Detailed Action
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is summarized as follows:
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998), In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993), In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985), In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982), In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970), and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US 12,223,797 B2 in view of Radek et al (US 2012/0108321 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
19/003351 (This application)
US 12223797 B2
1. An electronic gaming system including: an electronic gaming device, an upper assembly including a chair and at least one sensor, wherein the electronic gaming device is communicatively coupled to the chair, and a lower assembly coupled to the upper assembly by a support structure, wherein the lower assembly includes a centering system
1. An electronic gaming system including: an upper assembly including a chair and at least one sensor, and a lower assembly coupled to the upper assembly by a support structure, wherein the lower assembly includes a centering system and a movable plate that is coupled to the centering system and slidably coupled to a floorplate, and wherein the centering system is configured to return the chair to a predefined home position in response to the at least one sensor of the upper assembly detecting a weight below a predefined threshold.
comprising at least one of: a speaker, a subwoofer, a shaker, or a back-side screen.
3. The electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the chair includes a controllable electronic component comprising at least one of: a speaker, a subwoofer, a shaker, or a back-side screen.
5. The electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the chair includes a seat cover configured for quick removal by being coupled to the chair with two screws.
6. The electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the lower assembly comprises another at least one sensor configured to detect when the chair has returned to the predefined home position.
7. The electronic gaming system of claim 1, wherein the lower assembly comprises a linear actuator configured to return the chair to the predefined home position.
8. The electronic gaming system of claim 78, wherein the linear actuator includes a back drive force configured to prevent back drive of a screw included in the linear actuator.
9. The electronic gaming system of claim 8, wherein the back drive force is at least 500 newtons (500N).
Radek suggests—where ‘351 does not recite—an electronic gaming device communicatively coupled to the chair (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the disclosures of ‘351 and Radek in order to allow the chair to adapt to the requirements of the gaming device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11-13, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Radek et al (US 2012/0108321 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Radek discloses an electronic gaming system including an electronic gaming device (Fig. 1), an upper assembly including a chair and at least one sensor (¶ [0028]), wherein the electronic gaming device is communicatively coupled to the chair (202), and a lower assembly coupled to the upper assembly by a support structure (Fig. 1), wherein the lower assembly includes a centering system (¶ [0023]), and wherein the centering system is configured to return the chair to a predefined home position in response to the at least one sensor of the upper assembly detecting a weight below a predefined threshold (¶ [0045]: weight sensor may be used to detect chair occupancy, ¶ [0051]: chair preference may be reset to default parameters at end of session).
Regarding claim 2, Radek discloses wherein the electronic gaming system further comprises at least one processor (226), and wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine a player account associated with the electronic gaming device, and based upon determining the player account (¶ [0030]: preference data may be saved on a wagering game server and associated with a player tracking account), cause the lower assembly to move the chair to a predefined position associated with the player account (¶ [0042]: preference data may include a preferred height for the chair).
Regarding claim 3, Radek discloses causing the lower assembly to return the chair to the predefined home position based upon determining that a player associated with the player account has at least one of left the chair or ended a gaming session associated with the electronic gaming device (¶ [0051]: chair preference may be reset to default parameters at end of session).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Radek discloses wherein the chair includes a controllable electronic component comprising at least one of: a speaker, a subwoofer, a shaker, or a back-side screen (¶ [0023]).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Radek discloses wherein the lower assembly comprises another at least one sensor configured to detect when the chair has returned to the predefined home position (152).
Regarding claim 11, Radek discloses a chair comprising an upper assembly including a seat (Fig. 1) and at least one sensor (¶ [0028]), wherein an electronic gaming device is communicatively coupled to the chair (202), and a lower assembly coupled to the upper assembly by a support structure (Fig. 1), wherein the lower assembly includes a centering system (¶ [0023]) and wherein the centering system is configured to return the seat to a predefined home position in response to the at least one sensor of the upper assembly sensing that the chair is unoccupied (¶ [0045]: weight sensor may be used to detect chair occupancy, ¶ [0051]: chair preference may be reset to default parameters at end of session).
Regarding claim 12, Radek discloses wherein the chair is configured to move, via the lower assembly, to a predefined position associated with a player account (¶ [0042]: preference data may include a preferred height for the chair).
Regarding claim 13, Radek discloses wherein the chair is configured to return to the predefined home position based upon a player associated with the player account at least one of leaving the chair or ending a gaming session associated with the chair (¶ [0045]: weight sensor may be used to detect chair occupancy, ¶ [0051]: chair preference may be reset to default parameters at end of session).
Regarding claim 20, Radek discloses a method of returning a chair to a predefined home position (¶ [0042]), the method comprising determining, by at least one processor (226), based upon a signal transmitted from at least one sensor of an upper assembly of the chair, that a weight in the chair is below a predefined threshold (¶ [0045]: weight sensor may be used to detect chair occupancy), wherein an electronic gaming device is communicatively coupled to the chair (202), and in response to determining that the weight in the chair is below the predefined threshold, controlling, by the at least one processor, a lower assembly coupled to the upper assembly to return the chair to the predefined home position (¶ [0045]: weight sensor may be used to detect chair occupancy, ¶ [0051]: chair preference may be reset to default parameters at end of session).
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.
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.
In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. If this application names joint inventors, Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radek in view of Darby (US 2010/0299900 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Darby suggests—where Radek does not disclose—wherein the chair includes a seat cover configured for quick removal by being coupled to the chair with two screws (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Radek and Darby in order to facilitate easier cleaning and repair of the chair.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-10, 14, 18 and 19 would be allowable if appropriate action is taken to overcome the rejection under the nonstatutory double-patenting doctrine set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
Infanti (US 5791731) discloses an adjustable gaming stool.
Chen (US 20110109134 A1) discloses a server-based gaming chair.
Granger et al (US 20120322564 A1) discloses a gaming chair with a modular back panel.
Barbour et al (US 20190080554 A1) discloses a reconfigurable gaming chair.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights