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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claim 20 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding these claims, the language “an acquisition unit configured to acquire information related to the second article” appears in conflict with the specification and thus indefinite. That is, the specification appears to define an acquisition unit as a part of a user terminal that functions remotely from the dispensing device (para. 17), thus it is unclear how Applicant can now define the acquisition unit as part of the article supply apparatus and separate from the user terminal in claim 20. Claim 20 also adds that the user terminal is has an acquisition element, thus further making the scope of this element and the claim itself unclear. Examiner regards this claim as so indefinite as to be unexaminable.
Examiner requests clarification and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamieson (US 2016/0210712) in view of Haruki (JP 2021-168737) and Shigeyoshi et al. (“Shigeyoshi”)(JP 2004318521)(with text citations to English translation attached herewith).
Jamieson teaches an article supply apparatus comprising:
(re: certain elements of claim 1) a main body (fig. 1 teaching dispensing device 160; para. 36, 43 teaching that that dispensing device may comprise a distinct kiosk and interface);
an accommodation unit, which is configured to be attached to the main body and to store a first article (para. 20 teaching dispensing device configured to provide rewards, such as tokens, chips, currency, wherein a storage unit for said rewards as well as a supply unit configured to supply said rewards to players are regarded as inherent);
a supply unit, which is configured to supply the first article stored in the accommodation unit (Id.); and
an acquisition unit, which is configured to acquire information related to at least one game that is provided separately from the main body (para. 21, 38, 41, 43 teaching location devices 102a-n, i.e., multiple separately located mobile/gaming devices, configured to interface with a game server to facilitate online game play and acquire gaming information from multiple mobile/gaming devices—i.e., mobile devices separate from a main body of a dispensing unit);
wherein the supply unit is configured to supply the first article based on a condition that the information related to the at least one [game] is acquired by the acquisition unit] (para. 41, 43 teaching game server configured to cause remotely-situated dispensing device to be activated and/or “to dispense an award to a user/player” based on the acquired information related to the at least one game located on multiple mobile devices);
(re: claim 17) an operation unit which can perform an operation to supply the first article from the supply unit, wherein the supply unit can supply the first article on condition that the operation unit is operated (para. 20, 41, 43 teaching dispensing device configured to provide physical rewards to players, wherein a server “can cause a remotely-situated dispensing device 160 to be activated and/or to dispense an award to a user/player”, thus activating/tirggering step performed by server can be regarded as “operation unit”).
Jamieson as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claim 1) wherein the information related to the game relates to at least one of second articles provided separately from the main body;
(re: claim 2) wherein the information relates to two or more of the second articles;
(re: claim 3) wherein the information related to the two or more of the second articles is based on at least first information possessed by one of the second articles installed at a first location and another information, which is different from the first information and possessed by another one of the second articles installed at another location other than the first location;
(re: claim 4) wherein one of the second articles installed at the first location and the another one of the second articles installed at the another location are the same as or similar to each other;
(re: claim 5) wherein the supply unit is configured to supply the first article on a second condition that the information based on at least the first information and the another information is obtained within a specified period;
(re: claim 6) wherein the supply unit is configured to supply the first article based on the second condition without requiring a payment;
(re: claim 7) wherein the information related to the two or more of the second articles includes first date and time information obtained when the first information is obtained from one of the second articles by a user terminal, and second date and time information obtained when the another information is obtained from the another one of the second articles by the user terminal, and
the supply unit is configured to supply the first article without taking into consideration a chronological order of the first date and time information and the second date and time information;
(re: claim 8) wherein the acquisition unit is configured so as to be unable to directly obtain the information related to the two or more of the second articles from the two or more of the second articles;
(re: claim 9) wherein the acquisition unit is configured to obtain the information related to the two or more of the second articles via the user terminal;
(re: claim 10) wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire the information related to the two or more of the second articles from the user terminal without contact.
(re: claim 11) wherein the first information and the another information is configured so as not to be acquired simultaneously by the user terminal;
(re: claim 12) wherein the first information and the another information is formed so as not to be visible on the second articles.
Haruki, however, teaches that it is well-known in the gaming arts
(re: claims 1-6)
- to link rewards to gaming information related to two or more second articles located at different locations as these type of linked rewards are well-known tools to drive user engagement in progressive, multi-location games (p. 1 teaching that escape or stamp rally games entice users to go to multiple locations to get second article information at each location with a mobile device within a set amount of time to receive progressive rewards—i.e., users must satisfy a time condition for a reward to be dispensed); and
(re: claim 8-12)
- to force the user to progressively solve puzzle or games at different locations so that the information related to the second article is unable to be directly obtained, i.e., not visible, from the two or more second articles or be acquired simultaneously (p. 8 teaching second article information being content presented to a user/gamer, such as a quiz or puzzle, wherein said quiz or puzzle must be solved and the related information sent to gaming servers via a mobile device to receive a reward and advance to next gaming location).
Shigeyoshi further teaches that it is well-known in the gaming/stamp rally arts-
(re: claims 1-4)
- that second article information is provided separately from the main body on multiple second articles that are similar (fig. 8 near 31, 32 and para. 64-65 teaching use of mobile terminals 27-29 to acquire information from second articles such as magazines, books 31 and posters 32); and
(re: claim 7)
- that date, time and location information is correlated to better manage user services related to gaming services/stamp rally (para. 74-76 teaching that acquisition order, time and place and user information can be used as executing conditions during games);
(re: claims 8-11)
- wherein the use of physical second articles such as books and posters at multiple locations indicates that information can be only be acquired via a mobile terminal at different points in time, i.e., not simultaneously (fig. 8 showing mobile terminals 27-29 configured to send information to server 21 without contact; para. 64-66).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jamieson for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamieson, Haruki and Shigeyoshi (“Jamieson et al.”) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Harris (US 2025/0218246) and what is well known in the art.
Jamieson et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 18) wherein the accommodation unit includes at least a first accommodation unit and a second accommodation unit, the main body is further provided with a selection unit configured to select either the first accommodation unit or the second accommodation unit, and the selection unit allows for a selection operation between the first accommodation unit and the second accommodation unit on condition that both the first and second accommodation units are ready to supply the first article;
(re: claim 19) wherein the main body is further provided with a notification unit which notifies acquisition of the information related to the one of the second articles, and the notification unit produces at least one of sound and light on condition that the information related to at least one of the second articles is acquired.
Harris, however, teaches that it is well known in gaming arts to configure a dispensing kiosk to dispense different types prizes in scavenger hunt-type games (para. 83, 111, 120-121, 139-145, 148 teaching dispenser configured to dispense different types of prizes and a communication interface).
Examiner further takes Official Notice that a notification unit that produces at least one of sound and light when a certain gaming condition reached is well-known in the gaming arts.
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention as these modifications are already well-known and commonly implemented in the gaming arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jamieson et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16 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.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
August 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights