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 § 101
1. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 10 is directed to a signal that is neither a process (“actions”, machine, manufacture nor composition of matter (i.e., a tangible “thing”) and therefore does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of 35 USC § 101. Rather, “program” is merely program software, in the absence of any physical structure or tangible material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 4-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishida et al., JP 2021051596 (English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Nishida teaches of a managing device configured to manage entry into an amusement facility (See Pages 4-8), the managing device comprising:
a clocking unit configured to measure a duration of stay of a user who has entered the amusement facility (See Pages 4-8 measuring the time spent of the user who entered the facility/casino); and
a notification unit configured to notify the user, before the duration of stay reaches a time limit (See pages 4-8 notification message sent to users mobile device warning that the time limit is about to be reached), that a game played by use of an amusement machine in the amusement facility is about to be restricted when the duration of stay exceeds the time limit (See pages 4-8, all of the games in the casino will be restricted in at least that the user will not be allowed to enter again without recharging. The claim is silent with respect to exactly how or when a game played is restricted).
Regarding claim 4, Nishida teaches the managing device according to claim 1, wherein the notification unit notifies the user via a mobile terminal of the user (See Pages 4-8 user mobile terminal notification).
Regarding claim 5, Nishida teaches the managing device according to claim 1, further comprising an amusement control unit configured to restrict a game played by the user by use of the amusement machine when the duration of stay exceeds the time limit (See pages 4-8, all of the games in the casino will be restricted in at least that the user will not be allowed to enter again without recharging. The claim is silent with respect to exactly how or when a game played is restricted).
Regarding claim 6, Nishida teaches the managing device according to claim 5, wherein the amusement control unit lifts the restricting of the game when the user performs a certain operation after the game is restricted (See Pages 4-8, paying money/yen to lift the time restriction).
Regarding claim 7, Nishida teaches the managing device according to claim 6, wherein the certain operation is payment of an additional entry fee, and the restricting of the game is to prohibit the game from being played (See pages 4-8, paying money/yen which reads on additional entry free and wherein the game is prohibited from being played in at least situations where the user leaves the casino) .
Regarding claim 10, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al., JP 2021051596 (English translation) in view of Aya et al., JP 2019126706 (English translation).
Regarding claim 2, Nishida teaches the managing device according to claim 1, wherein the notification unit notifies the user (See analysis of claim 1).
Nishida is silent with respect to a notification when the game is not being played.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Aya teaches of a notification when the game is not being played (See pages 8-13 which at least discloses the end of the game where it is not being played and payout notification and instructions are given).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nishida to have incorporated the teachings of Aya for the mere benefit of allowing the player to know when the game is no longer being timed and for providing payout.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the managing device according to claim 1, wherein the notification unit notifies the user via the amusement machine before a game is started on the amusement machine or after a game is finished on the amusement machine (See Nishida, pages 4-8; Aya, Pages 8-13 wherein notifications are sent before or after a game).
7. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al., JP 2021051596 (English translation) in view of Aya et al., JP 2019126706 (English translation), and in further view of Ogawa, WO 20221533472 (English translation).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nishida and Aya teaches the managing device according to claim 5, wherein, when the user meets a forced-exit condition that has been set, the amusement control unit restricts a game played by the user by use of the amusement machine (See Aya, Pages 8-13 wherein the time is shortened such that the apparatus can urge the user who has been playing too long to leave in order to suppress congestion in the game facility).
The combination is silent with respect to the notifies the user that the user needs to exit the amusement facility.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ogawa teaches of notifies the user that the user needs to exit the amusement facility (See Pages 9-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nishida and Aya to have incorporated the teachings of Ogawa for the mere benefit of notifying the user to abide by particular rules and thresholds such as to maintain integrity and suppress congestion in the facility.
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the managing device according to claim 8, wherein the forced-exit condition is met when the user has performed a certain operation at least a certain number of times within a certain period and the duration of stay has exceeded a certain period of time (See Nishida, Pages 4-8; Ogawa, Pages 9-15 it should be noted that the operation performed is not explicitly recited, and thus, the user entering the facility a certain number of times as disclosed in Nishida would read on operation of at least entry into the facility).
Contact
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ricky Chin whose telephone number is 571-270-3753. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Ricky Chin/
Primary Examiner
AU 2424
(571) 270-3753
Ricky.Chin@uspto.gov
