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 § 102
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a1)(a2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0364946 to Castro.
In Reference to Claims 1, 8, and 15
Castro discloses an electronic gaming device (Fig. 1), comprising:
a cabinet chimney having a front surface (Fig. 1 rear wing 13, see also rear wing 140 [0063]);
at least one display mounted on the front surface of the cabinet chimney (Fig. 1 display 18), the at least one display having a back surface facing the front surface of the cabinet chimney (Fig. 1 has angled display areas to the left and right of display 18, See Fig. 4D wherein the angled display areas have a back surface with faces the front surface 14 of the rear wing 13 [0040], see also [0063] front surface 140); and
a plurality of light sources configured to illuminate the front surface of the cabinet chimney with an even distribution of brightness (right LED board 174 [0073]), wherein at least some of the plurality of light sources are positioned on the back surface of the at least one display (Fig. 4D right LED display light emitting light in direction AL to rear wing surface 140 then toward a player ([0063]).
In Reference to Claims 2, 9, and 16
Castro discloses a button {deck} panel (Fig. 1 supporting buttons 26 [0041]).
In Reference to Claims 3 and 10
Castro discloses a cabinet base configured to support the cabinet chimney and the button deck (Fig. 1 base 12).
In Reference to Claims 4, 11, and 17
Castro discloses a portion extending vertically above or below the at least one display (Fig. 1 showing rear wing 13 extending vertically above and below display 13).
In Reference to Claim 5, 12, and 18
Castro discloses the plurality of light sources includes at least one light source mounted parallel to the back surface of the at least one display (Fig. 9 showing right LED board parallel to the back side of display section) and configured to illuminate the portion of the cabinet chimney extending vertically above or below the at least one display at the even distribution of brightness (Fig. 9 the right LED portion with light pipe 176 and diffuser 178 to create uniform light [0073-0075]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castro in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0090383 to Rodrieguez
Castro discloses the invention substantially as claimed to include a display which creates a uniform distance to the rear wing. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the front surface of the cabinet chimney and the back surface of the at least one display varies over a vertical length of the at least one display. One of skill in the art would be aware of the teachings of Rodriguez.
Rodrieguez teaches of modular electronic gaming machines (Titl.) wherein among many configurations disclosed (Figs. 4 through 28) there are those such as Figs. 8, 9, and 10 which show a display with a lower portion angled such that it is not coplanar with an upper half of the display and depicted as having that lower portion as in Fig. 10 deviating away from its chimney and above a control panel. Rodrieguez invents this modular system of gaming machine so that they have the flexibility to change the look and feel by adding or changing key components such as the monitors or display screens ([0067]) and “As different screen technologies become available, the screens may be swapped out for different styles, models, etc.” ([0070]).
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the display of Castro with a different or newer style of modular display screen to change the look and feel of the gaming machine. The Courts have held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
8. Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castro, Rodrieguez further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0273992 to Griswold.
Castro discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein a density of the at least some of the plurality of light sources positioned on the back surface of the at least one display varies over the vertical length of the at least one display based on the distance between the front surface of the cabinet chimney and the back surface of the at least one display to illuminate the front surface of the cabinet chimney at the even distribution of brightness. One of skill in the art of gaming machines would be aware of the backlighting of Griswold (Titl.).
According to Griswold, “in order to provide a more uniform brightness throughout the entire light guide 200, the density of the features in the light guide 200 is lower closer to the light source 210 and 220 and the density of the features become higher farther away from the light sources 210 and 220. It will be understood that the closer a feature is to a light source, the more light will be extracted by the feature and the brighter the image displayed. Thus, to avoid undesired variations in brightness across the light guide 200, the density of the features can be adjusted as described above to prevent the portions of the light guide 200 closer to the light source from being noticeably brighter than portions farther away. Providing light sources along opposite edges of the light guide can also help with brightness uniformity as well as improve transparency when the light sources are off because fewer features would be required on the light guide 200.” ([0044]).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the light pipe 176 of Castro with the adjustments to density of Griswold to further ensure uniformity of brightness of the game device lighting elements. The Courts have held that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to be indicia of obviousness.
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
Prosecution Insights