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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 18th, 2026 has been entered.
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]), said first and second sides extending parallel to one another from said front to said rear (-Wherein the prior art recognizes that the use of rectangular cabinets shown in top down views with two parallel sides was a known configuration but notes that reducing the width of the rear cabinet compared to a front of the cabinet or equivalently utilizing a display that extends past the edges of the front of the cabinet provides for spacing advantages in certain machine arrangements that are not present when the gaming machine cabinet utilize a purely traditional rectangular gaming machine cabinets wherein the front and displays are similarly size- Palermo Abstract; Paragraph [0026], [0028]);
a singular video display located in a fixed position 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; Paragraph [0007]), at least one of said first and second sides of said video display extending laterally outwardly of said corresponding first side and second side of said housing, whereby at least one of said first and second sides of said video display defines an outermost peripheral side of said gaming machine(-describing “display edges extending past the edge of cabinets “- Palermo Paragraph [0028]);
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 constant(-rectangular format- Palermo Abstract; Paragraph [0026], [0028]) and approximately one-half of the width of said video display (as modified below & Cornell Figure 5A; Element 106; Paragraphs [0050]).
Palermo teaches the invention as presented above including that the use of rectangular cabinets was a known configuration and that reducing the width of the rear cabinet compared to a front of the cabinet or equivalently a display extending past the edges of the front of the cabinet provides for spacing advantages in certain machine arrangements that are not present when the gaming machine utilizes a traditional rectangular gaming machine cabinet wherein the front and displays are similarly size. 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 arguably does not teach that the expansion of the video display such that it laterally extends outward beyond the sides of the housing such that the sides of the video display define the outer most peripheral side of a gaming machine (-describing “display edges extending past the edge of cabinets “- Palermo Paragraph [0028]), in an analogous invention, Cornell teaches that these are known elements of gaming machines at the time of 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 larger than the front of the game cabinet.
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 including arrangements wherein the display edges extending past the edge of cabinets (Palermo Paragraphs [0027], [0028]; 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 Paragraphs [0027]-[0028]; 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 (-Wherein the prior art recognizes that the use of rectangular cabinets shown in top down views with two parallel sides was a known configuration- Palermo Abstract; Paragraph [0026], [0028]);
at least one video display, each video display located in a fixed position at the front of the housing and having first and second sides and a width between first and second sides (Palermo Figure 1; Element 104, Paragraph [0007]), at least one of said first and second sides of each video display extending laterally outwardly of said corresponding first side and second side of said housing, whereby at least one of said first and second sides of each video display defines an outermost peripheral side of said gaming machine(-describing “display edges extending past the edge of cabinets “- Palermo Paragraph [0028])
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 constant (-rectangular format- Palermo Abstract; Paragraph [0026], [0028]) and approximately one-half of the width of said at least one video display (as modified below).
(as modified below & Cornell Figure 5A; Element 106; Paragraphs [0050]).
Palermo teaches the invention as presented above including that the use of rectangular cabinets was a known configuration and that reducing the width of the rear cabinet compared to a front of the cabinet or equivalently a display extending past the edges of the front of the cabinet provides for spacing advantages in certain machine arrangements that are not present when the gaming machine utilizes a traditional rectangular gaming machine cabinet wherein the front and displays are similarly size. 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 arguably does not teach that the expansion of the video display such that it laterally extends outward beyond the sides of the housing such that the sides of the video display define the outer most peripheral side of a gaming machine (-describing “display edges extending past the edge of cabinets “- Palermo Paragraph [0028]), in an analogous invention, Cornell teaches that these are known elements of gaming machines at the time of 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 larger than the front of the game cabinet.
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 including arrangements wherein the display edges extending past the edge of cabinets (Palermo Paragraphs [0027], [0028]; 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 Paragraphs [0027]-[0028]; 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 at least one 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 May 18th, 2028 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on pages 9-10 of the above presented response, the Applicant presents that the applied prior art of Cornell while teaching the inclusion of laterally extendable panels including video displays concerns a top box but not the extension of a main display of a gaming machine beyond the sides of the gaming machine. The Applicant presents that the applied prior art of Cornell, even if combination with Palermo would be limited to teaching the incorporation of a top box with extendable panels and not the inclusion of a fixed display extending laterally outward of said housing such that the display defines the outer most peripheral side of the gaming machine as claimed.
Responsive to the preceding Cornell teaches among other features the extension of display panels beyond the lateral edges of a gaming machine cabinet. The inclusion of additional features including additional displays or the use of top boxes as presented in Cornell do not diminish the teaching concerning the arrangements of display elements and does not render the same non-analogous to the claimed invention as both the prior art and the claimed invention are commonly directed to physical features of gaming devices. Similarly, considerations of obviousness are not reliant on the use of bodily incorporation of the prior art and rather focus on what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art (See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Additionally, the primary reference of Palermo additionally teaches the use of “display edges extending past the edge of cabinets “ (Palermo Paragraph [0028]) and accordingly it is respectfully noted that both the primary and secondary references teach a display arrangement including main display of a gaming machine beyond the sides of the gaming machine.
Continuing on pages 11-14 of the above presented response, the Applicant presents that the applied prior art Palermo discloses the use of tapered wall sections that provide a particular purpose of reducing the cabinet width at the rear of the cabinet that in turn allows for increasing machine placement density in certain configurations over traditional rectangular game machine cabinets, while the Applicant’s claimed invention utilizes parallel walls to provide similar advantages and notes that the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is tied to structural configuration rather than proportion and thus is separate from the considerations of MPEP 2144.04.
With respect to the preceding, Palermo recognizes different cabinet shapes including traditional rectangular with parallel sides and those with tapered sides such that the front is wider that the back of the machine. Palermo additionally recognizes that the cabinet shape provides advantages in optimizing the use of floor space dependent on the desired arrangement of gaming machines and that when optimizing cabinet shape for placement in circular groups, gaming machines with displays extending beyond the cabinet, that the display size may determine the spacing of the group and yet still would benefit from a reduced cabinet rear width even when tapered sides do not interact (Palermo Paragraphs [0027]-[0029]; Figures 9-17). Accordingly, the prior art recognizes the use of cabinets with parallel sides as a traditional configuration and that the alteration of the cabinet size provides advantages in optimizing the floor space utilized when placing multiple machines in close proximity to one another. As presented in the rejection above, the modification of display sizes with respect to the cabinet size is respectfully 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 recognized by Palermo and consistent 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. The Applicant provided figures provided in their remarks, while illustrative of optimizations of cabinet shapes to optimize the use of space in certain configurations respectfully reflects a known device shapes and arrangements based thereof for a recognized advantage that respectfully does not reasonably support the presence of non-obvious subject matter.
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.
DeMarco et al (US D918,300) discloses a gaming machine;
Urban et al (US 2020/0388106) teaches an electronic gaming machine having a variable position gaming display and a flexible gaming display responsive to gaming conditions; and
Rodriguez et al (US 2023/0316852) teaches an electronic gaming machine display unit with an integrated speaker transducer for forming a directional speaker cone.
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