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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pick-region being located in front of the initial region of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Figure 2 shows initial region 222 in front of pick-up region 221. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended”. If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
In lines 3 and 5, “second base plate” and “two second rollers” lack a proper antecedent basis in that neither claim 1 nor claim 9 sets forth a first base plate or first rollers. For the purposes of applying the prior art, it is assumed that the claim depends from claim 3 which set forth a first base plate and first rollers.
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 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 11,376,491 (Tsai et al., hereinafter Tsai) in view of U.S. Patent Number 4,718 667 (Shoemaker, Jr., hereinafter Shoemaker), U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2003/0090065 (Carter, Jr., et al., hereinafter Carter), International Publication Number WO 2008/080191 (Brown) and U.S. Patent Number 6,770,001 (Shoemaker ‘001).
Regarding claim 1, Figure 1 of Tsai shows a claw game with a housing 10 with an inner space. Figure 1 of Tsai further shows a partition that extends in a left-right direction around initial region and discharge opening 13. Behind the initial region 13 is a pick-up region. Although the Tsai pick-up region is behind the initial region, it would have been obvious to switch the locations of the pick-up location and the initial region since it has generally been recognized that shifting the location of parts involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Figure 1 of Tsai also shows a track module 20 located at the top left and right of the housing and extending in a front-rear direction. Further, Figure 1 of Tsai shows rails that extend in a left-right direction and a claw module 25. This combination of elements correspond to the recited base seat and moveable in a front-rear direction. There is also a claw at the bottom of claw module 25. The claw in a claw game machine is considered to be known to powered by motors and driving coils, but Tsai does not explicitly show them. However, Figure 3 of Shoemaker shows a more detailed drawing of a known claw game machine with a claw 40 powered by a motor 130. Figure 25 of Carter shows that the action of the claw is also well-known to be driven by a drive coil 81. To provide the claw game machine of Tsai with a motor and driving coils would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of Shoemaker and Carter, since all the claimed elements were known in the 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 nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, i.e., one skilled in the art would have recognized that the motor and coils used in Shoemaker and Carer would allow the Tsai claw game machine to effectively operate. Further, Figure 3 of Tsai shows the recited sensor module 32. Figure 2 of Tsai shows a control system 60 to corresponds to the recited processor; Tsai also discloses the concept of moving from a stand-by state to an operating state. See Tsai, column 2, lines 28-50. Joy stick 51 corresponds to the recited operating interface that controls the ultimate movement of the claw. Although Tsai only shows one claw instead of a plurality of claws, Brown discloses that crane games are well-known in the art to have multiple claws. See Brown, Figures 2-4; paragraph [0124]. Therefore, the manner of picking up more than one prize was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Brown. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art claw game machine of Tsai as modified above and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that adding additional claws to potentially win more prizes playing the claw game machine of Tsai would allow for greater player enjoyment.
Regarding claim 2, although Brown discloses an embodiment with only two claws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include five claws in the Tsai claw game machine, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to duplicate parts for multiple effect. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., Inc., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Figure 1 of Tsai shows two slide rails spaced apart from each other in the left-right direction and further shows brackets that correspond to the recited first and second base plates. Claw module 25 shown in Figure 1 of Tsai is further considered to correspond to the recited seat body. Figure 1 of Tsai further appears to show rollers on both of the right-left rails to travel in a front-rear direction but does not explicitly refer to them. However, Figure 1 of Shoemaker ‘001 shows that the use of rollers 32 is well-known in the claw game machine art to direct a claw module along a rail system. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the rollers of Shoemaker ‘001 for the travelling mechanism of Tsai. The result of such a substitution would have been predictable in that the claw module would be able to travel through the inner space easily. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the travelling mechanism with the rollers as taught by Shoemaker ‘001 in order to improve the similar devices.
Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to place the Tsai sensor in an adjustable slot since it has generally been recognized that making elements adjustable involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 10 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 does not anticipate, nor make obvious, the dividing plates in the pick-up region; a sensor associated with the partition; or, two bent base plates to accommodate two sets of rollers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Raleigh Chiu whose telephone number is (571) 272-4408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim, can be reached on (571) 272-4463.
The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
It is noted that all practice before the Office is in writing (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2) and the proper authority for action on any matter in this regard are the statutes (35 U.S.C.), regulations (37 C.F.R.) and
the commentary on policy (MPEP). Therefore, no telephone discussion may be controlling or considered authority of Petitioner’s/Caller’s action(s).
/RALEIGH W CHIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711