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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over The EMP Jammer Alarm System released in 2019, as evidenced by “EMP Jammer Alarm System,” posted at https://www.coinopexpress.com/products/pcbs/fish-machine-gameboards-and-software/EMP-Jammer-Alarm-System-10593.html/1000 and the corresponding transcript for the embedded video (EMPJammerAlarm) in view of US 2004/0097285 (Fisher).
With regard to claim 1, EMPJammerAlarm discloses a signal anomaly detection device, comprising:
a first connector, having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the first connector being for connecting to a first device to receive a first signal transmitted from the first device (EMPJammerAlarm: The EMP Jammer Alarm system has connectors to connect to the different coin acceptor components of the machines.);
an antenna, for sensing a second signal (EMPJammerAlarm: The device has at least one antenna that detects an EMP jammer.);
wherein, in response to the determining unit receiving the first signal through the first connector, if the determining unit receiving the second signal sensed by the antenna and the second signal being a high-frequency signal, the first signal being determined to be abnormal (EMPJammerAlarm: Upon detecting a wireless signal from a cheater, the device sounds an alarm and counts the number of cheaters, where such wireless signal would be detected based on some threshold that would constitute a ”high-frequency signal.”).
EMPJammerAlarm fails to disclose, but Fisher teaches:
a second connector, having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the second connector being for connecting to a second device; and a determining unit, connecting to the second end of the first connector, the second end of the second connector and the antenna, for selectively transmitting the first signal to the second device through the second connector based on whether the first signal being abnormal (Fisher: Paragraph [0007]. It was known to both alert workers to a cheater (such as in EMPJammerAlarm) and to disable the gaming machine, where EMPJammerAlarm provides wired embodiments that would utilize wired connections to disable the gaming machine upon installation. Further, the detection device would be acting in a similar fashion as a firewall to stop abnormal traffic from impacting the machine, where Official Notice is taken that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to stop abnormal traffic (such as that caused by the EMP signal) from passing through.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to disable the gaming machine upon detecting the abnormal signal to ensure that a user cannot benefit from the EMP jammers, such as in situations where a worker is not present to inspect the alarm.
With regard to claim 2, EMPJammerAlarm in view of Fisher fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches that in response to the determining unit determining the first signal being abnormal, the determining unit prohibits transmitting the first signal through the second connector to the second device (More specifically, the detection device would be acting in a similar fashion as a firewall to stop abnormal traffic from impacting the machine, where Official Notice is taken that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to stop abnormal traffic (such as that caused by the EMP signal) from passing through.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to prevent the signal from passing through the machine to ensure that the user does not benefit from the EMP jammer, where this would be a way to disable the machine by preventing payments from being accepted.
With regard to claim 3, EMPJammerAlarm in view of Fisher teaches in response to the determining unit determining the first signal being abnormal, the determining unit also transmits a disable signal through the second connector to the second device to disable the second device (Fisher: Paragraph [0007]. A tilt output would be generated to disable the machine.).
With regard to claim 4, the instant claim is similar to claim 2, and is rejected for similar reasons (more specifically, a “logic low” level would correspond to the first signal not being transmitted.).
With regard to claim 5, EMPJammerAlarm in view of Fisher teaches a first wire, having a first end and a second end, the second end of the first wire connecting to the determining unit and the first end of the first wire for connecting to an alarm device, wherein in response to the determining unit determining the first signal being abnormal, the determining unit triggering the alarm device through the first wire (EMPJammerAlarm: The alarm module has a USB connection to the detection module.).
With regard to claim 6, EMPJammerAlarm in view of Fisher teaches in response to the determining unit receiving the first signal through the first connector, if the determining unit fails to receive the second signal sensed by the antenna, the first signal is determined to be normal (EMPJammerAlarm).
With regard to claim 7, EMPJammerAlarm in view of Fisher teaches wherein in response to the determining unit determining the first signal being normal, the determining unit transmits the first signal through the second connector to the second device (EMPJammerAlarm and Fisher: Paragraph [0007]. In the combination, the signal would pass through to the machine to give game credits.).
With regard to claim 8, EMPJammerAlarm in view of Fisher teaches wherein the first device is a coin and/or bill input device and the first signal corresponds to a signal of a coin value input to the coin and/or bill input device, and the second device is a counting device and the counting device is for counting based on the coin value corresponded to the first signal (EMPJammerAlarm. The system would be connected to a coin acceptor, which would count the number of coins inserted.).
With regard to claim 9, EMPJammerAlarm in view of Fisher teaches that the first connector of the signal anomaly detection device is selectively plugged into the first device and/or the second connector of the signal anomaly detection device is selectively plugged into the second device (EMPJammerAlarm and Fisher: Paragraph [0007]).
With regard to claim 10, EMPJammerAlarm in view of Fisher fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art teaches in response to the frequency of the second signal exceeds 30KHz, the determining unit determines the second signal to be the high-frequency signal (More specifically, the use of a frequency to detect the passage of coins in a coin acceptor is the basis of the jammer technology, where Official Notice is taken that the use of 30Khz for the detection of coins was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.). More specifically, different frequencies would be detected by the detector coils for determining the passage of a coin, where by using 30KHz, as a threshold, the system would be able to detect specific frequencies that would correspond with certain coins.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to detect signals exceeding 30Khz to set the threshold at a threshold that would likely correspond with a coin passing through a coin detector.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444