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 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-14 and 16-19 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.
The following limitations added by amendment lack written description support in the original disclosure:
Independent Claim 1 (and corresponding limitations in independent Claims 9 and 13) recites, in relevant part:
“responsive to an electronic gaming machine at which the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher occurs being at a first location and responsive to a receipt of data associated with an opening of an access door of a housing of the electronic gaming machine at the first location being detected via a security monitoring circuit of the electronic gaming machine:
disable any triggering of the bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher at the electronic gaming machine at the first location, and
following a receipt of data associated with at least a closing of the access door being detected via the security monitoring circuit:
enable a triggering of the bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher at the electronic gaming machine at the first location,”
together with the subsequent conditional communication of non-cashable funds (or cashable funds) based on the determination to trigger (or not trigger) the bonus event.
The original specification does not describe the claimed invention.
The only disclosure relating to door monitoring appears in the general description of conventional EGM hardware in paragraph [00156]:
“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…”
This passage describes the well-known, conventional function of EGM security monitoring circuits that suspend ordinary game play upon detection of an access violation. It does not describe, disclose, or reasonably convey:
that the security monitoring circuit is used to disable any triggering of a bonus event associated with validated redemption of a ticket voucher;
that a subsequent detection of door closing is used to re-enable that specific bonus-event triggering;
that this disable/enable occurs specifically in response to the electronic gaming machine being at a first location;
that the door-status signal is received by, or controls, the processor logic that determines whether to communicate non-cashable funds versus only cashable funds in association with ticket-voucher redemption; or
any interaction between the door-open/close status and the ticket-voucher bonus determination or fund-type communication steps.
Paragraph [0030] supports differentiating bonus eligibility based on the location of the gaming establishment device at which the ticket voucher is redeemed. That portion of the amended claims finds support. However, the specific combination of location with the security-monitoring-circuit-controlled disable/enable of the bonus-event triggering itself is not described.
Applicant’s Remarks asserted support in paragraphs [0098], [0139], [0146], [0151], [0152], [0156], and [0030]. Those paragraphs do not contain the missing subject matter. Paragraph [00156] (and the surrounding hardware description) remains the only discussion of security monitoring circuits and access doors. It is limited to conventional suspension of game play and does not extend to the claimed control of the ticket-voucher bonus logic.
Because the specification as originally filed does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had possession of the claimed subject matter that includes the door-open disable / door-close enable of bonus-event triggering (in combination with the location and fund-type communication limitations), the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
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) 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palermo (US 2017/0011593 A1) in view of Loose (US 6,420,972 B1) and Nguyen (US 2010/0029373 A1).
1. Palermo teaches a gaming establishment ticket voucher system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Fig. 2 & 7):
determine, prior to any play of any game using a first amount of cashable funds associated with an issued ticket voucher, whether to trigger a bonus event in association with a validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher, (upon reading/scanning the cash ticket, determine if feature triggering indicia present, if yes, trigger feature providing non-monetary credits or promotional credits; this is prior to play), [0066]-[0071], [0101];
responsive to the determination being to trigger the bonus event, cause data associated with a first amount of non-cashable funds to be communicated to the electronic gaming machine, wherein the first amount of non-cashable funds is determined independent of any play of any game and is based on the first amount of cashable funds associated with the issued ticket voucher (provide additional or promotional credits upon triggering; independent of play as upon redemption), [0066]-[0071];
responsive to the determination being not to trigger any bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher at the electronic gaming machine, cause data associated with the first amount of cashable funds to be communicated to the electronic gaming machine, [0066]-[0071], [0101].
Palermo does not expressly disclose the security-monitoring-circuit controlled disable of any triggering of the bonus event upon detection of an opening of an access door of the electronic gaming machine at a first location, and the subsequent enable of triggering upon detection of at least a closing of the access door. Loose teaches a door-monitoring system for a gaming machine that detects opening of a door via switch/sensor circuitry and supplies an indication to a game microprocessor so that the gaming device can be disabled when the door has been opened (col. 2, lines 36-46), (col. 4, lines 54-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palermo by incorporating the door-open detection and disablement teaching of Loose so that any bonus/feature triggering associated with ticket redemption is disabled while an access door is open (and re-enabled after closing) and would have been motivated to do so to increase security from any tampering.
Palermo does not expressly disclose the differential treatment based on the electronic gaming machine being at a first location versus a second, different location (i.e., enabling the possibility of the bonus/non-cashable funds determination at the first location while communicating only cashable funds at the second, different location independent of any bonus triggering). Nguyen teaches designating a bonus event associated with a specific location (or bank of machines) within the gaming environment, where a location is an identifiable region of the floor, and selecting particular banks/locations of gaming machines to promote a designated bonus event in order to increase play at that location, [0053]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Palermo/Loose combination by incorporating Nguyen’s teaching of location-based designation of bonus events so that the determination of whether to trigger a bonus event (and communicate non-cashable funds) is available only when the electronic gaming machine is at a first (eligible) location, while redemption at a second, different location results only in communication of the cashable funds independent of any bonus triggering. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination to target promotional/bonus activity to desired areas of the casino floor (e.g., high-limit areas or under-utilized banks), which is a conventional and predictable casino marketing practice.
2. Palermo, Loose and Nguyen disclose the gaming establishment ticket voucher system of Claim 1, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the determination being to trigger the bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher, cause the processor to cause data associated with a second amount of non-cashable funds to be communicated to the electronic gaming machine, the second amount of non-cashable funds corresponding to the first amount of cashable funds, Palermo [0066]-[0071].
4. Palermo, Loose and Nguyen disclose the gaming establishment ticket voucher system of Claim 1, wherein the determination to trigger the bonus event is based on at least one of a random determination, the first amount of cashable funds associated with the issued ticket voucher, an identity of a holder of the issued ticket voucher, and gaming activity associated with the issued ticket voucher (i.e. upon insertion/redemption, reader scans ticket for feature-triggering indicia and validates via processor/server prior to play; determination based on indicia presence, validity, and criteria like time or randomness triggers bonus event/feature, Palermo [0066]-[0071] or trigger is based on detecting the outcome of the base game, Palermo [0020], [0088]).
5. Palermo, Loose and Nguyen disclose the gaming establishment ticket voucher system of Claim 1, wherein the determination to trigger the bonus event is based on a satisfaction of a condition associated with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher (i.e. upon insertion/redemption, reader scans ticket for feature-triggering indicia and validates via processor/server prior to play; determination based on indicia presence, validity, and criteria like time or randomness triggers bonus event/feature, Palermo [0066]-[0071] or trigger is based on detecting the outcome of the base game, Palermo [0020], [0088]).
6. Palermo, Loose and Nguyen disclose the gaming establishment ticket voucher system of Claim 5, wherein the condition comprises at least one of a time of the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher- and an identity of a holder of the issued ticket voucher (i.e. upon insertion/redemption, reader scans ticket for feature-triggering indicia and validates via processor/server prior to play; determination based on indicia presence, validity, and criteria like time or randomness triggers bonus event/feature, Palermo [0066]-[0071] or trigger is based on detecting the outcome of the base game, Palermo [0020], [0088]).
7. Palermo, Loose and Nguyen disclose the gaming establishment ticket voucher system of Claim 5, wherein the satisfaction of the condition comprises a receipt of data associated with an input made at the electronic gaming machine to receive the first amount of cashable funds associated with the issued ticket voucher as non-cashable funds (i.e. upon insertion/redemption, reader scans ticket for feature-triggering indicia and validates via processor/server prior to play; determination based on indicia presence, validity, and criteria like time or randomness triggers bonus event/feature, Palermo [0066]-[0071] or trigger is based on detecting the outcome of the base game, Palermo [0020], [0088]).
9-11. Palermo, Loose and Nguyen disclose a gaming establishment ticket voucher system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: determine, prior to any play of any game using a first amount of cashable funds associated with an issued ticket voucher, whether to trigger any bonus event associated with the issued ticket voucher in association with a validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher; responsive to an electronic gaming machine at which the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher occurs being at a first location and responsive to a receipt of data associated with an opening of an access door of a housing of the electronic gaming machine at the first location being detected via a security monitoring circuit of the electronic gaming machine: disable any triggering of any bonus event associated with the issued ticket voucher in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher at the electronic gaming machine at the first location, and following a receipt of data associated with at least a closing of the access door being detected via the security monitoring circuit: enable a triggering of a bonus event associated with the issued ticket voucher in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher at the electronic gaming machine at the first location, responsive to the determination being to trigger the bonus event associated with the issued ticket voucher in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher at the electronic gaming machine at the first location, cause data associated with a first amount of non-cashable funds and the first amount of cashable funds to be communicated to the electronic gaming machine at the first location, wherein the first amount of non-cashable funds is determined independent of any play of any game and is based on the first amount of cashable funds associated with the issued ticket voucher, and responsive to the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher and the determination being not to trigger any bonus event associated with the issued ticket voucher in association with validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher, cause data associated with the first amount of cashable funds to be communicated to the electronic gaming machine at the first location, and responsive to the electronic gaming machine at which the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher occurs being at a second, different location, independent of any triggering of any bonus event associated with the issued ticket voucher in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher, cause data associated with the first amount of cashable funds to be communicated to the electronic gaming machine at the second, different location as similarly discussed above.
13, 14, 16-19. Palermo, Loose and Nguyen disclose a method of operating a gaming establishment ticket voucher system, the method comprising: determining, by a processor and prior to any play of any game using a first amount of cashable funds associated with an issued ticket voucher, whether to trigger a bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher, responsive to an electronic gaming machine at which the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher occurs being at a first location and responsive to a receipt of data associated with an opening of an access door of an a housing of the electronic gaming machine at the first location being detected via a security monitoring circuit of the electronic gaming machine: disabling any triggering of the bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher at the electronic gaming machine at the first location, and following a receipt of data associated with at least a closing of the access door being detected via the security monitoring circuit: enabling a triggering of the bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher at the electronic gaming machine at the first location, responsive to the determination being to trigger the bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher at the electronic gaming machine at the first location, prior to any play of any game using the first amount of cashable funds associated with the issued ticket voucher, causing data associated with a first amount of non-cashable funds to be communicated to the electronic gaming machine at the first location, wherein the first amount of non-cashable funds is determined independent of any play of any game and is based on the first amount of cashable funds associated with the issued ticket voucher, and responsive to the determination being not to trigger any bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher at the electronic gaming machine at the first location, causing data associated with the first amount of cashable funds to be communicated to the electronic gaming machine at the first location, and responsive to the electronic gaming machine at which the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher occurs being at a second, different location, independent of any triggering of any bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher, cause data associated with the first amount of cashable funds to be communicated to the electronic gaming machine at the second, different location 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