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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement entered November 20th, 2025 has been considered. A copy of the cited statement(s) including the notation indicating its respective consideration is attached for the Applicant's records.
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 9-14 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palermo et al (US 2018/0082523) in view of Cornell (US 2015/0269808).
Claim 9: The combination of Palermo & Cornell teaches a gaming machine comprising:
a housing having a front, a rear, a first side and a second side, said housing defining a generally enclosed interior area (Palermo Paragraphs [0022]-[0023]);
a video display located at said front of said housing, said video display having a width between first and second sides of said video display (Palermo Figure 1; Element 104);
a console located at said front of said housing and extending outwardly from said front of said housing (Palermo Figure 1; Element 106);
at least one player input device associated with said console (Palermo Figure 1; Element 110; Paragraph [0022]);
a media reader located in said housing, said reader configured to accept one or more of a printed ticket, currency and a media having information stored thereon (Palermo Paragraph [0022]; Figure 1; Element 112);
a media printer located in said housing, said media printer configured to dispense printed monetary value tickets and dispense them at an exterior of said housing (Palermo Paragraph [0022]; Figure 1; Element 115);
a gaming controller and a memory located in said interior area, and machine-readable code stored in said memory and configured to cause said gaming controller to present at least one wagering game to a player of said gaming machine comprising causing said at least one display to display information regarding said wagering game (Cornell Figure 2; Paragraphs [0032], [0050]); and
wherein a width of said housing between said first and second side is approximately one-half of the width of said video display (as modified below), whereby at least one of said first and second sides of said video display extends laterally outward of at least one of said first and second sides of said housing (Cornell Figure 5A; Element 106; Paragraphs [0050]).
Palermo teaches the invention as presented above including arrangement of gaming machines and elements thereof. While the prior art of Palermo does not explicitly teach the internal components of gaming machine including a controller and memory that are operable to present the wagering game on a display and the expansion of the video display such that it laterally extends beyond the sides of the housing, in an analogous invention, Cornell teaches that these are known elements of gaming machines in an analogous invention (Cornell Figures 2, 5A; Paragraphs [0032], [0050]; Element 106). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the known gaming machine elements including controller, memory, and additional laterally extending display portions that are operable to present the wagering game on a display, as taught by Cornell in the gaming machine of Palermo in order to provide the predictable and expected result of enabling game play on a gaming machine with a display configuration that is adaptable to the available space.
Additionally, while the prior art combination Palermo & Cornell teaches the variance of the housing width between the front and rear of housing in a manner that is conducive to optimizing the use of space in multi-unit arrangements (Palermo Paragraph [0027]; Figures 1, 6, 8, 15-16), the prior art combination does not describe the sizing of the width of the housing between the first and second side is one-half the width of the video display. The particular dimensions or ratio of dimensions between the sizing of the width of the housing between the first and second side such that the same is one-half the width of the video display is an obvious matter of design choice because the particular ratio of dimensions is not disclosed as performing a particular function or imparting a particular advantage distinct from the prior art arrangements intended to optimize space optimization for adjacent machines as taught by Palermo and accordingly this feature is understood to represent an obvious aesthetic consideration that has been held to be a matter of obviousness by the courts (See MPEP 2144.04 Sub Sections, I, IV.A-B, VI.C). Based on the preceding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sized the width of the housing between the first and second side such the same is one-half the width of the video display as particularly claimed because the particular sizing/proportioning of the front and rear portions of housing with respect to the display reflects the obvious change in size/proportion and is a matter of design choice that would have provided the predictable and expected benefit of ensuring more space efficient arrangements of gaming machines as taught by Palermo (Palermo Paragraph [0027]; Figures 1, 6, 8, 15-16).
Claim 10: The combination of Palermo & Cornell teaches the gaming machine in accordance with claim 9, wherein said video display has a bottom and said housing extends downwardly below said bottom of said video display (Describing the housing extending below the video display- Palermo Figures 1, 2).
Claim 11: The combination of Palermo & Cornell teaches the gaming machine in accordance with claim 9, wherein at least a portion of said first side of said video display extends laterally outward from said first side of said housing and at least a portion of said second side of said video display extends laterally outward from said second side of said housing (Cornell Figure 5A; Element 106; Paragraphs [0048]-[0051]).
Claim 12: The combination of Palermo & Cornell teaches the gaming machine in accordance with claim 9, wherein said housing has a bottom and a bottom of said video display extends to said bottom of said housing.
Additionally, while the prior art combination Palermo & Cornell teaches the invention including a housing bottom and various display configurations and arrangements (Palermo Figure 18; Elements 104, 107, 205, 281 & Cornell Figure 5A), the prior art combination does not explicitly describe the bottom of said video display as extending to said bottom of said housing. The extension of the video display to the bottom housing is not disclosed as performing a particular function or imparting a particular advantage distinct from the prior art arrangement and accordingly this feature is understood to represent an obvious aesthetic consideration that has been held to be a matter of obviousness by the courts (See MPEP 2144.04 Sub Sections, I, IV.A-B, VI.C). Based on the preceding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have extended the video display of Palermo & Cornell to the bottom housing as particularly claimed because the particular sizing of the display is a matter of design choice and would have provided the predictable and expected benefit of providing additional display space on the gaming device for use in display game content and/or advertising.
Claim 13: The combination of Palermo & Cornell teaches the gaming machine in accordance with claim 9, wherein said video display has a generally planar front (-wherein the display has both planar and curved portions- Palermo Figure 18; Elements 104, 107, 281; Paragraph [0030]).
Claim 14: The combination of Palermo & Cornell teaches the gaming machine in accordance with claim 13, wherein said video display has a curved front (-wherein the display has both planar and curved portions- Palermo Figure 18; Elements 104, 107, 281; Paragraph [0030]).
Claim 21: The combination of Palermo & Cornell teaches the gaming machine in accordance with claim 9, wherein said console is located below a bottom of said video display (Palermo Figure 1; Elements 104,106).
Claim 22: The combination of Palermo & Cornell teaches a gaming machine comprising:
a housing having a front, a rear, a first side and a second side, said housing defining a generally enclosed interior area (Palermo Paragraphs [0022]-[0023]), said first and second sides extending generally parallel to one another between said front and rear of said housing (- “substantially parallel wall sections” -Palermo Figure 17; Paragraphs [0024] [0029]);
a video display, said video display having first and second sides and a width between first and second sides (Palermo Figure 1; Element 104, Paragraph [0007]);
a console located at said front of said housing and extending outwardly from said front of said housing, said console located below a bottom of said video display (Palermo Figure 1; Element 106);
at least one player input device associated with said console (Palermo Figure 1; Element 110; Paragraph [0022]);
a media reader located in said housing, said reader configured to accept one or more of a printed ticket, currency and a media having information stored thereon (Palermo Paragraph [0022]; Figure 1; Element 112);
a media printer located in said housing, said media printer configured to dispense printed monetary value tickets and dispense them at an exterior of said housing (Palermo Paragraph [0022]; Figure 1; Element 115);
a gaming controller and a memory located in said interior area, and machine-readable code stored in said memory and configured to cause said gaming controller to present at least one wagering game to a player of said gaming machine comprising causing said at least one display to display information regarding said wagering game (Cornell Figure 2; Paragraphs [0032], [0050]); and
wherein a width of said housing between said first and second side is approximately one-half of the width of said video display (as modified below), whereby at least one of said first and second sides of said video display extends laterally outward of at least one of said first and second sides of said housing (Cornell Figure 5A; Element 106; Paragraphs [0050]).
Palermo teaches the invention as presented above including arrangement of gaming machines and elements thereof. While the prior art of Palermo does not explicitly teach the internal components of gaming machine including a controller and memory that are operable to present the wagering game on a display and the expansion of the video display such that it laterally extends beyond the sides of the housing, in an analogous invention, Cornell teaches that these are known elements of gaming machines in an analogous invention (Cornell Figures 2, 5A; Paragraphs [0032], [0050]; Element 106). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the known gaming machine elements including controller, memory, and additional laterally extending display portions that are operable to present the wagering game on a display, as taught by Cornell in the gaming machine of Palermo in order to provide the predictable and expected result of enabling game play on a gaming machine with a display configuration that is adaptable to the available space.
Additionally, while the prior art combination Palermo & Cornell teaches the variance of the housing width between the front and rear of housing in a manner that is conducive to optimizing the use of space in multi-unit arrangements (Palermo Paragraph [0027]; Figures 1, 6, 8, 15-16), the prior art combination does not describe the sizing of the width of the housing between the first and second side is one-half the width of the video display. The particular dimensions or ratio of dimensions between the sizing of the width of the housing between the first and second side such that the same is one-half the width of the video display is an obvious matter of design choice because the particular ratio of dimensions is not disclosed as performing a particular function or imparting a particular advantage distinct from the prior art arrangements intended to optimize space optimization for adjacent machines as taught by Palermo and accordingly this feature is understood to represent an obvious aesthetic consideration that has been held to be a matter of obviousness by the courts (See MPEP 2144.04 Sub Sections, I, IV.A-B, VI.C). Based on the preceding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sized the width of the housing between the first and second side such the same is one-half the width of the video display as particularly claimed because the particular sizing/proportioning of the front and rear portions of housing with respect to the display reflects the obvious change in size/proportion and is a matter of design choice that would have provided the predictable and expected benefit of ensuring more space efficient arrangements of gaming machines as taught by Palermo (Palermo Paragraph [0027]; Figures 1, 6, 8, 15-16).
Claim 23: The combination of Palermo & Cornell teaches the gaming machine in accordance with claim 22, wherein said first side of video display extends laterally outward of said first side of said housing and second side of said video display extends laterally outward of said second side of said video display (Cornell Figure 5A; Element 106; Paragraphs [0048]-[0051]).
Claim 24: The combination of Palermo & Cornell teaches the gaming machine in accordance with claim 22, wherein said video display comprises two video displays (Palermo Figure 1; Element 104, Paragraphs [0007], [0021] & Cornell Figures 2, 5A; Paragraphs [0032], [0050]; Element 106).
Claim 25: The combination of Palermo & Cornell teaches the gaming machine in accordance with claim 22, wherein said video display is located in a generally vertically extending plane (Palermo Figures 1-2; Element 104).
Claim 26: The combination of Palermo & Cornell teaches the gaming machine in accordance with claim 22, wherein said console does not extend laterally outwardly of said first and second sides of said housing (Palermo Figures 1-6; Element 106).
Claim 27: The combination of Palermo & Cornell teaches the gaming machine in accordance with claim 22, wherein said housing has a depth between said front and said rear and said width of said housing is less than said depth (as Modified).
While the prior art combination Palermo & Cornell teaches the variance of the housing width between the front and rear of housing in a manner that is conducive to optimizing the use of space in multi-unit arrangements (Palermo Paragraph [0027]; Figures 1, 6, 8, 15-16), the prior art combination does not describe the sizing/proportioning of the housing such that it has a depth between said front and said rear and said width of said housing is less than said depth. The particular dimensions or ratio of dimensions such that the housing has a depth between said front and said rear and said width of said housing is less than said depth is an obvious matter of design choice because the particular ratio of dimensions is not disclosed as performing a particular function or imparting a particular advantage distinct from the prior art arrangements intended functionality to optimize space optimization for adjacent machines as taught by Palermo and accordingly this feature is understood to represent an obvious aesthetic consideration that has been held to be a matter of obviousness by the courts (See MPEP 2144.04 Sub Sections, I, IV.A-B, VI.C). Based on the preceding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sized the housing such that the housing has a depth between said front and said rear and said width of said housing is less than said depth as particularly claimed because the particular sizing/proportioning of the front and rear portions of housing with respect to the display reflects the obvious change in size/proportion and is a matter of design choice that would have provided the predictable and expected benefit of ensuring more space efficient arrangements of gaming machines as taught by Palermo (Palermo Paragraph [0027]; Figures 1, 6, 8, 15-16).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 20th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on pages 7-11 of the above presented response the Applicant proposes that the applied prior art combination of Palermo & Cornell does not render the claimed invention obvious because they propose the presented ratio of housing and display sides are not taught by Palermo and that the same are not matter of obvious design choice because the particular sizing is utilized to optimize the placement of gaming machines with respect to one another to.
Responsive to the preceding, the rejection of claims under the prior art combination Palermo & Cornell recognizes that the prior art of Palermo specific modified the dimensions of the gaming machine exterior including housing in a manner that is conducive to optimizing the use of space in multi-unit arrangements (Palermo Paragraph [0027]; Figures 1, 6, 8, 15-16) and notes based on teachings of the prior art the further modification of the gaming device dimensions would have represented an obvious matter of design choice that would have provided the predictable and expected benefit of ensuring more space efficient arrangements of gaming machines as taught by Palermo. While the Applicant cited support similarly describes a benefit associated with optimizing the dimensions of a game machine to optimize the utilization of space, such as taught by Palermo it specifically does not support a specific advantage to the claimed specific ratios beyond the advantages recognized by Palermo and the cited supported legal precedent supporting the obviousness to the modification of size/proportion/shape as reflected in MPEP 2144.04 Sub Sections, I, IV.A-B, VI.C and as cited in the rejections presented herein above.
In view of the preceding the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and though not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bussey et al (US D954,830) discloses a gaming machine; and
Philips, JR. et al (US 2020/0111285) teaches a gaming machine with dual translation front access structure.
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 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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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