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
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) 1-5, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (JP 2021145937; paragraph citations refer to the attached translation) in view of Balaban (US 20160082345).
With respect to claim 1, Saito discloses, an article-winning game device (fig. 1) comprising:
a game field that is disposed in a play space (S in fig. 1) and includes:
a placement area (106 in fig. 1) where articles are placed (para. 11; “stuffed toys and sundries”); and
a dropping slot (114 in fig. 1) through which at least one of the articles may pass (para. 13);
a crane (108 in fig. 1) that comprises an arm (126 in fig. 1) for acquiring at least one of the articles;
an operating panel (118 in fig. 1) that receives an operation by a player;
sensors that are arranged in the dropping slot and detect passage of the at least one of the articles (176a and 176b in fig. 8; para. 52 detail optical prize sensors); and
a data processor (CPU and various coprocessors; para. 26; also see fig. 2) that:
drives the crane in response to the operation (para. 27; “drives various mechanisms such as the crane”),
determines whether the at least one of the articles passing through the dropping slot is a first article to be acquired (para. 59; “it is possible to recognize which of the prize 172 and the color ball 174 has fallen”), and
sets an acquisition range with respect to the first article (para. 55-58; “it is assumed that the width of the prize 172 is at least 400 millimeters or more”), where
the acquisition range indicates a range of a number of passage reactions (para. 58, “the passing reaction is detected by two or more optical sensors”), and
the number of passage reactions indicates a number of sensors, among the sensors, that react to an article passing through the dropping slot (para. 58; fig. 10), wherein
upon determining that the number of passage reactions with respect to the at least one of the articles passing through the dropping slot is within the acquisition range, the data processor determines that the at least one of the articles is the first article (para. 55-59, 81).
Saito contemplates a plurality of prizes with various different sizes (para. 95) which would necessitate different acquisition ranges. Saito also discloses that the optical sensors are “configured to distinguish between” articles (para. 23), but is silent as the specific manner of performing said configuration.
Saito does not expressly disclose that user instructions provide configuration and setting parameters for the game device.
Balaban discloses, a display (201 in fig. 2a; para. 24) and input mechanisms (para. 25 details various input devices) for a user to provide instructions to define various game device settings (figs. 3-7 detail the various game device settings that can be configured by the user).
Balaban and Saito are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely claw machines.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed the user-defined configuration of the variable acquisition ranges disclosed by Saito’s game device using the display and user interface taught by Balaban.
The motivation for doing so would have been to remove guesswork from a critical adjustment and save the owner time and money (Balaban; para. 5).
With respect to claim 2, Saito in view of Balaban disclose, the article-winning game device according to claim 1 (see above).
Saito discloses configure a size of the variously sized articles (para. 23 and 95).
Saito does not expressly disclose a user interface processor.
Balaban further discloses, a user interface processor (controller; para. 7) that causes the operating panel to display a settings screen (i.e fig. 2a; para. 23), wherein
the data processor receives, on the settings screen, an input of a value of a first article (502 in fig. 5; details inputting a value of a prize), and sets claw strength based on the value of the first article (para. 30, details a determined adjustment of game play parameters based on the entered toy parameter).
At the time of filing the invention it would have been obvious for a user to provide the various sizes of the articles in Saito into a settings screen of Balaban, which would update the sensor configurations of Saito.
The motivation for doing so would have been to remove guesswork from a critical adjustment and save the owner time and money (Balaban; para. 5).
With respect to claim 3, Saito in view of Balaban disclose, the article-winning game device according to claim 2 (see above).
Saito discloses storage of a size of a second unwanted article and an associated number of passage reactions which correspond to said article, and upon determining that the number of passage reactions with respect to the at least one of the articles passing through the dropping slot is within the unwanted range, determines that the at least one of the articles is the second article (para. 57, “the diameter of the color ball 174 is 120 mm, and the distance from the optical sensor 178-11 to the adjacent optical sensor 178-12 is 200 mm, therefore, when the color ball 174 falls, no passage reaction is detected from the optical sensors other than the optical sensor 178-11”).
Saito does not disclose how this storage size is entered into the game device.
Balagban discloses, the data processor further:
receives, on the settings screen (207 in fig. 2a), an input of a value of a first article (502 in fig. 5; details inputting a value of a prize), and sets claw strength based on the value of the first article (para. 30, details a determined adjustment of game play parameters based on the entered toy parameter).
At the time of filing the invention it would have been obvious for a user to provide the various sizes of the articles in Saito into a settings screen of Balaban, which would update the sensor configurations of Saito.
The motivation for doing so would have been to remove guesswork from a critical adjustment and save the owner time and money (Balaban; para. 5).
With respect to claim 4, Saito in view of Balaban discloses, the article-winning game device according to claim 1 (see above)
Saito further discloses, wherein: the first article and a second article that is not to be acquired (colored balls; 174 in fig. 7) are placed on the placement area of the game field (para. 11), and
upon determining that the number of passage reactions with respect to the at least one of the articles passing through the dropping slot is outside the acquisition range, the data processor determines that the at least one of the articles is the second article (para. 56; “the movement determination unite 156 recognizes that the prize 172 or the color ball 174 has passed in front of the optical sensor”; para. 57, “when the color ball 174 falls no passage reaction is detected from the optical sensors other than the optical sensor 178-11 in the lower stage.”).
With respect to claim 5, Saito and Balaban disclose, the article-winning game device according to claim 1 (see above).
Saito further discloses, the data processor (movement determination unit 156) sets the acquisition range based on the number of passage reactions with respect to the first article at a time when the user drops the first article into the dropping slot (para. 58; “since the prize 172 is larger than the color ball 174, the passing reaction is detected by two or more optical sensors 178 adjacent to each other…. Therefore, the movement determination unit 156 determines that the prize 172 has fallen”).
Saito does not expressly disclose a settings mode.
Balaban discloses setting various game device parameters and prize configurations in a settings mode (i.e. Para. 30).
At the time of filing the invention it would have been obvious for a user to provide the various sizes of the articles in Saito into a settings screen of Balaban, which would update the sensor configurations of Saito.
The motivation for doing so would have been to remove guesswork from a critical adjustment and save the owner time and money (Balaban; para. 5).
With respect to claim 7 Saito and Balaban discloses, the article-winning game device according to claim 1 (see above).
Saito further discloses, wherein:
the sensors execute measurements a plurality of numbers of times whenever the at least one of the articles pass through the dropping slot (para. 96 details a plurality of sensor/emitter rows that will each measure the article as it passes through the dropping slot), and
the data processor determines whether the at least one of the articles passing through the dropping slot is the first article based on the number of passage reactions with respect to the at least one of the articles passing through the dropping slot at each of the measurements (para. 55-56, 95-96).
With respect to claim 9, Saito and Balaban discloses, the article-winning game device according to claim 1 (see above)
Saito further discloses, wherein:
the placement area of the game field comprises one or more panels (X and Y plates, 160 in fig. 3),
the dropping slot is configured to be uncovered by the panels (para. 35; “by moving the X-pllate 162 horizontally, the operator can reduce the size of the chute 114),
a first detector and a second detector are installed in the dropping slot (fig. 10; 176b in fig. 10 details a first and second row of detectors that are mapped to the first and second detector claimed), wherein
light-emitting elements are arranged in the first detector (176a in fig. 3 and fig. 9; 178-2,178-4 etc. are light-emitting elements; para. 39, 52-53), and
light-receiving elements are arranged to face the light-emitting elements, in the second detector (176B in fig. 3 and fig. 9; 178-1, 178-3 etc. are optical sensors; para. 52-53); and
the data processor identifies, as the number of passage reactions, a number of light-receiving elements that are shielded from light by the at least one of the articles passing through the dropping slot (para. 55-56, 95-96).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (JP 2021145937) in view of Balaban (US 20160082345) and further in view of Tsai (US 11183017).
With respect to claim 6, Saito in view of Balaban discloses, the article-winning game device according to claim 1 (see above)
Saito further discloses wherein:
the dropping slot has a rectangular shape having first to fourth sides (fig. 3 details a rectangular dropping slot),
first light-emitting elements are arranged on the first side of the dropping slot (176a in fig. 3 and fig. 9; 178-2,178-4 etc. are light-emitting elements; para. 39, 52-53),
first light-receiving elements that detect light from the light-emitting elements are arranged on the third side opposing the first side in a position opposite to the first light-emitting elements (176B in fig. 3 and fig. 9; 178-1, 178-3 etc. are optical sensors; para. 52-53).
Saito contemplates additional rows and intervals between sensors in paragraph 96, but does not expressly disclose placing them along second and fourth sides.
Tsai discloses, providing sensor/emitter pairs along both the X-axis and the Y-axis (col. 3, lines 44-48) and the data processor identifies, as the number of passage reactions with respect to the at least one of the articles passing through the dropping slot, a number of the first and second light-receiving elements on the third and fourth sides that are shielded from light by the at least one of the articles passing through the dropping slot (col. 4, lines 36-53).
Tsai, Balaban and Saito are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely claw machines.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an additional pair of sensors/emitters alongside the second and fourth sides of Saito/Balaban’s dropbox to capture the both the X and Y axis as taught by Tsai.
The motivation for doing so would have been for the well-known advantage of a tighter sensor grid and the ability to detect objects which fall specifically between single axis sensor/emitter pairs.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (JP 2021145937) in view of Balaban (US 20160082345) and further in view of Brown (WO 2008080191).
With respect to claim 8, Saito and Balaban discloses, the article-winning game device according to claim 1 (see above).
Saito nor Balaban expressly disclose updating a number of first articles available.
Brown discloses, updates a remaining number of the first article on the game field in response to detection of the passage of the first article (para. 198; details detection of a reduction in the weight of the tray which directly corresponds to reduction in the number of prizes, i.e. first articles, on the game field), and
requests replenishment of the first article in response to the remaining number falling below a predetermined threshold (para. 198; “when the weight of the contents of the tray 38 drops below a predetermined level, the system can send a signal relating to this condition back to a base and when a service person is sent to refill).
Saito, Balaban and Brown are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely claw machines.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to update prize counts and notify the need for replenishment as taught by Brown in the device of Saito/Balaban.
The motivation for doing so would have been for the well-known advantage of simplified game management.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William L Boddie whose telephone number is (571)272-0666. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4:15 M-F.
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, Alex Beck can be reached at 571-272-3750. 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.
/WILLIAM BODDIE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights