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 § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) s 1-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US 8,512,144) in view of Smith et al (US 2013/0310163).
Re claim 1, Johnson discloses a device management platform comprising: a plurality of slot machine interface boards (SMIBs, fig. 2, 120 and 203 and col. 13:59-67, wherein multiple gaming machines are modified with the systems illustrated), each disposed within and configured to communicate with one of a plurality of gaming devices (each SMIB is connected to the backplane 100 of the gaming machine and therefore in communication with the gaming device and other devices via servers 122 and 202); and a host system communicatively coupled to the plurality of SMIBs (122 and 202) and configured to: receive gaming device information from the plurality of SMIBs regarding the operation of the plurality of gaming devices (4:22-35, player tracking information is provided to the server 122); store, at a memory of the host system, the received gaming device information including the device configuration of the plurality of gaming devices (15:6-17, gaming content may be generated at the server and provided to gaming machines); identify a subscriber for the gaming device information (4:22-35, when a player inserts a player card having player identification information, that information is provided to the server allowing for the player to be identified, wherein a player with a tracking card is considered a subscriber); determine, based on the subscriber, read access rules for the gaming device information and provide, based on the read access rules, at least a portion of the gaming device information to the subscriber (7:15-25, based on the received identification information, specific marketing and paragaming activities are determined and provided to the gaming machine). However, Johnson does not explicitly disclose the portion of the gaming device information is received from the plurality of SMIBs and including at least a device configuration indicating a respective role of at least some of the plurality of gaming devices to be displayed by at least one computing device associated with the subscriber. Smith teaches providing device configuration data to the player’s mobile device (fig. 1, 120, 121, and par. [0020], mobile device 120 lists settings related to the device processor, memory, system power supply, camera, speaker, gyroscope, microphone, input device, location device, biometric device, touch screen, mouse, headphone jack, etc.). Smith additionally teaches the owner and device ID are displayed to the user on their computing device (fig. 2, 228 and 220). The owner and device ID are considered examples of a role of the gaming device as it shows that the gaming device is attributed to the owner (i.e. the role of the device is to be attributed to and played by the owner).
It would have been obvious to provide configuration data to the subscriber as taught by Smith in order to inform players of the hardware and software configuration of the device they are using, allowing for better integration of the user’s mobile device with the gaming device, with users able to modify the profile to better optimize use with the gaming situation.
Re claim 2, Johnson has disclosed the gaming device information comprising use of a player tracking card and a display event (see the rejection above to claim 1 regarding player tracking cards and marketing/paragaming activities).
Re claim 3, Johnson discloses the gaming device information comprising software information for the plurality of SMIBs (see above, wherein player information and targeted content is considered software information).
Re claim 4, Johnson discloses the gaming device information comprises at least one of player account information (see the rejection to claim 1).
Re claims 5, 12, and 19, Johnson has been discussed regarding communicating information between a host and gaming device. However, Johnson does not explicitly disclose the use of an API to provide the information. Smith teaches a gaming system wherein content is passed between applications via APIs (par. [0120]). It would have been obvious to utilize an API as taught by Smith in the gaming system of Johnson in order to provide flexibility in information transfer processes, allow for efficient data distribution, and increase the ability to adapt to changes through data migration and flexibility of services.
Re claim 6, Johnson discloses transmitting at least one data stream to the subscriber to provide the at least the portion of the gaming device information to the subscriber (12:44-50).
Re claim 7, Johnson discloses the host system is configured to receive, from the subscriber, a request to modify the operation of at least one of the plurality of gaming devices, determine whether the request is authorized, and instruct a SMIB of the plurality of SMIBs associated with the at least one of the plurality of gaming devices to modify the operation of the at least one of the plurality of gaming devices in response to determining that the request is authorized (8:4-18 and 28-35, where players are able to change and control content being viewed, and players must qualify for such secondary functionality by meeting certain criteria).
Re claims 8-11, 13-18, and 20-21, see the rejection to claims 1-4 and 6-7, mutatis mutandis.
Re claim 22, Smith teaches the host system is configured to provide at least a portion of the gaming information at a tracking interface of the at least one computing device associated with the subscriber, wherein the at least one computing device is separate from the plurality of gaming devices, and wherein the gaming device information displayed by the at least one computing device is distinct from respective user interfaces of the plurality of gaming devices(see the rejection to claim 1, wherein the gaming information is provided to the player’s mobile device 120 which is separate from the gaming machines, also see fig. 2, 220 and 228).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed in the rejection, Smith teaches the amended limitations as role information is shown on the user’s mobile device (fig. 2, 220 and 228). Broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation of a respective role determines that Smith teaches such, as various information about the device is transmitted and displayed to the user on their device, including the owner and device identifiers, which therefore indicate that the device’s role is to be owned and played by the owner.
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 Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715