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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the claims and alleges that Castro does not provide a level of brightness that is substantially constant across a defined portion of the front surface from a plurality of light sources on the back of a display. Examiner disagrees because Castro provides symmetrical reflected light from the left and right LED boards 172-174 [0073] and alternatively, Applicant is presented the teachings of the reflected washed light of Castro ‘486 for his consideration. Thus, the rejections of the claims are maintained.
Applicant does not offer separate arguments as to Rodriguez or Griswold (Remarks 6-7) but relies on the allegations made with respect to Castro.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Line 7: Change “portion the front surface” to – portion of the front surface --.
Claim 8, Line 7: Change “portion the front surface” to – portion of the front surface --.
Claim 15, Line 7: Change “portion the front surface” to – portion of the front surface --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 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. Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite a brightness of the illuminated front surface is substantially constant across at least a defined portion of the front surface. What is meant by a defined portion of the front surface? Is the light uniform across the entire surface? What if the light appears to be reflected depicting bands of light, is each band substantially constant because each band of light defines a portion of the front surface? To advance prosecution, the limitation is construed as “such that there is a brightness of the illuminated front surface. Appropriate attention is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102, 103
7. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1, a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0364946 to Castro (Castro ‘946) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0371486 to Castro (Castro ‘486).
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, center, 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 such that a brightness of the illuminated front surface is substantially constant across at least a defined portion [of] the front surface (construed as brightness of the illuminated front surface), (Castro discloses left, center, and right LED boards 172-174 [0073] which, because they are symmetrical, provide a uniform area of brightness reflected from surface 140), wherein at least some of the plurality of light sources are positioned on the back surface of the at least one display (Fig. 4D showing right LED display light from the light sources on the rear of display 105 emitting light RL (not labelled) to rear wing surface 140 then reflected in direction AL toward a player point of view , P ([0063]).
However, if Applicant disagrees with Examiner’s claim construction then Applicant is directed to the teachings in view of Castro ‘486.
According to Castro ‘486, rear facing light pipes 128A and 128B extend vertically along sides of the display areas 112 and114 generating zones of washed light upon recessed curved portions 125 [0046]. “In contrast to the bright light provided by the front light pipe exposure zones 126A, 128B [sic, 126B], the rear light pipe exposure zones 128A, 128B form a contour of washed, dimmed light from behind the display areas 112, 114 [0047]. Castro describes washed lighting as “softer lighting effect comprising a less direct, less concentrated shower of light than the emanating directly from the light pipe edge” and “zones of secondary light are sometimes called “washed” light, “diffused” light, or light “fill”, depending upon how the zones of light are produced.” ([0051, 0052]). One of skill in the art would understand Castro’s washed light to be a soft, uniform distribution of light emanating from display areas 112 and 114 and flecking off of curved portions 125. Castro ‘486 invents this approach of variations of direct light, indirect (reflected) light, and combinations of both to enable various lighting patterns on the exterior of gaming machines. (Abstr.)
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 understanding of Castro ‘946 with the uniform, soft lighting of Castro ‘486 to achieve the predictable result of providing variations of direct light, indirect (reflected) light, and combinations of both to enable various lighting patterns on the exterior of gaming machines. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claims 2, 9, and 16
Castro ‘986 discloses a button {deck} panel (Fig. 1 supporting buttons 26 [0041]).
In Reference to Claims 3 and 10
Castro ‘986 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 ‘986 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 ‘986 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 brightness substantially constant across at least the defined portion (Fig. 9 the left, center, right LED portions with light pipe 176 and diffuser 178 to create uniform light one or more areas [0073-0075], see also 112 rejection and claim construction and rejection in view of Castro ‘486).
9. Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castro’ 986, Castro ‘486 further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0090383 to Rodrieguez
Castro ‘986 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 ‘986 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.
10. Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castro ‘986, Castro ‘486, Rodrieguez further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0273992 to Griswold.
Castro ‘986 discloses the invention substantially as claimed to include a brightness that is substantially constant. 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 ‘986with 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
11. 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 extension fee 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on (571) 270-1344. 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