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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-9 and 12-20 in the reply filed on 11/19/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 12, 13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. 20050054439 to Rowe et al (Rowe).
Claims 1 and 12. Rowe 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:
responsive to an occurrence of an additive manufactured asset creation event associated with a redemption of a quantity of player tracking points (¶44 “"loyalty credits" can refer to any form of "loyalty points," and can also encompass, for example, actual monetary or cash values, virtual or real coupons or vouchers”), cause a creation, by an additive manufacturing device (¶61 “printer”) associated with a first gaming device (¶59 “gaming machine”, “gaming device”), of an additive manufactured asset (¶62 “printed ticketed” or the like), and
responsive to an occurrence of an additive manufactured asset redemption event associated with a redemption of the additive manufactured asset (¶71):
determine any award associated with the additive manufactured asset (¶¶62 and 88 “ticket value”), and
cause a display device of a second gaming device to display any determined award (¶56 “player may insert a bill or a bar-coded printed ticket (e.g. an EZPAY.TM. ticket) into bill validator 202 to register credits on the gaming machine”, also see ¶59 “other gaming device”).
Claims 2 and 13. Rowe discloses wherein a first redemption of a first quantity of player tracking points is associated with a first additive manufactured asset and a second redemption of a second, different quantity of player tracking points is associated with a second, different additive manufactured asset (¶25 “instruments may involve different physical items, such as printed tickets”).
Claims 4 and 15. Rowe discloses wherein the first additive manufactured asset is associated with a first attribute and the second, different additive manufactured asset is associated with a second, different attribute (¶¶71 and 95 e.g., different tickets have different characteristics, e.g., value amount, barcodes, etc).
Claims 5 and 16. Rowe discloses wherein the additive manufactured asset redemption event is associated with a redemption of a plurality of related additive manufactured assets (¶¶71 and 95 e.g., a plurality of tickets or the like).
Claims 6 and 17. Rowe discloses wherein any award is associated with the plurality of related additive manufactured assets (¶71).
Claims 7 and 18. Rowe discloses wherein the first gaming device and the second gaming device are different gaming devices (¶71).
Claims 9 and 20. Rowe discloses wherein any award associated with the additive manufactured asset is determined in association with the additive manufactured asset creation event (¶¶62 and 88 “ticket value”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 8, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20050054439 to Rowe et al (Rowe) in view of US Pub. 20210012615 to Coppola et al (Coppola) and further evidence of US Pub. 20060282323 to Walker et al (Walker) and US Pub. 20030162588 to Brosnan et al (Brosnan).
Claims 3 and 14. Rowe discloses wherein the first additive manufactured asset is associated with a first award and the second, different additive manufactured asset is associated with a second, different award (¶¶62, 64, and 70 “prize value”, “prize information”, and “prizes”, where different tickets are associated with different awards/prizes).
Rowe fails to explicitly disclose a first average expected award and a second, different average expected award.
Coppola discloses a first average expected award and a second, different average expected award (¶92, for instance, higher valuable awards such as a car or trip will have different average expectancy than lower valuable awards such as coupons, discounts, or the like as evidence provided in US Pub. 20060282323 to Walker see ¶382; also see 20030162588 to Brosnan ¶¶6-7, 11, and 53-61 discloses different payout schedules that can return a higher percentage when using “restricted credits” vs. “cashable credits”). The gaming system of Rowe would have motivation to use the teachings of Coppola (in light of Walker and Brosnan) in order to provide the opportunity for game players to win a large range of prizes in doing so would add to the suspense when playing games.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Rowe with the teachings of Coppola (in light of Walker and Brosnan) in order to provide the opportunity for game players to win a large range of prizes in doing so would add to the suspense when playing games.
Claims 8 and 19. Rowe fails to explicitly disclose claims 8 and 19 limitations.
Coppola discloses a 3D printer (¶78). The gaming system of Rowe would have motivation to use the teachings of Coppola in order to provide tickets that have better aesthetically pleasing features which would build up the excitement of receiving cooler looking items.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gaming system of Rowe with the teachings of Coppola in order to provide tickets that have better aesthetically pleasing features which would build up the excitement of receiving cooler looking items.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 12-20 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715