brown, Fig. 1, 36) is adjacent to one of the game compartments along a first direction (Brown, Para. 069 “arranged adjacent”).
Claims 9, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view Frieberger and in further view of JP 2010284276 (hereinafter “Takasugi”).
Regarding claims 9, 14, 16, and 18, while modified Brown discloses the prize outlet passage (Brown, Fig. 1, 30) is located on one side of the game field, it does not necessarily disclose that it is along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, and has an upper end that is adjacent to the game field along the second direction and that is formed with an opening. Takasugi, in the analogous art of claw machine games, discloses a prize outlet that runs in a second direction perpendicular to the game field compartment (Fig. 1, 3) with an upper end (Fig. 1, 13) and an opening (Fig. 1, 15). Takasugi cites that this design allows for a grabbed prize to fall into the prize slot even if it is not accurately placed in the slot (Para. 0030). Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a prize outlet configuration such as Takasugi’s to have a greater margin of error for getting the grabbed prize into the prize outlet. Additionally, this configuration is a known means of prize disposal in claw machine games.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view Frieberger and in further view of CN 107198874 (hereinafter “Che”).
Regarding claim 2, modified Brown discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Though Brown discloses having sensors in the area equivalent of the setting module (Brown, Para. 0160, setting module being components of the interior 16), it does not disclose that they are configured to detect a position of said claw and to send, to said processing unit, a position signal indicating which one of the game compartments said claw is currently located in. However, Frieberger discloses that sensors may be used at various locations of the claw machine to sense various parameters (Pg. 6, lines 19-23). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use position sensors to monitor the position of the claw in Brown’s design.
Neither Brown nor Frieberger disclose the adjusting of a gaming parameter related to the grabbing action according to the one of the game compartments indicated by the position signal, and the gaming parameter has a plurality of values corresponding respectively to the game compartments. Che, in the analogous claw machine art, discloses a multi-compartment claw machine that has different grip capture probabilities depending on area the claw is in (Summary of the Invention). This is advantageous because it “activates the playing interest of the user” and “can reduce the cost of the game provider” (Summary of the Invention). Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to change claw parameters to increase variety and amusement from the game.
Regarding claim 6, modified Brown further discloses the game compartments (Brown, Fig. 1, 32, 34) are arranged along a first direction (Brown, Para. 069 “arranged adjacent”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view Frieberger and Che, and in further view of Takasugi.
Regarding claim 7, while modified Brown discloses the prize outlet passage (Brown, Fig. 1, 30) is located on one side of the game field, it does not necessarily disclose that it is along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, and has an upper end that is adjacent to the game field along the second direction and that is formed with an opening. Takasugi discloses a prize outlet that runs in a second direction perpendicular to the game field compartment (Fig. 1, 3) with an upper end (Fig. 1, 13) and an opening (Fig. 1, 15). Using this configuration for a prize outlet would be considered obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. See more detailed explanation and reasons for combination in response to claim 9 supra.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view Frieberger and Che, and in further view of JP 2005312926 (hereinafter “Watanabe”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Brown discloses a changeable gaming parameter (Che, Summary of the Invention), but does not disclose that the parameter is specifically gripping force of the claw. Watanabe, in an analogous art, discloses a method for changing difficulty of prize acquisition by adjusting gripping force as a parameter (Description, Para. 0004). Thus, it would be obvious that the gaming parameter affecting capture probability could be grip force, as this is a known means of adjusting game difficulty.
Regarding claim 4, modified Brown further discloses the game compartments (Brown, Fig. 1, 32, 34) are arranged along a first direction (Brown, Para. 069 “arranged adjacent”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view Frieberger, Che, and Watanabe and in further view of Takasugi.
Regarding claim 5, while modified Brown discloses the prize outlet passage (Brown, Fig. 1, 30) is located on one side of the game field, it does not necessarily disclose that it is along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, and has an upper end that is adjacent to the game field along the second direction and that is formed with an opening. Takasugi discloses a prize outlet that runs in a second direction perpendicular to the game field compartment (Fig. 1, 3) with an upper end (Fig. 1, 13) and an opening (Fig. 1, 15). Using this configuration for a prize outlet would be considered obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. See more detailed explanation and reasons for combination in response to claim 9 supra.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA M BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0925. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/S.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights