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 .
The Applicant’s argument and amendment received on 12/29/2025 has been considered. It is noted that claims 1,17, and 20 have been amended.
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 1-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells et al (US 2014/0018150) in view of Seelig et al (US 7,204,755).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 17: Wells et al discloses an electronic gaming device comprising: a cabinet including a front side, the cabinet defining an interior cavity and a slot on the front side providing access to the interior cavity (see abstract; figures 1A, 6B, paragraph [0010]); a bracket coupled to the cabinet and positioned within the interior cavity (see paragraph [0052], showing underlying structure/frame); and a button deck coupled to the bracket and extending through the slot, the button deck comprising: a first transparent surface (see paragraphs [0041]-[0047]); a second transparent surface (see paragraphs [0041]-[0047]); and a transparent display panel positioned between the first transparent surface and the second transparent surface (see paragraphs [0041]-[0047]).
In an analogous invention, Seelig et al teaches a first surface extending outward of the front side of the cabinet and a second surface extending outward of the front side of the cabinet (see claim 19 of Seelig, showing the display device comprising: a) at least one object; b) an outer surface, the outer surface being at least partially spherical, and wherein the outer surface comprises a first side, a second side and a top portion).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Wells’ gaming device as taught by Seelig’s display device for the purpose of having display device being on the outer surface to the gaming device as shown in figure1. This yields the expected result of increasing the gaming machine display visibility and increasing the user’s enjoyment of the game.
Regarding claims 2 and 18: Wells et al discloses a main display coupled to the cabinet; and a game controller comprising at least one processor in communication with a memory (see paragraphs [0010], [0041]), wherein the game controller is configured to: receive a touch input proximate to the display panel (see paragraphs [0005], [0041], [0049]); and in response to the touch input, control a display of a plurality of game aspects on the main display (see paragraphs [0005], [0041], [0049]).
Regarding claim 3: Wells et al discloses wherein the button deck further comprises a touch sensor positioned within the button deck (see paragraph [0122]).
Regarding claims 4 and 19: Wells et al discloses wherein the button deck further comprises a housing including a base and a plurality of sidewalls extending from the base to define a recessed region, wherein the base includes the second transparent surface and the display panel is positioned within the recessed region (see paragraphs [0108], [0122]).
Regarding claim 5: Wells et al discloses wherein the housing is received within the bracket and the bracket clamps the housing to the cabinet, the housing extending from the bracket and through the slot to a front distal edge that is cantilevered on the cabinet (see paragraphs [0010], [0052]).
Regarding claims 6, 13, 15, and 20: Wells et al discloses wherein the button deck further includes a touch sensor and a glass cover, the touch sensor and the display panel being seated in the recessed region and the glass cover extending across the plurality of sidewalls, the glass cover including the first transparent surface (see paragraphs [0010], [0052], [0109]).
Regarding claim 7: Wells et al discloses wherein the housing is unitarily formed of a transparent material (see abstract; figures 1A, 6B, paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 8: Wells et al discloses wherein the transparent material is acrylic (see paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 9: Wells et al discloses further comprising a lighting element integrated within the button deck or appended to the button deck, wherein the lighting element is configured to direct light to at least one wall of the housing, wherein the at least one wall of the housing is etched such that the light directed at the at least one wall reflects off the etching to provide visual appearance of the wall being illuminated (see abstract; figures 1A, 6B, paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claims 10 and 16: Wells et al discloses wherein the display panel is controllable to provide at least two of: a mirrored effect, a see-through effect, and an opaque effect on the button deck (see paragraph [0063]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 ADETOKUNBO OLUSEGUN TORIMIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1345. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8am - 4pm).
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571)270-7625. 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.
/ADETOKUNBO O TORIMIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715