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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 15th, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 15, 16, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 reads in part “…wherein the issue comprises he EGM already…”(emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 and 16 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 15 is objected to for depending on cancelled claim 14, and claim 16 is objected to for incorporating the dependency issue of claim 15 through claim dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
For the purposes of further consideration claim 15 has been understood as intended to depend on claim 13.
Claim 21 reads in part “A electronic gaming machine..”(emphasis added), instead of “An electronic gaming machine”(emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2-3, 10, 13, 15-16, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is rejected for defining an element previously defined by the respective parent claim without identifying the relationship with the previously presented limitation. Claim 1 sets forth, “…determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful due to technical limitations based on the resolution capability of the display device being different than a resolution associated with a first game…” while dependent 2 presents, “wherein determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful comprises determining an issue with installing the first game on the EGM based on the information associated with the EGM”. It is not clear if the criteria for determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful as presented in claim 1 is being redefined or further defined as described in claim 2.
For the purposes of interpretation, claim 2 is understood as further defining information associated with the EGM as set forth in claim 1 as further including the limitations of claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected for defining an element previously defined by the respective parent claim without identifying the relationship with the previously presented limitation. Claim 1 sets forth, “…determining information associated with the EGM, wherein the information comprises a resolution capability of a display device of the EGM;…” while dependent 10 presents, “The system of Claim 1, wherein determining the information associated with the EGM comprises receiving the information from the EGM.” It is not clear if the Applicant intends to redefine “the information associated with the EGM” from the original presentation in claim 1 in claim 10, or if they intend to further define information associated with the EGM as described by claim 10.
For the purposes of interpretation, claim 10 is understood as further defining information associated with the EGM as set forth in claim 1 as further including the limitations of claim 10.
Claim 19 is rejected for defining an element previously defined by the respective parent claim without identifying the relationship with the previously presented limitation. Claim 13 sets forth, “…receiving information associated with each EGM of the plurality of EGMs, wherein the information comprises resolution capabilities of display devices of the plurality of EGMs…”(emphasis added) while dependent 19 presents, “The method of Claim 13, wherein the information comprises at least one of: an indication of available storage space of each EMG of the plurality of EGMs; and an indication of used storage space of each EMG of the plurality of EGMs.” It is not clear if the Applicant intends to redefine “the information associated with the EGM” from the original presentation in claim 13 in claim 19, or if they intend to further define information associated with the EGM as described by claim 13.
For the purposes of interpretation, claim 19 is understood as further defining information associated with the EGM as set forth in claim 13 as further including the limitations of claim 19.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first adjustment" in lines 12, 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first adjustment" in lines 1, 3, and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 is rejected for referencing a common element with conflicting tenses. Specifically, the claim references, “…the issue comprises the EGM already having the first game installed, and wherein the second adjustment comprises installing a second game on the EGM rather than the first game.” It is not immediately clear how the second game can be installed on the EGM instead of installing a first game, when at the same time the first game has already been installed. This arrangement is noted as further conflicting with parent claim 22, wherein the issue is identified as being “with the installing of the first game” that frames the “issue” as dependent on both the future installing of the first game and the previously installed first game.
Claims 3, 16 incorporate the issues noted above based on recited (or understood intended) claims dependency and are accordingly additionally rejection under this section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-13, 15-16, 19, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a system and electronic gaming machine (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-3, 8-12, 21-28 and a method of managing content (i.e., a process) in claims 13, 15-16, 19.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. A system configured to manage content on an electronic gaming machine ("EGM"), the system comprising:
a processor circuit; and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
determining information associated with the EGM, wherein the information comprises a resolution capability of a display device of the EGM ;
determining that a first adjustment to the EGM is desired;
determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful due to technical limitations based on the resolution capability of the display device being different than a resolution associated with a first game;
responsive to determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful due to the technical limitations, determining a second adjustment to the EGM based on the first adjustment and the information; and
transmitting, via an encrypted data network operated by a gaming facility a signal to a communication controller of the EGM, the signal including instructions to perform the second adjustment to the EGM.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for observing and evaluating a adjustment to a system and judging when to make an alternative/subsequent adjustment as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including commercial interactions involving business relations and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth interactions involving changing and presenting content on player/user machines in a gaming environment.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on an electronic gaming machine ("EGM"), a processor circuit, a memory, a display, an encrypted data network, and a communication controller it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other network connected devices such as generic computers, tablets, smart phones, game consoles, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including an electronic gaming machine ("EGM"), a processor circuit, a memory, a display, an encrypted data network, and a communication controller amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0001], [0035], [0038], [0044], [0047]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole, amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0001], [0035], [0038], [0044], [0047]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-3, 8-13, 15-16, 19, and 21-28 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of an electronic gaming machine ("EGM"), a processor circuit, a memory, a display, an encrypted data network, and a communication controller as respectively presented that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B for the reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 and further present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and therefore are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-13, 15-16, 19, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan et al (US 2008/0108405) in view of Sethi et al (US 2021/0157562) in view of Mittal (US 2005/0022182).
Claim 1: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches a system configured to manage content on an electronic gaming machine ("EGM") (Brosnan Figure 7; Paragraphs [0039]-[0042] ), the system comprising:
a processor circuit (Brosnan Figures 7, 10; Elements 104, 1063); and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit (Brosnan Figures 7, 10; Elements 106, 1061), the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
determining information associated with the EGM (-loading configuration options and ranges- Brosnan Figures 1-2; Elements 220, 230; Paragraphs [0039]-[0043]) wherein the information comprises a resolution capability of a display device of the EGM (Mittal Paragraph [0029]);
determining that a first adjustment to the EGM is desired (Brosnan Figures 1-2; Element 105; Paragraph [0045]);
determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful due to technical limitations based on the resolution capability of the display device being different than a resolution associated with a first game (Sethi Abstract, Paragraphs [0071]-[0074] & Mittal Paragraph [0029]);
responsive to determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful due to the technical limitations, determining a second adjustment to the EGM based on the first adjustment and the information (-Reasonable alternative- Brosnan Figures 1-2; Elements 110, 112, 120; Paragraphs [0047]-[0049]); and
transmitting, via an encrypted data network operated by a gaming facility, a signal to a communication controller of the EGM (Brosnan Figures 1-2; Elements 135, 140; Paragraph [0058], [0081]-[0083], [0085]),
the signal including instructions to perform the second adjustment to the EGM (Brosnan Figure 1-2; Elements 135, 140; Paragraph [0058]).
Brosnan teaches the invention including the consideration of rule violations and detrimental effects when installing software (-rule violation/detrimental effect? -Brosnan Figures 1; Element 110; Paragraphs [0045]). While the prior art Brosnan does not explicitly teach that the self-correcting configuration items of rule violations and detrimental effects would include technical limitations including software and hardware conflicts, Sethi teaches that this was a known concern in an analogous invention involving ensuring device update compatibility (Sethi Abstract, Paragraphs [0071]-[0074]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the preventing software installations that would be unsuccessful due to technical limitations, as taught by Sethi into installation rules of games as taught by Brosnan because such would have provided the expected and predictable result of enhancing the likelihood that the installed updates functioned as intended.
The combination of Brosnan & Sethi teaches the limiting of software installation based on various criteria including hardware configuration as combined above. While the combination of Brosnan & Sethi does not explicitly teach consideration of a devices display resolution in the determination of compatibility, Mittal teaches that this was a known consideration in an analogous invention concerned with installing software on target devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have incorporated the consideration of a devices display resolution in the determination of compatibility as taught by Mittal in the combination of Brosnan & Sethi because such would have provided the predictable and expected result of preventing the installation of software on devices with noncompatible display formats and/or technologies
Claim 2: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the first adjustment comprises installing the first game on the EGM (Brosnan Paragraph [0055])
wherein determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful comprises determining an issue with installing the first game on the EGM based on the information associated with the EGM (-jurisdictional violation- Brosnan Paragraph [0055] & Sethi Abstract, Paragraphs [0071]-[0074] & Mittal Paragraph [0029]), and
wherein determining the second adjustment to the EGM comprises
determining that implementing the second adjustment will avoid the issue (-installation of a class II game in place of the requested class III game- Brosnan Paragraph [0055]).
Claim 3: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches the system of Claim 2, wherein the issue comprises at least one of: the EGM already having the first game installed, and wherein the second adjustment comprises installing a second game on the EGM rather than the first game (-installation of a class II game in place of the requested class III game- Brosnan Paragraphs [0055], [0056]).
Claim 8: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein determining that the first adjustment to the EGM is desired comprises determining that the EGM has at least one of: a game with a popularity or profit margin below a threshold level; and less than a threshold number of a type of game (-the lack of a desired game/theme is less than a threshold number of a type of game- Brosnan Paragraphs [0023], [0052], [0055]).
Claim 9: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein determining that the first adjustment to the EGM is desired comprises receiving an indication that the first adjustment to the EGM is desired from a user (-wherein the term user and operator are utilized somewhat interchangeably- Brosnan Paragraphs [0023], [0055]).
Claim 10: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein determining the information associated with the EGM comprises receiving the information from the EGM (-configuration information is stored on and hosted by the gaming device- Brosnan Paragraphs [0041]-[0042], [0058]).
Claim 11: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the EGM is a first EGM of a plurality of EGMs, wherein the signal is a first signal, the operations further comprising:
determining information associated with a second EGM of the plurality of EGMs that is different than the first EGM (-configuration success/failure of additional EGM- Brosnan Figure 5; Element 535; Paragraph [0063]);
determining that the first adjustment to the second EGM is desired (Brosnan Figure 5; Element 505; Paragraph [0060]);
determining a third adjustment to the second EGM based on the first adjustment and the information associated with the second EGM, the third adjustment being different than the second adjustment (Brosnan Figure 5; Element 540, 545, 550; Paragraph [0063]); and
transmitting a second signal to the second EGM, the second signal including instructions to perform the third adjustment to the second EGM (Brosnan Figure 5; Element 530, 540, 545, 550; Paragraph [0063]).
Claim 12: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches the system of Claim 11, the operations further comprising:
determining a first issue with performing the first adjustment on a first set of EGMs of the plurality of EGMs based on information associated with the first set of EGMs (-configuration success/failure of additional EGM- Brosnan Figure 5; Element 535; Paragraph [0063]);
displaying an indication of the first issue (Brosnan Figure 5; Element 545; Paragraphs [0053], [0060], [0063]);
receiving an indication of a fourth adjustment to be made to the first set of EGMs from a user (Brosnan Figures 1, 5; Element 550; Paragraph [0063]); and
transmitting a third signal to each of EGM of the first set of EGMs, the third signal including instructions to perform the fourth adjustment to each EGM of the first set of EGMs (Brosnan Figure 5; Element 505;).
Claim 13: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches a method of managing content on an electronic gaming machine ("EGM") of a plurality of EGMs, the method comprising:
receiving information associated with each EGM of the plurality of EGMs (-loading configuration options and ranges- Brosnan Figures 1-2; Elements 220, 230; Paragraphs [0039]-[0043]), wherein the information comprises resolution capabilities of display devices of the plurality of EGMs (Mittal Paragraph [0029]);
receiving a request to perform an adjustment to content available at a set of EGMs of the plurality of EGMs (Brosnan Figures 1; Element 105; Paragraph [0045]);
determining that performing the adjustment to the content available at the set of EGMs will be unsuccessful due to technical limitations based on the of resolution capabilities of the display devices of each EGM of the plurality of EGMs wherein the resolution capabilities of the display devices is different than a resolution associated with a first game(Brosnan Figures 1; Element 110; Paragraphs [0045] & Sethi Abstract, Paragraphs [0071]-[0074] & Mittal Paragraph [0029]);
responsive to determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful due to the technical limitations, determining a second adjustment to the set of EGMs based on the first adjustment and the information (-Reasonable alternative- Brosnan Figures 1-2; Elements 110, 112, 120; Paragraphs [0047]-[0049]); and
transmitting, via an encrypted data network operated by a gaming facility, signals to communication controllers of the set of EGMs, the signals including instructions to perform the second adjustment to the set of EGMs (Brosnan Figures 1-2; Elements 135, 140; Paragraph [0058], [0081]-[0083], [0085]).
Brosnan teaches the invention including the consideration of rule violations and detrimental effects when installing software (-rule violation/detrimental effect? -Brosnan Figures 1; Element 110; Paragraphs [0045]). While the prior art Brosnan does not explicitly teach that the self-correcting configuration items of rule violations and detrimental effects would include technical limitations including software and hardware conflicts, Sethi teaches that this was a known concern in an analogous invention involving ensuring device update compatibility (Sethi Abstract, Paragraphs [0071]-[0074]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the preventing software installations that would be unsuccessful due to technical limitations, as taught by Sethi into installation rules of games as taught by Brosnan because such would have provided the expected and predictable result of enhancing the likelihood that the installed updates functioned as intended.
The combination of Brosnan & Sethi teaches the limiting of software installation based on various criteria including hardware configuration as combined above. While the combination of Brosnan & Sethi does not explicitly teach consideration of a devices display resolution and/or memory capacity in the determination of compatibility, Mittal teaches that this was a known consideration in an analogous invention concerned with installing software on target devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have incorporated the consideration of a devices display resolution and/or memory capacity in the determination of compatibility as taught by Mittal in the combination of Brosnan & Sethi because such would have provided the predictable and expected result of preventing the installation of software on devices with noncompatible display formats and/or technologies
Claim 15: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches the method of Claim 13, wherein the first adjustment comprises installing a first game (Brosnan Paragraphs [0023], [0055]), and
wherein determining that performing the first adjustment to the content available at the set of EGMs will be unsuccessful comprises determining that performing the first adjustment to the content available at the subset of the EGMs will result in issues at each EGM of the subset of the EGMs (-Each EGM considered- Brosnan Figures 1, 5; Elements 110, 535).
Claim 16: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches the method of Claim 15, wherein the issue comprises each EGM of the subset of EGMs already having the first game installed, and wherein the second adjustment comprises installing a second game on each EGM of the subset of EGMs rather than the first game (-meeting the condition whenever another type of game is desired- Brosnan Paragraphs [0023], [0052], [0055]).
Claim 19: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches the method of Claim 13, wherein the information comprises at least one of: an indication of available storage space of each EMG of the plurality of EGMs; and an indication of used storage space of each EMG of the plurality of EGMs (Mittal Paragraph [0029]);.
Claim 21: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches an electronic gaming machine ("EGM") comprising:
a display device (Brosnan Figures 8, 9; Elements 34, 910);
a communication controller (Brosnan Figure 9; Element 918);
a processor circuit (Brosnan Figures 7, 10; Elements 104, 1063); and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit (Brosnan Figures 7, 10; Elements 106, 1061), the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the EGM to perform operations comprising:
determining information associated with the EGM (-loading configuration options and ranges- Brosnan Figures 1-2; Elements 220, 230; Paragraphs [0039]-[0043]), wherein the information comprises a resolution capability of the display device (Mittal Paragraph [0029]);
receiving, from a central controller, an indication that a first adjustment to the EGM is desired (Brosnan Figures 1-2; Element 105; Paragraphs [0039], [0045]);
determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful due to technical limitations based on the resolution capability of the display device being different than a resolution associated with a first game (Sethi Abstract, Paragraphs [0071]-[0074] & Mittal Paragraph [0029]);
responsive to determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful due to the technical limitations, determining a second adjustment to the EGM based on the first adjustment and the information (-Reasonable alternative- Brosnan Figures 1-2; Elements 110, 112, 120; Paragraphs [0047]-[0049]); and
receiving, via an encrypted data network operated by a gaming facility from the central controller, a signal to the communication controller(Brosnan Figures 1-2; Elements 135, 140; Paragraph [0058], [0081]-[0083], [0085]), the signal including instructions to perform the second adjustment to the EGM (Brosnan Figure 1-2; Elements 135, 140; Paragraph [0058]).
Brosnan teaches the invention including the consideration of rule violations and detrimental effects when installing software (-rule violation/detrimental effect? -Brosnan Figures 1; Element 110; Paragraphs [0045]). While the prior art Brosnan does not explicitly teach that the self-correcting configuration items of rule violations and detrimental effects would include technical limitations including software and hardware conflicts, Sethi teaches that this was a known concern in an analogous invention involving ensuring device update compatibility (Sethi Abstract, Paragraphs [0071]-[0074]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the preventing software installations that would be unsuccessful due to technical limitations, as taught by Sethi into installation rules of games as taught by Brosnan because such would have provided the expected and predictable result of enhancing the likelihood that the installed updates functioned as intended.
The combination of Brosnan & Sethi teaches the limiting of software installation based on various criteria including hardware configuration as combined above. While the combination of Brosnan & Sethi does not explicitly teach consideration of a devices display resolution in the determination of compatibility, Mittal teaches that this was a known consideration in an analogous invention concerned with installing software on target devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have incorporated the consideration of a devices display resolution in the determination of compatibility as taught by Mittal in the combination of Brosnan & Sethi because such would have provided the predictable and expected result of preventing the installation of software on devices with noncompatible display formats and/or technologies
Claim 22: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches the EGM of Claim 21, wherein the first adjustment comprises installing the first game on the EGM,
wherein determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful comprises determining an issue with installing the first game on the EGM based on the information associated with the EGM (-jurisdictional violation- Brosnan Paragraph [0055] & Sethi Abstract, Paragraphs [0071]-[0074] & Mittal Paragraph [0029]), and
wherein determining the second adjustment to the EGM comprises determining that implementing the second adjustment will avoid the issue (-installation of a class II game in place of the requested class III game- Brosnan Paragraph [0055]).
Claim 23: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches the EGM of Claim 22, wherein the issue comprises the EGM already having the first game installed, and wherein the second adjustment comprises installing a second game on the EGM rather than the first game (-installation of a class II game in place of the requested class III game- Brosnan Paragraphs [0055], [0056]).
Claim 24: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches the EGM of Claim 21, wherein determining that the first adjustment to the EGM is desired comprises determining that the EGM has at least one of:
a game with a popularity or profit margin below a threshold level; and
less than a threshold number of a type of game (-the lack of a desired game/theme is less than a threshold number of a type of game- Brosnan Paragraphs [0023], [0052], [0055]).
.
Claim 25: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches the EGM of Claim 21, wherein determining that the first adjustment to the EGM is desired comprises receiving an indication that the first adjustment to the EGM is desired from a user (-wherein the term user and operator are utilized somewhat interchangeably- Brosnan Paragraphs [0023], [0055]).
.
Claim 26: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches the EGM of Claim 21, wherein determining the information associated with the EGM comprises receiving the information from the EGM (-configuration information is stored on and hosted by the gaming device- Brosnan Paragraphs [0041]-[0042], [0058]).
Claim 27: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches the EGM of Claim 21, wherein the EGM is a first EGM of a plurality of EGMs,
wherein the signal is a first signal,
the operations further comprising:
determining information associated with a second EGM of the plurality of EGMs that is different than the first EGM (-configuration success/failure of additional EGM- Brosnan Figure 5; Element 535; Paragraph [0063]);
determining that the first adjustment to the second EGM is desired (Brosnan Figure 5; Element 505; Paragraph [0060]);
determining a third adjustment to the second EGM based on the first adjustment and the information associated with the second EGM, the third adjustment being different than the second adjustment (Brosnan Figure 5; Element 540, 545, 550; Paragraph [0063]); and
transmitting a second signal to the second EGM, the second signal including instructions to perform the third adjustment to the second EGM (Brosnan Figure 5; Element 530, 540, 545, 550; Paragraph [0063]).
Claim 28: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi, & Mittal teaches the EGM of Claim 27, the operations further comprising: determining a first issue with performing the first adjustment on a first set of EGMs of the plurality of EGMs based on information associated with the first set of EGMs (-configuration success/failure of additional EGM- Brosnan Figure 5; Element 535; Paragraph [0063]);
displaying an indication of the first issue (Brosnan Figure 5; Element 545; Paragraphs [0053], [0060], [0063]);
receiving an indication of a fourth adjustment to be made to the first set of EGMs from a user (Brosnan Figures 1, 5; Element 550; Paragraph [0063]); and
transmitting a third signal to each of EGM of the first set of EGMs, the third signal including instructions to perform the fourth adjustment to each EGM of the first set of EGMs (Brosnan Figure 5; Element 505;).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 15th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on pages 11-14 of the Applicant’s above dated remarks, the Applicant presents that the claimed invention solves the technical problem with updating and/or modifying program data on game devices while accounting for hardware restrictions/constraints that can provide the benefit of reducing gaming machine downtime. The Applicant cites Ex parte Desjardins Appeal No. 2024-000567, supports the eligibility of the claimed invention based on the claimed invention providing an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field.
Responsive to the Applicant’s argument as summarized above, the Applicant’s proposed practical application of a technical improvement as argued reflects the implementation known processes on a computer (as further evidenced both individually and cumulatively by the applied prior art as presented herein above) wherein the same is utilized merely as tool that would not support the presence of a practical application or the unconventionality of the claimed invention as proposed (See MPEP 2106.05(a) & 2106.05(f)).
Continuing on pages 15 and 16 of the above dated response, the Applicant presents that the claims as amended reflect a combination of elements not taught by the previously applied prior art combinations including Brosnan et al (US 2008/0108405) in view of Sethi et al (US 2021/0157562) and Wolf et al (US 2007/0207854).
Responsive to the Applicant presented amendments and an updated prior art search the pending claims now stand as rejected under the prior art combination of Brosnan et al (US 2008/0108405), Sethi et al (US 2021/0157562) and Mittal (US 2005/0022182).
In view of the preceding the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights