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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 123, 128-130, 133 137, 138, 140 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shoemaker (US 8678395)
In claim 123, 137, 138, and 140 Shoemaker discloses
A gaming unit that provides a game to a user (figure 1 #100)
Wherein the gaming unit comprises: a drop device that holds one or more projectiles (figure 2 #34, figure 4 #34/35 holds projectile #50, column 3 #37-63)
A computer unit comprising a game logic (figure 4 #250)
A controller electronically coupled to the computing unit, the controller operable to receive a first command to maneuver the drop device seamlessly and simultaneously in at least one of a first direction, a second direction, and a third direction, and position the drop device over one or more targets in a playing field (figure 4 #20, column 2 lines 32-67, column 3 lines 1-5, “the player can manipulate the joystick 20, in any of the four directions to maneuver the pick-up device above the playing field 12. The player 5 maneuvers the pick-up device in order to align the projectile 50 directly above a target 36 so that when released, the projectile will strike the target in an intended manner)
Receive a second command to release the one or more projectiles towards the one or more targets in the playing field and (column 3 lines 6-18, “if the player has successfully aligned the pick up device 34 directly over the target 36, the player can then hit a release button 22 that causes the pick-up device to release the projectile 50”)
An array of sensors that determines a contact location of the one or more projectiles on the playing field, (column 3 lines 64-67, column 4 lines 1-11, “the target 36 includes a sensor that senses when the target has been successfully hit by the projectile 50)
wherein the computing unit is further operable to determine an output of the game based on a third command receive from the array of sensors (column 3 lines 64-67, column 4 lines 1-11 “when the microprocessor receives a signal from the sensor 51 indicating a successful attempt, the microprocessor 250 can perform various functions that will enable the player to collect his or her prize 44.”)
Wherein the drop device is configured to dynamically move and align with respect to each target of the one or more targets in the playing field upon receiving the first command, and (column 2 lines 32-67, column 3 lines 1-5, the movement is dynamic and aligns with the targets.)
wherein the playing field comprises the one or more targets (column 2 lines 32-67, column 3 lines 1-5)
In claim 128, Shoemaker discloses the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction in a plane (column 2 lines 32-67, column 3 lines 1-5)
In claim 129, Shoemaker discloses the first direction in a first plane is perpendicular to the second direction in a second plane (column 2 lines 32-67, column 3 lines 1-5)
In claim 130, Shoemaker discloses a projectile collection unit that comprises a structure that covers a bottom of the playing field and collects the one or more projectiles from the bottom of the playing field. A projectile conveyer unit that picks up and transports the one or more projectiles from the projectile collection unit to the drop device and a projectile loading unit that loads the one or more projectiles from the projectile conveyor unit to the drop device)
In claim 133, Shoemaker discloses a control signal reception unit that receives at least one of a first virutla control signal and a second virtual control signal from a remote environment (figure 3, the user inputs are in the exterior of the device, which is remote from the interior of the device)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 124-127, 131, 132, 139, 141, and 142 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemaker
In claim 124, Shoemaker discloses the claimed invention except for AI engine, however Official notice is taken that AI engines were notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Shoemaker with this well known technique in order to allow for AI to provide assistance as needed to the user or operator.
In claim 125, Shoemaker discloses the claimed invention except for assigning “a point” based on the output of the game. However, Shoemaker’s primary invention does teach providing prizes for a successful result of the game, and within a different embodiment, further discloses “establishing high scores” (column 1 lines 5-17) within the background. It would have been obvious to combine Shoemaker’s primary invention with the scoring system taught in Shoemaker’s background in order to allow for a player to get joy of establishing high scores.
In claims 126 and 127, Shoemaker discloses the claimed invention except the computing unit determines whether the one or more projectiles repeatedly and consistently is released towards at least one of a plurality of first targets, a plurality of second targets, and plurality of third targets, and that a point is assigned when the controller determines whether the one or more projectiles is repeatedly released towards at least one of the plurality of first targets, plurality of second targets and plurality of third targets, however Official notice is taken that requiring multiple successes to succeed in a game rather than a single success was notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, and it would have been obvious to combine Shoemaker with this well known technique in order to allow for an operator to provide a longer game that may be more exciting to some players.
In claims 131 and 132, Shoemaker discloses the claimed invention except for analyzing a behavior of the user based on one or more user inputs, analyze a previous execution of the game in response to the one or more user inputs and generate at least one of a suggestion, a recommendation, and a hint based on at least one of the analysis of behavior of the user and the analysis of the previous execution of the game, wherein the AI engine analyzes the behavior of the user by analyzing a pattern of the one or more user inputs however Official notice is taken that using AI to provide advice to users based on trained and historical data was notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Shoemaker with this well known technique in order to allow for the users to be able to improve their talent at the game.
In claim 139 and 142, Shoemaker discloses the claimed invention except for crediting one or more playing chances to a user when the one or more projectiles contact the one or more targets in the playing field, wherein the one or more playing chances enables the user to play the game, however Shoemaker does disclose providing a prize when one or more projectiles contact the one or more targets, and Official notice is taken that providing a free additional play as a reward for successful play was notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Shoemaker with this well known technique in order to provide a reward to a player which allows for them to continue enjoying the game.
In claim 141, Shoemaker discloses the claimed invention except for depicting via a display, at least one of points won by a user, one or more levels achieved, one or more rewards, and a current status of the game, however Official notice is taken providing a display for information of the game was notoriously well known before the effective filing date of the invention and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Shoemaker with this well known technique in order to allow for the user to be better informed about the game.
Claim(s) 134-136 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemaker in view of Knight (US 20050272013)
In claim 134, Shoemaker discloses the claimed invention except the system generates a virtual model of the gaming unit, however Knight discloses creating a virtual model of a physical object (paragraph 50), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Shoemaker with Knight in order to allow for players to play remotely
In claim 135, Knight discloses the virtual model receives an input through at least one of a virtual representation of the gaming unit and a virtual user interface object in the virtual representation and communicates at least one of the first virtual control signal and the second virtual control signal to the control signal reception unit in response to the input (paragraph 50)
In claim 136, Shoemaker in view of Knight discloses receiving a fourth command to maneuver the drop device seamlessly and simultaneously in at least one of a first direction, the second direction, and the third direction and position the drop device over the one or more targets in response to the first virtual signal, and receive a fifth command to release the one or more projectiles towards the one or more targets in the playing field in response to the second virtual control signal. (shoemaker discloses these types of inputs within the physical device as set forth above, and Knight discloses providing a virtual reality wherein a user can provide virtual inputs which map to controlling a physical device as set forth above)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights