DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed June 4, 2026. The Examiner acknowledges that claims 1, 8, 12, 16, & 19 were amended, claims 10 & 11 were canceled, and no new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-9 & 12-20 are currently pending.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 & 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, and similarly claim 12, recites “when an opening of the access door is detected via the security monitoring circuit following modification of the second balance of the first amount of cashable funds: disable any winnings ticket voucher associated with the first amount of cashable funds from being issued” and “following at least a closing of the access door detected via the security monitoring circuit: enable a winnings ticket voucher associated with the first amount of cashable funds to be issued”.
The specification, such as at paragraph [0199], does disclose that security monitoring circuits are associated with access doors in the EGM cabinet and that those circuits respond to access violations. In particular, the specification explains that “security monitoring circuits detect intrusion into an EGM by monitoring security switches attached to access doors in the EGM cabinet” and “access violations result in suspension of game play and can trigger additional security operations to preserve the current state of game play” and that these circuits may, upon power restoration, cause the EGM to determine whether security violations occurred and “trigger event log entries and further data authentication operations”. Thus, the specification supports the existence of access doors, security monitoring circuits, and describes certain consecutions of detected access violations.
However, the specification does not describe, expressly or inherently, using the security monitoring circuit’s detection of opening and closing of the access door to disable or enable issuance of winnings ticket vouchers associated with cashable funds. The portions of the specification that address winnings ticket vouchers describe when such vouchers are issued, denied, recorded, and/or redeemed, and explain that issuance or redemption may depend on factors such as currently balances at the EGM, jurisdictional rules regarding which balances are cashable, and redemption controls. Nowhere does the specification teach or suggest that an access door open condition detected by the security monitoring circuit disables issuances of any winnings ticket voucher associated with cashable funds, or subsequently access door closing re-enables issuance of such a voucher.
In other words, while the specification separately discloses (i) a security monitoring circuit monitoring access doors and affecting game play and security operations, and (ii) logic for issuing, denying, and redeeming winnings ticket vouchers associated with cashable funds, it does not describe the particular functional coupling now claimed, in which the open/close state of the access door, as detected by the security monitoring circuit, is sued as a condition to disable and later enable the issuance of winnings ticket vouchers associated with the first amount of cashable funds.
Accordingly, the specification does not reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventory had possession of this specific conditional relationship between the security monitoring circuit, access door state, and winnings ticket voucher issuance at the time of filing. For at least these reasons, claims 1 & 12 and equally the claims depending therefrom, fail to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previously provisional double patenting rejection: the rejection is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s filing of a terminal disclaimer to obviate the rejection.
Regarding the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection: in view of Applicant’s remarks specifically pertaining to claims 1 & 12 as amended and currently presented, the rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection: in view of Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 & 12, Moshal or Moshal combined with other relevant prior art reasonably fails to disclose or make obvious the explicit combination of limitations as currently presented in claims 1 or 12, thus the rejection is withdrawn.
Lastly, as detailed above, based on Applicant’s amendments presented June 4, 2026, a new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description was necessitated.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILAP SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30-6PM.
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, KANG HU can be reached at 571-270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights