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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument filed 04/02/2026, see pp. 8-9, that Schober lacks a transmissive display area positioned within a larger display area is not found to be persuasive. Although the remarks highlight certain selected passages from Schober, including mention of screen 28 covering a top box 14 and player insert 12, the Remarks fail to consider a critical passage of Schober – in [0042], where it is explained that “It is only the region covering the player insert itself which need be made transparent when it is desired to use the separate display or one or other of the items located behind the front screen.” It is within a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to interpret that the “only the region covering the player insert” that “need be made transparent” teaches the pending-claimed “transmissive display area” and the balance of the area of display 28 (that is not made transparent) teaches the claimed non-transmissive display area. None of the pending claims describe in any technical detail how the “transmissive display area” and “non-transmissive display area” are constructed, implemented or distinguished from one another in a way that Schober fails to teach.
The above-discussed portion of Schober [0042] was cited and explained in the rejection of claims 3, 11 and 16, see p. 4 of the Non-Final Rejection of 01/02/2026. As such the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-3, 6-7, 10-12 and 15-17 under Schober and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 4-5, 8-9, 13-14 and 18-19 are maintained. The rejections have been updated to reflect the reorganization of claim limitations that move certain features from dependent claims into independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 12, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 1469433 A2 to Schober et al. (hereinafter referred to as Schober).
Re claim 10, Schober discloses a method of operating a gaming machine under control of at least one electronic processor, the method comprising:
displaying video of gaming graphics on a video display system of the gaming machine
[0021] describes that the invention of Schober comprises “an electronically controllable screen” driven by “a controller for said electronically controllable screen”
and claim 11 of Schober elaborates that the electronically controllable screen is “adapted to display at least one of casino information, decorative images … videos, … sporting programs, news programs … directional information … one or more moving arrows, one or more moving chevrons and a variable illumination drawing attention”
claim 12 of Schober discloses in additional detail possible content of casino gaming graphics that can be displayed by the electronically controllable screen.
comprising a non-transmissive display area and a smaller transmissive display area positioned within the non-transmissive display area;
The abstract describes that the invention is directed to an electronic gaming machine comprising a controller and connected to a host system and further comprising a display that can be driven as a display in one state and made transparent in another state.
[0042] of Schober states that, for a front screen 28 shown in Fig. 4 that extends over a front of a gaming machine, “It is only the region covering the player insert itself which need be made transparent when it is desired to use the separate display or one or other of the items located behind the front screen.”
It is within a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to interpret that the “only the region covering the player insert” that “need be made transparent” teaches the pending-claimed “transmissive display area” and the balance of the area of display 28 teaches the claimed non-transmissive display area. Claim 10 does not recite any technical detail as to how the “transmissive display area” and “non-transmissive display area” are constructed, implemented or distinguished from one another in a way that Schober fails to teach.
recognizing an event or command for a player image acquisition;
[0032], a biometric sensor 40, which can be a camera mounted behind screen 28 and that views a player through the screen, captures images of the player “when this is controlled by the controller 36” which is equivalent to a command or event.
interrupting the video of gaming graphics for a designated number of video frames on at least a portion of the transmissive display area, while continuing to display the video of gaming graphics on the non-transmissive display area to increase transparency of said portion of the transmissive display area to allow an image to be acquired through the transmissive display area with an electronic camera;
[0032], “biometric sensor 40 is able to view the player through the front screen 28 when this is controlled by the controller 36 to adopt the first transparent state.” (emphasis added).
Regarding making the screen transparent so as to enable a camera imaging a player through it:
[0010] describes “an electronically controllable screen operable in a first state in which it is transparent and in a second state in which it is adapted to function as a display…”
[0043] describes such displays may be OLED foil or LCD and [0044] describes they may be LED.
And regarding only a transmissive display area being interrupted to allow transparency through this area but continuing to display gaming video graphics on the remainder of the display:
[0042] of Schober states that, for a front screen 28 shown in Fig. 4 that extends over a front of a gaming machine, “It is only the region covering the player insert itself which need be made transparent when it is desired to use the separate display or one or other of the items located behind the front screen.” wherein as discussed above, the “other items located behind the front screen” include a biometric sensor 40.
and acquiring an image with the electronic camera during the interruption.
[0013] describes that the arrangement of the invention “provides the opportunity to place a biometric sensor behind the screen, with the biometric sensor being adapted to read biometric data of the player through the screen. The biometric sensor can for example comprise a camera adapted to record the physical features of the player, for example physical features of his face, of his eyes, of his eyes and nose, of at least one of his hands or of at least one of his fingers …”
[0014], “Thus such biometric sensor can be used to uniquely identify a player - without having to know his true identity - in a manner which enables the casino to track his gaming activities in the casino…”
[0032], “ The biometric sensor can, for example, comprise a camera adapted to record physical features of a player comprising at least one of physical features of his face, of his eyes, of his eyes and nose, of at least one of his hands, of at least one of his fingers and of four of his fingertips. This information is transmitted to a controller 36 and can be passed via an interface 48 to a host system 50”.
Re claims 1, 15, refer to the rejection of claim 10. Additionally refer to Fig. 1A of Schober which illustrates the gaming machine of the invention as having a cabinet and a plurality of display screens. Fig. 2 illustrates the gaming machine as comprising controller 36 and a biometric sensor 40 which as discussed in the rejection of claim 10 can comprise a camera that captures images of a player’s face, hands, etc. from inside the cabinet viewing through the screen when it is controlled to be in a transparent state.
With respect to the interruption of frames being for a designated number of frames, [0030] describes the hardware of Schober as comprising an “OLED foil screen … connected to a controller 36 which is configured to control the screen 28 to adopt one of two states. In the first state the screen is transparent”. And [0042] of Schober states that, for a screen 28 shown in Fig. 4 that extends over a front of a gaming machine, “It is only the region covering the player insert itself which need be made transparent when it is desired to use the separate display or one or other of the items located behind the front screen.” [0043] notes instead of an OLED screen, the hardware could comprise an LCD screen. By definition of both OLED and LCD displays, which are digital display devices having some inherent refresh rates, these digital displays when controlled by a controller to adopt a transparent state for some amount of time (“first state”) is doing so for a corresponding designated number of frames.
Re claim 2, [0030] and [0047] of Schober indicates that the gaming machines 10 of the invention, see also Fig. 3, are slot machines.
Re claims 3, 16, 20, [0042] admits that only a certain region of the overall display 28 needs to be made transparent (“only the region covering the player insert … to use … one of the items located behind the front screen”). Because the claim does not provide any technical specifications for a “display window”, a portion of display 28 that functions to become transparent as driven by a controller during a certain state meets the limitation of being a transmissive display window.
Re claims 7, 12, 17, refer to [0013], [0032].
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schober.
Re claims 4-5, although Schober teaches substantially the same inventive concept including making a portion of an OLED, LED or LCD display transparent, see [0042], Schober does not go into detail as to what percentage of display 28 is made transparent. Because there is no evidence in the claims that the contemplated ranges are critical, the claimed 5% or 10% figures are seen as routine optimization that could be easily discovered by one having ordinary skill in the art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schober in view of US 2018/0158385 A1 to Reichow.
Re claim 6, Reichow is an analogous prior art video game display comprising transmissive layers. Reichow teaches, see [001], it was known for transmissivity of oLED displays to be provided by black areas that have all pixels off.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that Schober’s invention, which admittedly uses oLED displays to provide transmissive regions, could have done so by turning pixels in a transmissive region to black as taught by Reichow without causing any unexpected results.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schober in view of US 2009/0278913 A1 to Rosenfeld et al.
Re claim 8, although Schober teaches substantially the same inventive concept including making an OLED, LED or LCD screen or portion thereof transparent so a rear-mounted biometric camera can see a player through it, Schober is silent as to whether making the screen transparent involves repeatedly interrupting it.
Rosenfeld teaches an analogous screen comprising a rear-mounted camera that captures images of a person through the screen (See abstract, Fig. 1.) Rosenfeld teaches that it was known that providing a transparent state can involve that “the screen cycles between a light-scattering state and a substantially transparent state at a high enough frequency” so that the user does not perceive the camera, but instead only perceives a displayed image on the screen, see [0016]. [0022] contemplates a 50% duty cycle such that the display is transparent for 50% of frames and opaque for 50% of frames.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that Schober’s screen blanking for enabling camera imaging through the screen could have involved cycling (repeatedly interrupting) as taught by Rosenfeld to provide the same advantage – allowing the camera to function without making it visible to the user and without causing the display to become unreadable.
Re claim 9, Rosenfeld teaches in [0022] that a rear-mounted camera that images a user through a screen ideally operates at “higher frame rates” wherein “the camera can combine exposures ... into one image in order to capture a desired amount of light”.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schober in view of US 2013/0207952 A to Yu.
Re claim 11, Yu is an analogous prior art method and apparatus that comprises a small, interruptible portion of a larger front display that enables a rear-mounted camera to image a face of a user through the front display. Yu teaches that it was known in the art for interruption of such a region of a display to be performed by interrupting every other frame – see [0081] – “unit 602 is turned off every other frame and makes at least the area corresponding to the camera unit 603 on the display panel 601 to enter the transparent state”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that Schober’s local display panel interruption to enable rear camera imaging could have involved switching off alternate image frames as taught by Yu without causing any unexpected results. The motivation would be to provide a simple, cost effective means of establishing transparency and that would still allow some opaqueness or visible graphics if desired, since a display refresh rate (often 60 Hz) is usually greater than what human beings can perceive as a changing image.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schober in view of WO 2009/120616 to Block et al.
Re claims 13 and 18, although Schober teaches substantially the same inventive concept including triggering an interrupted display mode wherein an OLED, LED or LCD monitor enables a rear-mounted biometric camera to image a user, Schober is silent as to whether the biometric capture mode is responsive to events such as a log-in or bonus mode.
Block is an analogous casino security reference that teaches events that accompany recording biometric information include “a casino patron has hit a jackpot” (equivalent to a bonus),see [0029]-[0030]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a large bonus event such as a jackpot could serve as a trigger for capturing biometric player information to provide the same advantage stated by Block – to protect the casino against unusual or potentially criminal activity.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schober in view of US 2020/0035064 A1 to Sookup et al.
Re claims 14 and 19, although Schober teaches substantially the same inventive concept including triggering an interrupted display mode wherein an OLED, LED or LCD monitor enables a rear-mounted biometric camera to image a user, Schober is silent as to whether the biometric capture mode is responsive to a log-in event.
Sookup is an analogous casino security reference that teaches events that accompany recording biometric information include “log-ins” with “player tracking ID”, see [0114].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that a player log-in could serve as a trigger for capturing biometric player information to provide the same advantage stated by Block – to use for validating access to a player’s account.
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 STEVEN J HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-530.
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.
/STEVEN J HYLINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights