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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection below.
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 1-7, 10-14, 16-20 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.
Examiner found no support for sequential first and second periods of exclusivity and reassignment of the same second, hidden progressive award.
The specification describes associating a progressive award (or a second, hidden progressive award) with a specific player for a period of exclusivity. Representative passages include:
[0046]–[0049]: Upon a progressive award exclusivity event for a specific player, the system associates the progressive award with that specific player for a period of exclusivity and isolates it so only that player can win it.
[0057]: When the period of exclusivity concludes, the association is removed and any player becomes eligible again.
[0067]: The closest language — “responsive to an occurrence of a progressive award exclusivity event for a first player, the gaming system operates in a first mode for the benefit of that first player and responsive to an occurrence of a progressive award exclusivity event for a second, different player, the gaming system operates in a second, different mode for the benefit of that second player.”
This language supports successive, independent exclusivity events for different players (each getting their own temporary lock). It does not disclose or inherently teach the same second, hidden progressive award remaining in existence and being exclusively re-associated with a second, different player during a second, different period of exclusivity or the specific sequential structure now claimed (first period for player 1 and second period for player 2 with the identical hidden progressive).
No paragraph describes the hidden progressive pool itself being reassigned or continuing across sequential exclusivity periods belonging to different players.
Secondly, Examiner found no support for security monitoring circuit / access-door open to disable progressive award triggering events (and re-enable on close).
The only discussion of security monitoring circuits, access doors, intrusion detection, or suspension of game play is in paragraph [0206]:
“Security monitoring circuits detect intrusion into an EGM by monitoring security switches attached to access doors in the EGM cabinet. Access violations result in suspension of game play and can trigger additional security operations to preserve the current state of game play…”
This is standard EGM background language. It appears in the section listing general differences between EGMs and ordinary computers. It contains no mention of progressive awards, hidden progressives, exclusivity periods, or progressive award triggering events. No disclosure of selectively disabling (or later re-enabling) progressive award triggering events in response to door open/close while an exclusivity period is active. No description of the specific functional sequence now recited in the claims. There are no other paragraphs that discuss doors, cabinets, intrusion, tilts, security switches, or any interaction between security hardware and the progressive exclusivity logic.
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 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) 1-7, 10-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breckner (US 2007/0191088 A1) in view of Nguyen (US 2006/0073887 A1).
Claim 1. Breckner discloses a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
during a first period of exclusivity triggered by a progressive award exclusivity event occurring in association with a first player: cause a display, by a display device of an electronic gaming machine, of a first progressive award without displaying any second, hidden progressive awards, wherein a second, hidden progressive award is exclusively associated with the first player during the first period of exclusivity, and a value of the second, hidden progressive award is increased when a progressive award increment event associated with the first player occurs during the first period of exclusivity (group progressive award is displayed; a personal/hidden progressive is exclusively associated with the carded first player via player tracking and is incremented by that player’s wagers only while carded, the period of exclusivity; the personal increment is not displayed to others), [0208]-[0212], [0154], [0160], [0170];
when a progressive award triggering event occurs in association with a second, different player during the first period of exclusivity, cause a display of the first progressive award being provided to the second, different player (only the group progressive is awarded to the second player; the first player’s personal/hidden increment remains protected), [0210]-[0212];
when the progressive award triggering event occurs in association with the first player during the first period of exclusivity, cause a display, by the display device of the electronic gaming machine, of the first progressive award and at least a portion of the second, hidden progressive award being provided to the first player (winner receives group amount and personal increment), [0210]-[0212].
Breckner further teaches that personal progressive awards follow the player via tracking card and that different players may have different personal increments associated with the same group progressive at different times, [0208]-[0212].
Breckner does not expressly disclose responsive to a receipt of data associated with an opening of an access door of a housing of the electronic gaming machine being detected via a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing of the electronic gaming machine following the display of the first progressive award by the display device of the electronic gaming machine: disable any progressive award triggering events occurring in association with the first player during the first period of exclusivity, and following a receipt of data associated with at least a closing of the access door being detected via the security monitoring circuit: enable the progressive award triggering event to occur in association with the first player during the first period of exclusivity.
Nguyen teaches an electronic gaming machine comprising a housing with access doors and a security monitoring circuit that detects opening of the access doors and, in response, suspends game play (including progressive-related operations) while preserving the current state of game play, and resumes operations after the security condition is cleared, [0156]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Breckner with the security monitoring circuit and access-door open/close detection and suspension/resumption of game operations of Nguyen and would have been motivated to do so to increase the security of the EGM from tampering.
Breckner does not expressly disclose the second, hidden progressive award being exclusively re-associated with a second, different player during a second, different period of exclusivity (i.e., the same hidden award being reassigned across sequential exclusivity periods of different players), however, Breckner already teaches that personal progressive awards are exclusively associated with a player only while that player is carded (period of exclusivity) and that different players can have personal increments associated with the same group progressive at different times. Once a first player’s exclusivity ends (card-out, win, or session end), a subsequent player can establish a new exclusivity period with a personal/hidden progressive. It would have been an obvious design choice, well within the skill of an ordinary artisan, to allow the same hidden progressive pool to be reassigned to the newly exclusive player rather than maintaining permanently segregated, player-specific hidden pools. Such reassignment is a predictable variation of Breckner’s dynamic association of progressive awards and would have been motivated by the desire to increase player engagement and perceived value by permitting a single shared hidden progressive to cycle among successive exclusive players while still providing true exclusivity during each individual period.
Claim 2. Breckner and Nguyen disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor when the progressive award triggering event occurs in association with the first player during the first period of exclusivity, cause the processor to cause a display, by the display device of the electronic gaming machine, of the first progressive award and the second, hidden progressive award being provided to the first player (e.g., Player A: group $1050 + personal $3 = $1053 total), Breckner [0210]-[0212].
Claim 3. Breckner and Nguyen disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the portion of the second, hidden progressive award is based on at least one of a value of the first progressive award and the value of the second, hidden progressive award (e.g. the personal incremental award is a percentage of the player’s wager into the progressive award), Breckner [0208]-[0210].
Claim 4. Breckner and Nguyen disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the first period of exclusivity associated with the occurrence of the progressive award exclusivity event concludes responsive to the occurrence of the progressive award triggering event in association with the first player (i.e. the personal progressive resets upon the associated player winning any progressive award), Breckner [0212].
Claim 5. Breckner and Nguyen disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the first period of exclusivity associated with the occurrence of the progressive award exclusivity event concludes following at least one of an amount of time, a quantity of games played by the first player, a quantity of games played by any player, an amount won by the first player, an amount won by any player and a termination of a gaming session by the first player (i.e. period ends on card-out or winnings), Breckner [0209]-[0212].
Claim 6. Breckner and Nguyen disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the progressive award exclusivity event randomly occurs in association with the first player, Breckner [0154], [0160], [0170].
Claim 7. Breckner and Nguyen disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a display of an enablement of the first player to purchase the occurrence of the progressive award exclusivity event (i.e. side -bet or buy-in embodiments allow players to purchase the occurrence of the progressive award exclusivity event), Breckner [0177].
Claim 10. Breckner and Nguyen disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor during the first period of exclusivity associated with the occurrence of the progressive award exclusivity event, cause the processor to cause a display to the second player of information associated with at least one of the first player, the second, hidden progressive award and the first period of exclusivity (i.e. informing other players that the first player is the winner), Breckner [0211]-[0212].
Claim 11. Breckner and Nguyen disclose the system of Claim 1, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor when the progressive award increment event associated with the second, different player occurs during the first period of exclusivity, cause the processor to cause an increase of the value of the second, hidden progressive award, Breckner [0208]-[0212].
Claim 12-14, 16. Breckner and Nguyen disclose a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: maintain a displayed progressive award, responsive to a receipt of data associated with an opening of an access door of a housing of an electronic gaming machine being detected via a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing of the electronic gaming machine: disable any occurrences of any progressive award exclusivity events, and following a receipt of data associated with at least a closing of the access door being detected via the security monitoring circuit: enable an occurrence of a progressive award exclusivity event, when the progressive award exclusivity event occurs in association with a first player of a first player tracking status cause a display, by a display device, of an exclusive association of the displayed progressive award with the first player for a first period of exclusivity, wherein during the first period of exclusivity, a portion of a hidden progressive award is available to be provided to the first player and no other players, and responsive to an occurrence of a progressive award increment event associated with the first player during the first period of exclusivity, a value of the hidden progressive award is increased, and when the progressive award exclusivity event occurs in association with a second, different player of the first player tracking status, cause a display, by the display device, of an exclusive association of the displayed progressive award with the second, different player for the first period of exclusivity, wherein during the first period of exclusivity, the portion of the hidden progressive award is available to be provided to the second, different player and no other players, and responsive to an occurrence of the progressive award increment event associated with the second, different player during the first period of exclusivity, the value of the hidden progressive award is increased, and when the progressive award exclusivity event occurs in association with a third, different player of a second, different player tracking status occurs, cause a display, by the display device, of an exclusive association of the displayed progressive award with the second, different player for a second period of exclusivity, wherein during the second period of exclusivity, the portion of the hidden progressive award is unavailable to be provided to any player as similarly discussed above.
Claim 17-20. Breckner and Nguyen disclose an electronic gaming machine comprising: a display device; a housing comprising an access door; a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing; a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: maintain a displayed progressive award and a hidden progressive award, cause a display, by the display device, of the displayed progressive award without displaying the hidden progressive award, and when an opening of the access door is detected via the security monitoring circuit following the display of the progressive award: disable any occurrence of any progressive award exclusivity events, and following at least a closing of the access door detected via the security monitoring circuit: enable an occurrence of a progressive award exclusivity event, when the progressive award exclusivity event occurs in association with a first player: cause a display, by the display device and for a first period of exclusivity, of a modification of a value of the displayed progressive award with a value of the hidden progressive award, wherein the value of the hidden progressive award increases with each occurrence of a progressive award increment event associated with the first player during the first period of exclusivity, when a progressive award triggering event occurs in association with the first player during the first period of exclusivity, cause a display, by the display device, of the modified value of the displayed progressive award being provided to the first player, and when the progressive award triggering event occurs in association with a second, different player during the first period of exclusivity, cause a display, by the display device, of the value of the displayed progressive award being provided to the second, different player, and when the progressive award exclusivity event occurs in association with the second, different player: cause a display, by the display device and for a second, different period of exclusivity, of a modification of the value of the displayed progressive award with the value of the hidden progressive award, when the progressive award triggering event occurs in association with the second, different player during the second, different period of exclusivity, cause a display, by the display device, of the modified value of the displayed progressive award being provided to the second, different player, and when the progressive award triggering event occurs in association with the first player during the second, different period of exclusivity, cause a display, by the display device, of the value of the displayed progressive award being provided to the first player as similarly discussed above.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights