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 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, 8, 11-12, and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicely et al (US 2010/0056247) in view of Gatto et al (US 2004/0198496), Alperovitch et al (US 2009/0254663), and Porter (US 2014/0121000).
Re claim 1, Nicely discloses a system comprising: a processor and memory (fig. 2A, 12 and 14) executing instructions causing the processor to: cause a display device of a computing device to display a GUI (fig. 5B) comprising: a game selection area comprising a first plurality of wagering game objects for selection (520a and 560a); and a game set area (500) comprising a second plurality of wagering game objects for activation at a first EGM (fig. 5C, 590a-e representing player objects for the gaming machines that are activated to attack the selected target 580a-e upon selection of an object as disclosed above); and in response to receipt of a wagering game selection instruction associated with a wagering game object of the first plurality of wagering game objects, cause the display device to add a depiction of the selected wagering game object to the second plurality of wagering game objects in the game set area (fig. 5C, upon selection of the target, the player icons 590a-e appear at the chosen monster, therefore a depiction of the selected action of attacking a monster appears in response to the selection).
However, Nicely is silent on transmitting instructions that cause the server to transfer an electronic copy of the wagering game associated with the selected wagering game object to the first EGM over the EGM network. Gatto teaches a gaming system wherein new games may be scheduled to be downloaded to gaming terminals and activated at predetermined times (see pars. [0063] and [0111]). Since changing the available games on the gaming terminal updates the menu of games made available to the player, this is considered an update instruction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to schedule and activate games on a gaming machine as taught by Gatto in order to enable casinos to update the available games for players and ensure that they are available and ready for play at predetermined times.
Nicely is further silent on estimating a network speed of the EGM network between the server and the first EGM, determining an update window for the first EGM based on the estimated network speed and a low activity period for the first EGM, and transferring the copy of the wagering game during the update window and activating the game during the update window. Alperovitch teaches a networking system that prioritizes bandwidth, wherein updates are pushed to devices during periods of forecasted low activity ([0051]). With these techniques, the system is able to take advantage of lulls in network activity to push updates and utilize the extra available bandwidth. It would have been obvious to determine the network and computer performance of a gaming device on the network as taught by Alperovitch in conjunction with the system of Nicely in order to determine the suitability of connected computers and their network connection quality before engaging in network gaming while determining the optimal time to utilize the device’s network and maximize bandwidth availability.
While Nicely discloses allowing players to make certain selections ([0119]), Nicely does not explicitly disclose a game set selection area comprising a plurality of game set objects associated with a plurality of wagering game objects, and in response to receipt of a game set save instruction associated with the second plurality of wagering game objects, add a saved game set object associated with the second plurality of wagering game objects to the plurality of game set objects.
Porter teaches a reel-based game wherein players are able to save and load their favorite wild layout ([0151]). This means there are a plurality of sets of selectable game objects that are able to be selected to be saved and loaded, where wild symbols in a reel game are considered examples of wagering game objects. It would have been obvious to implement saving and loading wild layouts as taught by Porter in the game of Nicely in order to increase the customizability of the game, enhancing player enjoyment and likelihood of return play.
Re claim 2, Nicely discloses in response to receipt of a wagering game set selection instruction associated with a game set object of the plurality of game set objects, cause the display device to replace the depiction of the second plurality of wagering game objects in the game set with a third plurality of wagering game objects associated with the selected game set object (fig. 5E, after monster 580b is killed, players choose a new target and the depiction on display 500 is replaced with the new decisions); and in response to receipt of the EGM update instruction, cause wagering games associated with the third plurality of wagering game objects to be activated at the first EGM (see above, the player’s object is activated at the selected monster and begins firing at the monster).
Re claim 5, Nicely discloses in response to receipt of an EGM selection instruction associated with a second EGM object of the plurality of EGM objects, associating the second EGM object with the second plurality of wagering game objects, wherein receipt of the EGM update instruction further causes the wagering game associated with the selected wagering game object to be activated at a second EGM associated with the second EGM object (figs. 5A-5F, the game is presented to multiple EGMs, at least 520a-c, therefore selections at each EGM are associated with the various objects in display 500 and selection menus 560a-c).
Re claim 8, Nicely discloses a future start time after a current time and a future end time after the future start time ([0172], time intervals is a disclosure of a future start time and end time).
Re claim 11, Nicely discloses in response to receipt of a failure message indicative of a failure to activate the wagering game associated with the selected wagering game object, display a failure indication in the GUI (fig. 5B, 520c, fig. 5F, 520a, and fig. 5G, 520a-c, the GUI being illustrated showing several failure indications).
Re claim 12, Nicely discloses an indication of a failure to transfer the wagering game associated with the selected wagering game object to the first EGM (see the rejection to claim 11, either the player does not have enough bullets to participate in the wagering game, or is not eligible to play).
Re claim 16, Nicely discloses displaying a game recommendation indication associated with another wagering game object of the plurality of wagering game objects (fig. 4A, 420, the game recommends players to team up to kill big monsters).
Re claims 17-23, see the above rejections.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicely in view of Gatto, Alperovitch, and Porter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hintermeister et al (US 2009/0013258).
Re claims 4 and 6, Nicely has been discussed, but does not disclose displaying an indication of a game filter condition in the object filter area and modifying the game selection area to remove depictions of a first subset of the first plurality of wagering game objects not corresponding to the game filter condition. Hintermeister teaches a user interface allowing users to set filter conditions which hide unused options and only displaying selected items (par. [0055]). It would have been obvious to implement the filtering system of Hintermeister in order to allow users to customize their user interfaces and hide unwanted options.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicely in view of Gatto, Alperovitch, and Porter as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Satake et al (US 2005/0070251).
Re claim 13, Nicely fails to disclose an indication of insufficient memory in the first EGM to store the wagering game associated with the selected wagering game object. Satake teaches a gaming system where, if an attempt is made to start up an application but cannot be started due to insufficient memory, an error message is displayed ([0252]). It would have been obvious to implement an insufficient memory error message as taught by Satake with the game of Nicely in order to allow for troubleshooting of a gaming machine in the case of malfunction due to a lack of memory.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicely in view of Gatto, Alperovitch, and Porter as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Belfiore et al (US 2002/0059425)
Re claim 14, Nicely is silent on an indication of an incompatibility between the wagering game associated with the selected wagering game object and the first EGM. Belfiore teaches a gaming system wherein, if an application cannot run on a client, error messages appear on the client ([0240]).
It would have been obvious to implement the incompatibility error message of Belfiore with the game system of Nicely in order to ensure the compatibility of all gaming machines attempting to connect to the network and play the game.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicely in view of Gatto, Alperovitch, and Porter as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Frady (US 2013/0084949).
Re claim 15, Nicely does not explicitly disclose a remediation indication for remediation of the failure condition. Frady teaches a gaming system wherein a service light indicates an error, wherein a “reset key” gives technicians administrative access to clear errors ([0077]). It would have been obvious to implement the reset key of Frady in order to remediate errors in order to enable administrative users and technicians the ability to diagnose and resolve any errors on the gaming machine.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicely in view of Gatto, Alperovitch, and Porter as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Arbogast et al (US 2007/0105628).
Re claim 24, Nicely is silent on an object filter area, user input associated with an EGM filter condition, displaying an indication of the EGM filter condition in the object filter area, and modifying the EGM selection area to remove depictions of a first subset of the plurality of EGM objects not corresponding to the EGM filter condition.
Arbogast teaches a configuration system for gaming machines wherein the system filters out settings that the EGM does not support ([0020]). Filtering out settings is considered removing depictions of objects as the removal of these settings that are unsupported by the EGM will effectively prevent the settings (and therefore objects, images, sounds, layouts, etc.) associated with the settings from appearing.
It would have been obvious to implement the filtering of Arbogast in order to simplify and increase the efficiency of setting up EGMs in the gaming system by removing elements not relevant, desired, or selected by the player.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
Prosecution Insights