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 § 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, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glenn et al., US 2018/0330568 A1 in view of Kamada et al., US 10466537 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Glenn discloses “An apparatus (650, Fig. 6) comprising: a first lenticular screen (910, in particular 912, 914, 916, Fig. 9) having a plurality of first lenticules (¶ [0059]) extending along corresponding first paths; a plurality of light sources (920, 930, Fig. 9); and a housing (960 and 952 and 954, Fig. 9) that supports the first lenticular screen relative to the light sources (seen in Fig. 9), wherein: the lenticular screen is separated from the light sources by at least a first distance (seen in Fig. 9).”
However, Glenn does not disclose “the first distance is at least 0.25 inches.”
Glenn is silent with regards to the details of the distance between the lenticular screen and the light sources.
Kamada discloses a light source device with a light source (110, 120, Fig. 14) and a lenticular screen (140, Fig. 14) that is distanced at least 0.25 inches away (col. 4, ln. 61-65 “more preferably 5 mm to 25 mm, and particularly preferably 10 mm to 20 mm”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the lenticular lens, as taught by Glenn, be at least 0.25 inches away from the light source, such as taught by Kamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select such a distance, for completing the details of the invention in selecting an appropriate distance between the light source and lenticular sheet, and for having a thin device (Kamada, col. 4, ln. 64-65).
Regarding claim 2, Glenn in view of Kamada discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “the light sources are arranged along one or more second paths, and the light sources arranged along each second path are arranged along that second path in an evenly spaced manner (Glenn, seen in Fig. 9).”
Regarding claim 3, Glenn in view of Kamada discloses the invention of claim 2, as cited above, and further discloses “a controller (Glenn, 512, Fig. 5), wherein the controller is configured to selectively control subsets of the light sources to cause progressive changes in one or both of color of light emitted by the light sources in each subset of the light sources and magnitude of light emitted by the light sources in each subset of the light sources along the second path or second paths (Glenn, ¶ [0005-0006, 0049]).
Regarding claim 4, Glenn in view of Kamada discloses the invention of claim 3, as cited above, and further discloses “the controller is, or is in communication with, an electronic gaming machine controller (Glenn, 520, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Glenn in view of Kamada discloses the invention of claim 2, as cited above, and further discloses “there are multiple second paths (Glenn, 930 and 920, Fig. 9).”
Regarding claim 6, Glenn in view of Kamada discloses the invention of claim 5, as cited above, except “the second paths are identically shaped and oriented and spaced apart from one another along an axis.”
Kamada discloses a light source device with a light source (110, 120, Fig. 14) and a lenticular screen (140, Fig. 14) and the light sources are arranged along one or more second paths, and the light sources arranged along each second path are arranged along that second path in an evenly spaced manner, there are multiple second paths, the second paths are identically shaped and oriented and spaced apart from one another along an axis (seen in Fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to arrange the light sources, as taught by Glenn, to be a rectangular array, such as taught by Kamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to arrange the light sources in a regular rectangular array for reducing brightness unevenness of the light sources (Kamada, col. 3, ln. 55-64).
Regarding claim 7, Glenn in view of Kamada discloses the invention of claim 6, as cited above, and further discloses “the second paths each define a plane and the axis is perpendicular to the plane (Kamada, Fig. 2, the plane is up and down, the axis is left to right).”
Regarding claim 8, Glenn in view of Kamada discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, except “each first path is at a corresponding first oblique angle relative to a first edge of the first lenticular screen.”
Kamada discloses a light source device with a light source (110, 120, Fig. 14) and a lenticular screen (145 and 150, Fig. 14) that have the lenticules (146, 151, Fig. 14) extending along first paths that are at an oblique angle relative to an edge of the screen (seen in Fig. 14).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the lenticules, as taught by Glenn, be at an oblique angle to the edge, such as taught by Kamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to arrange them at oblique angles for directing the light in a desired different angle (Kamada, col. 11, 63 - col. 12, ln. 2).”
Regarding claim 9, Glenn in view of Kamada discloses the invention of claim 8, as cited above, and further discloses “the first oblique angles are between 30° and 60° (Kamada, col. 11, ln. 35-40).”
Regarding claim 10, Glenn in view of Kamada discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, except “each first path is perpendicular or parallel to a first edge of the first lenticular screen.”
Kamada discloses a light source device with a light source (10, Fig. 1) and a lenticular screen (40, 50, Fig. 1) where the lenticules are extending along first paths that are perpendicular or parallel to a first edge of the first lenticular screen (seen in Fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have the lenticules, as taught by Glenn, be arranged such that they are extending perpendicular or parallel to a first edge of the first lenticular screen, such as taught by Kamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the lenticules arranged perpendicular or parallel to the edge for directing the light in a desired angle.
Regarding claim 14, Glenn in view of Kamada discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “a second lenticular screen (Glenn, 914, Fig. 9), wherein: the housing supports the second lenticular screen, the first lenticular screen defines a first side portion of the apparatus, the second lenticular screen defines a second side portion of the apparatus, and the first side portion and the second side portion face in different directions (seen in Glenn, Fig. 9, 914 and 912 face different directions).”
Regarding claim 15, Glenn in view of Kamada discloses the invention of claim 14, as cited above, and further discloses “ the second lenticular screen has a plurality of second lenticules extending along corresponding second paths, each first path is at a corresponding first angle relative to a first edge of the first lenticular screen, each second path is at a corresponding second angle relative to a second edge of the second lenticular screen, the first edge of the first lenticular screen is a closest edge of the first lenticular screen to the second edge of the second lenticular screen, and the first angle is different from the second angle (since each lenticular screen has lenticules, they each have a path, and since the screens are on different planes, they will have different angles).”
Regarding claim 16, Glenn in view of Kamada discloses the invention of claim 14, as cited above, and further discloses “ the first angle is an oblique angle and each second path is parallel or perpendicular to the second edge (Kamada, seen in Fig. 14, one of the lenticular sheets has oblique angles and the other has parallel/perpendicular angles).”
Regarding claim 17, Glenn in view of Kamada discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “a gaming machine cabinet (Glenn, 610, Fig. 6), wherein the housing is mounted to the gaming machine cabinet (Glenn, seen in Fig. 6).”
Regarding claim 18, Glenn in view of Kamada discloses the invention of claim 17, as cited above, and further discloses “the housing extends along one or more of a side edge of the gaming machine cabinet, a horizontal edge of the gaming machine cabinet, a curved edge of the gaming machine cabinet, and a curved surface of the gaming machine cabinet (Glenn, seen in Fig. 6).”
Regarding claim 19, Glenn in view of Kamada discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, and further discloses “a controller (Glenn, 512, Fig. 5), wherein the controller is configured to selectively control proper subsets of the light sources to switch each light source in each proper subset of the light sources between two or more states, each state differing from the other state or states in terms of one or both of color of light emitted by that light source and magnitude of light emitted by that light source (Glenn, ¶ [0005-0006, 0049]).
Regarding claim 20, Glenn in view of Kamada discloses the invention of claim 19, as cited above, and further discloses “the controller is, or is in communication with, an electronic gaming machine controller (Glenn, 520, Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glenn in view of Kamada and further in view of Boudreau et al., US 2014/0153091 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Glenn in view of Kamada discloses the invention of claim 1, as cited above, except “a first transparent layer, wherein the housing supports the first transparent layer such that the first lenticular screen is between the first transparent layer and the plurality of light sources.”
Boudreau discloses a lenticular sheet (15, Fig. 1) with a first transparent layer (18, Fig. 1) where the lenticular sheet is between the first transparent layer and the light source (18 is the cover on top).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to include a first transparent layer, such as taught by Boudreau, to the lenticular screen, as taught by Glenn. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a first transparent layer for protecting the lenticular screen (Boudreau, ¶ [0006]).
Regarding claim 12, Glenn in view of Kamada and Boudreau discloses the invention of claim 11, as cited above, in particular Boudreau discloses “a second transparent layer (12, Fig. 1) , wherein the housing supports the second transparent layer such that the first lenticular screen is between the first transparent layer and the second transparent layer (seen in Fig. 1).”
The reason for combining is the same as claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 13, Glenn in view of Kamada and Boudreau discloses the invention of claim 11, as cited above, and further discloses “at least one of the first transparent layer and the second transparent layer supports the first lenticular screen, and the housing supports the first lenticular screen by supporting the first transparent layer and the second transparent layer (Glenn, Fig. 9; ¶ [0058] “support structure 960 providing anchoring for the various internal and external components as well as elements to facilitate mounting the emotive light system 900.”).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakamura et al., US 2018/0231210 A1 discloses an illumination device with a sandwiched lenticular sheet
Stollwerck et al., US 2011/0026248 A1 discloses a multi-layer lighting unit with lenticular sheets
Urban et al., US 2021/0019986 A1 discloses a gaming machine with effect lighting on the sides
Glenn et al., US 2020/0111295 A1 discloses a gaming machine with effect lighting on the sides
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL CHIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3811. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am-6pm.
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, James R Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
/MICHAEL CHIANG/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/JAMES R GREECE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights