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 .
Claim Status
After the amendments filed 01/22/2026, claims 1-20 remain pending, of which, 1 was amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 12-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng et al (U.S. 2020/0294351).
Regarding claim 1, Feng discloses:
a gaming pod (¶15, ¶20, Fig. 1, isolating enclosure 300), comprising:
a plurality of individual gaming machines (¶19, Fig. 1, enclosure 300 is sized to house one or more EGMs 100), wherein a first individual gaming machine is remotely playable by a user device (¶138, the EGM 100 communicates with a personal gaming device to enable mobile game play using the mobile device (i.e., a first remotely controlled EGM 100)); and
a structure surrounding the plurality of individual gaming machines (¶19, Fig. 1, housing 302), wherein the structure defines and at least partially encloses a gaming floor on which the plurality of individual gaming machines is located (¶20, Fig. 1, base 310), wherein the plurality of individual gaming machines are arranged in one or more outwardly facing clusters, along a perimeter of the gaming floor, or a combination thereof (¶20, Fig. 1, the EGMs 100 are attached to or built into the walls of the enclosure 300 (i.e., the perimeter of the enclosed gaming floor)), and wherein the structure is located on a casino floor (¶27, enclosure 300 provides noise reduction in a casino environment).
Regarding claim 2, Feng discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the structure comprises a roof above the plurality of individual gaming machines (¶20, Fig. 1, top 360).
Regarding claim 5, Feng discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the first individual gaming machine is a slot machine (¶116, EGM 100 may be a mechanical or video slot or spinning reel game).
Regarding claim 6, Feng discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
a second individual gaming machine is operable by a live player (¶27-27, players enter the enclosure 300 and operate the EGMs 100 (i.e., a second EGM 100)).
Regarding claim 7, Feng discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the structure comprises at least one glass section serving as at least one of a window or a player entrance into the gaming pod (¶20, the walls of enclosure 300 is transparent and are formed from glass to allow visibility into and out of the enclosure 300).
Regarding claim 8, Feng discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the structure fully encloses the plurality of individual gaming machines (¶20, ¶27, Fig. 1, enclosure 300 includes four walls 320, 330, 340 and 350, a top 360 and a base 310 and creates a noise isolation area for players).
Regarding claim 9, Feng discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the structure comprises an entrance through which the first individual gaming machine is visible (¶20, access door 380 allows people to see into the enclosure 300).
Regarding claim 12, Feng discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
on the gaming floor, at least one of: a seating area, a gaming table, a countertop, or a bar (¶19, provided within the enclosure 300 are chairs associated with each EGM 100).
Regarding claim 13, Feng discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the plurality of individual gaming machines are arranged to face outwardly (Fig. 1, EGM 100, the examiner interprets EGM 100 as facing outwardly towards access door 380), and wherein the first individual gaming machine is visible through at least one of a wall of the structure or an opening of the structure (¶20, the walls and access door are transparent and allow for people to see into the enclosure 300).
Regarding claim 14, Feng discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
a lighting system providing lighting effects to at least one of: an exterior face of the structure, the gaming floor, or an interior area of the structure (¶79-80, EGM 100 includes one or more display devices which provide dynamic lighting within enclosure 300).
Regarding claim 15, Feng discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the lighting system comprises light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (¶79-80, the one or more display devices of EGM 100 include LED displays).
Regarding claim 16, Feng discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
a sign mounted to an exterior or the structure (¶52, enclosure 300 includes an advertising display system which displays advertisements outside the enclosure).
Regarding claim 20, Feng discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the user device is a smartphone, a personal computer (PC), or other gaming device (¶138, for example the personal gaming device is a smartphone, tablet, desktop or laptop computer).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al (U.S. 2020/0294351).
Regarding claim 3, Feng discloses that which is discussed above.
Although Feng does not specifically disclose that the structure is a dome comprising a rounded roof section sloping downwards and defining an entrance via one or more wall sections, it would be an obvious matter of design choice to modify the shape of the enclosure, as taught by Feng, in order to enhance the visual appeal of the enclosure in the casino environment.
Regarding claim 4, Feng discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the one or more wall sections define at least one vertical opening providing access to the plurality of individual gaming machines (¶20, Fig. 1, access door 380 which is located in wall 320).
Regarding claim 10, Feng discloses that which is discussed above.
Although Feng does not specifically disclose that the entrance comprises an arched opening, it would be an obvious matter of design choice to modify the shape of the opening of the enclosure, as taught by Feng, in order to enhance the visual appeal of the enclosure in the casino environment.
Regarding claim 11, Feng discloses that which is discussed above.
Although Feng does not specifically disclose that the plurality of individual gaming machines are arranged in a circle on the gaming floor, it would be an obvious matter of design choice to modify the arrangement of the gaming machines in the enclosure, as taught by Feng, in order to optimize the spacing within the enclosure.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al (U.S. 2020/0294351) in view of Greenbaum et al (U.S. 2021/0192891).
Regarding claim 17, Feng discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the gaming system enabling remote play of the first individual gaming machine (¶138, the EGM 100 communicates with a personal gaming device to enable mobile game play using the mobile device).
However, Feng does not specifically disclose that:
the gaming system streams a live video output to the remote user device; or
the live video output provides a real-time view of the first individual gaming machine.
Greenbaum teaches:
a gaming system (¶90, ¶97, gaming system 100 including EGM 190), which enables remote game play of the slot machine (¶90, ¶97, gaming system 100 allows remote control of EGM 190 via a user’s client station 170), wherein the gaming system streams a live video output to the remote user device (¶98, the system 100 obtains a video of a gaming machine 190 and streams it to the client station 170), and wherein the live video output provides a real-time view of the first individual gaming machine (¶101, a video camera captures imagery of the gaming machine 190 and streams the video for display at the client station 170).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate the game streaming, as taught by Greenbaum, in the gaming system, as taught by Feng, in order to yield the predictable result of providing improved an improved remote gaming experience for players, thereby enticing longer play and increased profitability (Greenbaum, ¶9).
Regarding claim 18, Feng discloses that which is discussed above, however fails to specifically disclose that:
the live video is captured by at least one camera mounted to the structure.
Greenbaum teaches:
a gaming system (¶90, ¶97, gaming system 100 including EGM 190), which enables remote game play of the slot machine (¶90, ¶97, gaming system 100 allows remote control of EGM 190 via a user’s client station 170), wherein live video is captured by at least one camera mounted so as to capture imagery of an EGM (¶101, a video of at least one gaming machine from camera 180 is captured and streamed to client device 170).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the camera system for streaming a remote session of the gaming machine, as taught by Greenbaum, within the enclosure, as taught by Feng, in order to yield the predictable result of providing improved an improved remote gaming experience for players, thereby enticing longer play and increased profitability (Greenbaum, ¶9).
Regarding claim 19, Feng discloses that which is discussed above, however fails to specifically disclose that:
the gaming system streams live audio output to the user device.
Greenbaum teaches:
a gaming system (¶90, ¶97, gaming system 100 including EGM 190), which enables remote game play of the slot machine (¶90, ¶97, gaming system 100 allows remote control of EGM 190 via a user’s client station 170), wherein the gaming system streams live audio output to the user device (¶19, along with the video stream an audio stream is captured and streamed to the client device 170).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate the audio streaming for streaming a remote session of the gaming machine, as taught by Greenbaum, into the remote gaming, as taught by Feng, in order to yield the predictable result of providing improved an improved remote gaming experience for players, thereby enticing longer play and increased profitability (Greenbaum, ¶9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are substantially directed to newly added limitations. The Examiner respectfully submits that the prior art of record discloses these limitations, as discussed in the updated rejections as set forth above. Accordingly, the Applicant is directed to the rejection of the claims above for a detailed response to Applicant's arguments as to the applicability of the prior art.
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 JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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.
/Jason Pinheiro/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715