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 § 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.
Claims 3, 6, 8, 13 and 16-20 are 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 3, 6, 8, 13 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennedy [US20200023265], in view of Mejenborg [US20180186559].
Regarding claim 1, Kennedy discloses a modular frame for a plurality of lottery ticket dispensers (Figs. 1 and 2), the modular frame comprising:
a top above the plurality of lottery ticket dispensers; a bottom below the plurality of lottery ticket dispensers; a first side on a first side of the plurality of lottery ticket dispensers; and a second side on a second side of the plurality of lottery ticket dispensers, wherein the top, bottom, first side and second side of the modular frame form a rectangular ring around the plurality of lottery ticket dispensers ([0030], “In general, the frame 42 includes a top member 46, a bottom member 48, and opposite side members 44”).
However, Kennedy does not explicitly disclose the top and bottom include lights to illuminate the plurality of lottery ticket dispensers.
Nevertheless, Mejenborg teaches in a like invention, the housing of the ticket dispensers include lights to illuminate the plurality of lottery ticket dispensers ([0016], “In an alternative embodiment, a light source is disposed internal to the housing at a location to direct light through the calibration field”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the modular frame for a plurality of lottery ticket dispensers, to include lights to illuminate the plurality of lottery ticket dispensers, as taught by Mejenborg, in order to make it more convenient to operate the ticket dispensers.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg discloses the modular frame of claim 1, wherein the bottom is comprised of a plurality of interconnected base units (Kennedy, [0035], “The architecture of each bin 24 and the array 22 can vary within the scope of the invention. For example, the dispenser array 22 may include a bottom row of bins 24 having interconnected base structures 58”).
The difference between the modular frame disclosed by the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg and the claimed invention is that the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg does not disclose wherein the top is comprised of a plurality of interconnected upper units; the first side is comprised of a first plurality of interconnected side units; the second side is comprised of a second plurality of interconnected side units.
Nevertheless, the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg discloses wherein the bottom is comprised of a plurality of interconnected base units (Kennedy, [0035], “The architecture of each bin 24 and the array 22 can vary within the scope of the invention. For example, the dispenser array 22 may include a bottom row of bins 24 having interconnected base structures 58”) and also the interconnectivity of the bins (Kennedy, [0031], “a plurality of the bins 24 can be vertically stacked and interconnected, as depicted in the various figures”).
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
The combination of the known elements is achieved by a known method of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, all the claimed elements would continue to operate in the same manner.
Specifically, the interconnected base structures disclosed by the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg has the structure/elements to be applied to all sides of the modular frame. When the plurality of the bins can be vertically stacked and interconnected to form different sizes of rectangular rings, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the flexibility to apply the interconnected base structures to all sides to accommodate different sizes of rectangular rings. Therefore, the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Based on the above findings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modular frame disclosed by the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg, with the interconnected base structures applied to all sides, as merely performing the same function as it does separately and being no more “than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions,” and make it more flexible to accommodate different sizes of rectangular rings. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg discloses the modular frame of claim 2, wherein the upper units of the plurality of interconnected upper units are substantially identical, the bottom units of the plurality of interconnected bottom units are substantially identical, and the side units of the pluralities of interconnected side units are substantially identical (Kennedy, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg discloses the modular frame of claim 2, wherein each upper unit of the plurality of interconnected upper units has a connector inserted into a receiving area of another upper unit of the plurality of interconnected upper units, each bottom unit of the plurality of interconnected bottom units has a connector inserted into a receiving area of another base unit of the plurality of interconnected base units, and each side unit of the pluralities of interconnected side units has a connector inserted into a receiving area of another side unit of the plurality of interconnected side units (Kennedy, [0035], “The plugs and ports of adjacent base structures 58 interconnect to essentially define a data/power bus 54 (FIG. 1) running the length of the base structures 58”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg discloses the modular frame of claim 2, wherein each upper unit of the plurality of interconnected upper units includes a first connector and a first receiving area on a first side of the upper unit and a second connector and a second receiving area on a second side of the upper unit (Kennedy, [0035], “The plugs and ports of adjacent base structures 58 interconnect to essentially define a data/power bus 54 (FIG. 1) running the length of the base structures 58”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg discloses the modular frame of claim 5, wherein the first connector is comprised of a pair of substantially rigid members and a pair of substantially resilient members configured to insert into a receiving area of another upper unit (Kennedy, [0035], “The plugs and ports of adjacent base structures 58 interconnect to essentially define a data/power bus 54 (FIG. 1) running the length of the base structures 58”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg discloses the modular frame of claim 2, wherein each side unit of the pluralities of interconnected side units includes a first connector and a first receiving area on a first side of the side unit and a second connector and a second receiving area on a second side of the side unit (Kennedy, [0035], “The plugs and ports of adjacent base structures 58 interconnect to essentially define a data/power bus 54 (FIG. 1) running the length of the base structures 58”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg discloses the modular frame of claim 7, wherein the first connector is comprised of a pair of substantially rigid members and a pair of substantially resilient members configured to insert into a receiving area of another side unit (Kennedy, [0035], “The plugs and ports of adjacent base structures 58 interconnect to essentially define a data/power bus 54 (FIG. 1) running the length of the base structures 58”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg discloses the modular frame of claim 1.
The difference between the modular frame disclosed by the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg and the claimed invention is that the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg does not disclose wherein the top includes lights to illuminate the plurality of lottery ticket dispensers; and the first and second sides include lights to illuminate the plurality of lottery ticket dispensers.
Nevertheless, the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg discloses the housing of the ticket dispensers include lights to illuminate the plurality of lottery ticket dispensers ([0016], “In an alternative embodiment, a light source is disposed internal to the housing at a location to direct light through the calibration field”).
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
The combination of the known elements is achieved by a known method of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, all the claimed elements would continue to operate in the same manner.
Specifically, the light source disclosed by the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg has the structure/elements to be applied to all sides of the modular frame. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the flexibility to apply the light source to all sides to be able to illuminate the plurality of lottery ticket dispensers. Therefore, the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Based on the above findings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modular frame disclosed by the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg, with the light sources applied to all sides, as merely performing the same function as it does separately and being no more “than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions,” and make it more flexible to accommodate the plurality of lottery ticket dispensers. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kennedy and Mejenborg discloses the modular frame of claim 1, further comprising: at least one connector connecting the modular frame to the plurality of lottery ticket dispensers (Kennedy, [0031], “Various connectivity features may be configured between the bins 24. For example, each bin 24 includes a male power/data connector 64 on the top or bottom surface, and a corresponding female power/data connector 66 on the opposite surface, as seen in FIGS. 5 and 6. With this configuration, a plurality of the bins 24 can be vertically stacked and interconnected, as depicted in the various figures” and [0035], “For example, the dispenser array 22 may include a bottom row of bins 24 having interconnected base structures 58”).
Regarding claims 16-19, please refer to the claim rejections of claims 1, 2, 4 and 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 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, and after overcome the 112(b) rejections as listed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGCHUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1375. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:30 M-F.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/YINGCHUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715