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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 12, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Philips (U.S. PGPUB 2024/0005725) in view Fritz (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0180695).
Re claim 1, 14 and 19: Phillips discloses a gaming device (see Fig. 11, object 100) comprising:
a cabinet defining an internal cavity therein (see paragraph [0006, 0007, 0040]: “the arrangement allows access to the interior volume of compartment 104 through the front opening”);
a door sized to cover at least a portion of the internal cavity (see Fig. 11, object 108: panel); and
a hinge assembly removably coupling the door to the cabinet, the hinge assembly comprising a hinge body, wherein the hinge body comprises a first section coupled to the cabinet by a pivot coupling and extending radially outward from the pivot coupling (see Fig. 7, object 604), the hinge body further comprising a second section connected to the first section, wherein the second section contains a slot for receiving at least a portion of the door therein (see Fig. 7, object 618).
Philips fails to disclose that the hinge body is at least partially curved. However, Fritz discloses a frame of a hinge assemble to connect to a display, wherein the frame is curved (see Fig. 6, object 202). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the hinge assembly with the curvature features of the hinge frame of Fritz, for the purpose of accommodating curved displays.
Re claim 3: Phillips discloses with respect to the gaming device of claim 1, wherein the hinge assembly rotates the door along an arc between a closed position, in which the door is positioned to contact the cabinet, and an open position, in which the door is spaced from the cabinet to provide access to the internal cavity (see Figs.9-11: the panel swings from a closed to an open position to provide access to the interior compartment).
Re claim 12: Phillip discloses with respect to the gaming device of claim 1, wherein the hinge assembly further comprises:
an additional hinge body pivotably coupled to the cabinet (see Fig. 6, there are two hinge bodies that consist of 303A, 303B, 304A, 304B wherein one is placed on the left side of the cabinet and the other is placed on the second side); and
a hinge connection bracket coupled to the hinge body and the additional hinge body (see Fig. 6, object 304, 308, 309: many parts can be considered a bracket that links the two hinges together, include the cabinet as it, itself contains mounts (320L, 320R) for linking the two hinges together, as well as the frame (object 308) which connects the hinges as well).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillip in view of Fritz, in further view of Gallagher(U.S. PGPUB 2021/0035405).
Re claim 2: Phillips fails to disclose with respect to the gaming device of claim 1 further comprising a damper pivotably coupled to the hinge body and the cabinet, the damper being configured to provide a resistance force on the hinge as the door is moved from a closed position to an open position. However, Gallagher similarly discloses a hinged arrangement for raising a game cabinet panel to reveal an interior (see Fig. 6), however, Gallagher further discloses use of a dampener in the hinge assembly (see paragraph [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify the game system of Phillips with the dampener of Gallagher, for the purpose of allowing the door to close more slowly which will prevent wear and tear on the cabinet.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11, 13, 15, 16,17, 18, and 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 06/03/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner has addressed the amended claims above with Philips (U.S. PGPUB 2024/0005725) in view Fritz (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0180695), wherein Fritz teaches a hinge assembly with a frame for a curved display.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights