Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/630,980

Arcade Game Machine Input Device

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Apr 09, 2024
Examiner
D'AGOSTINO, PAUL ANTHONY
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
UNIS Technology Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
864 granted / 1181 resolved
+3.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1220
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
14.8%
-25.2% vs TC avg
§103
39.6%
-0.4% vs TC avg
§102
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
§112
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1181 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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: Claim 1, Line 8: Change “sensor;” to – sensor; and --. 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. Claim 12 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. Claim 12 expresses wherein the said guide is aligned but then also repeats said guide which appears to be aligned with a sensor (Claim 11) so it is unknown what is being recited in Claim 12. Appropriate attention is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 5. 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. 6. Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a1)(a2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 5,417,423 to Oursler. Oursler discloses an arcade game (pinball game Titl.) input apparatus comprises: an input device flippers 18 (Col. 1, ll. 60), at least one ball (ball Col. 1, ll. 62), a ball entrance end (Fig. 2 ball enters at location of reference 26 callout), a midsection (Fig. 2 midsection roughly from entrance to before sensor 36), a ball guide (Fig. 2 the structure surrounding barriers 34 and sensors 36 creating the ball lane 30 Col. 2, ll. 14), and a ball sensor (Fig. 2 sensor 29) arranged in a straight path (Fig. 2); wherein said ball entrance is positioned about the top of said midsection, which is positioned about the top of said ball guide, which is positioned about the top of said ball sensor (Fig. 2 and as described above); wherein in response to a command from said input device, a ball is released into said ball entrance, wherein said ball travels through said midsection, then said guide, and then said sensor (Fig. 2 showing ball in transit); and wherein said sensor detects said ball's presence and generates an input signal to be further processed (Fig. 2 detected by sensor 29). Alllowable Subject Matter 7. Claims 2-7, 9-11, and 13-14 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. 8. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the input device of Oursler lacks wherein said midsection is a hollow arrowhead shape apparatus that points downwards; a swinging midsection powered by a motor; wherein said ball guide is comprised of translucent material; signage and signage that blinks affixed about said sensor; alternate alignments of the components to the left or right; a ball entrance guide; or of a translucent panel covering said ball entrance, said midsection, said ball guide and said sensor. The art of record does not teach or suggest the particular combination of the ball entrance followed by a midsection in an arrowhead shape leading to a translucent guide and ball sensor and optional blinking signage. Pinball machines made of record follow traditional designs to present a series of funneling chutes and large bumpers. Pachinco machines made of record present channeling nails leading to capture devices but not of a swinging or moving ball guide as demonstrated by the art made of record. Conclusion 9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. /PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 09, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602817
System and Methods for Providing a User Key Performance Indicators for Basketball
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589301
VIDEO FRAME RENDERING METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12562025
SELECTIVE STORAGE OF HISTORIC EVENT DATA IN A GAME STREAMING ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12562030
Random Trigger for Computer-Implemented Game
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12555442
ELECTRONIC GAMING SYSTEM EMPLOYING FOUR BASE GAMES AND A RANDOMLY ACTIVATED FEATURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+13.3%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1181 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month