DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed July 9, 2026. The Examiner acknowledges that claims 1, 6, 10, 12, & 17 were amended, no claims were canceled, and no new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-20 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 1-20 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.
As amended, claim 1 recites, in part: “responsive to a receipt of data associated with an opening of an access door of the electronic gaming machine being detected via a security monitoring circuit of the electronic gaming machine during the auction bidding sequence: disable the placing of bids from the electronic gaming machine during the auction bidding sequence, and following a receipt of data associated with at least a closing of the access door of the electronic gaming machine detected via the security monitoring circuit of the electronic gaming machine, enable the placing of bids from the electronic gaming machine during the auction bidding sequence”. Similar amendments were made to claims 10 & 12; thus the discussion herein applies to each of the pending independent claims.
The specification describes systems and methods that maintain progressive awards, trigger auction bidding sequences, determining winning bids, and retire progressive awards, including accelerated retirement via an auction mechanism to comply with regulatory requirements.
The specification also describes electronic gaming machines (EGMs) with processors, memory devices, sensors, and peripherals, including security monitoring circuits. For example, paragraph [0215] explicitly recites: “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. These circuits also function when power is off by use of a battery backup. In power-off operation, these circuits continue to monitor the access doors of the EGM. When power is restored, the EGM can determine whether any security violations occurred while power was off, e.g., via software for reading status registers. This can trigger event log entries and further data authentication operations by the EGM software.”
Accordingly, the originally filed specification provides explicit support for: security monitoring circuits, security switches attached to access doors in the EGM cabinet, and access violations resulting in suspension of game play or triggering additional security operations (albeit without specificity).
The amended claim goes beyond this disclosure by reciting a specific functional sequence in which: 1) during an auction bidding sequence for a progressive award, opening of the door is detected via a security monitoring circuit, 2) in response, the system disables the placing of bids from the EGM during the auction bidding sequence, and 3) after closing of the access door detected via the security monitoring circuit, the system enables the placing of bids from the EGM during the auction bidding sequence.
While the specification discloses that access violations “result in suspension of game play” it does not describe selectively disabling and later enabling bid placement in an award auction bidding sequence as a distinct feature or control mechanism. Nor does the specification expressly tie access-door events, via the security monitoring circuit, to selectively control bidding participation in a progressive award auction in the manner recited in the amended independent claims.
That is, the currently claimed behavior is more specific than general “suspension of game play” in that it requires only the placing of bids from the EGM during the auction bidding sequence is disabled, this disablement is triggered precisely by door-open events monitored by the security monitoring circuit, and bid placement being re-enabled during the same auction bidding sequence upon door closing.
The originally filed specification does not appear to reasonably convey that the inventors had possession of this particular door-state driven bid control logic as of the filing date, as distinguished from the broader concept of merely suspending game play upon access violations.
For at least these reasons at least amended independent claims 1, 10, & 12 (and claims dependent thereon) as currently presented are not adequately supported by the originally filed specification, and therefore claims 1-20 fail to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous 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 the independent claims as amended and currently presented, the rejection is withdrawn.
Lastly, as detailed above, based on Applicant’s amendments presented July 9, 2026, a new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description was necessitated.
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 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