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 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) 1-4, 8-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison et al (US 2012/0046096) in view of Bytnar et al (US 2011/0130197).
Re claim 1, Morrison discloses a system comprising: a host system (fig. 2, 106); and a plurality of location controllers in wireless communication with the host system and forming a wireless network therebetween (pars. [0023], [0029], wherein locations are determined using data from cell phone towers in communication with the remote device 102), wherein at least one location of the plurality of location controllers is coupled to a gaming asset of the plurality of gaming assets ([0023], players are able to place wagers based on their location being in an authorized location, wagers and play of a wagering game being considered gaming assets) and configured to: determine, based on information retrieved by the wireless network, a location of the at least one location controller ([0023] and [0029]); determine whether the location of the at least one location controller has changed; and forward the information retrieved via the wireless network to the host system for updating the location of the gaming asset within the gaming venue in response to determining that the location of the at least one location controller has changed ([0030], the cell phone and towers are in constant communication, and towers determine when the signal needs to be passed off to a nearby cell tower, therefore when the location of the cell phone changes, the towers forward that information to the relevant nearby towers).
However, Morrison does not explicitly disclose determining the location based at least in part on at least one location controller detecting one or more other location controllers of the plurality of location controllers that are proximate to the at least one location controller, and determining whether the location of the at least one location controller has changed with respect to a previously determined location of the at least one location controller.
Bytnar teaches a wagering game communication system utilizing mesh networks ([0043]), wherein the system can query devices in the mesh network for location information of mobile machines ([0058]). Bytnar further discloses using previously determined locations to determine changes in location (again [0058], see “The location information can include the physical location of the mobile machines within the casino's physical property and the direction of movement that the mobile machines are moving”).
It would have been obvious to implement the mesh networking of Bytnar in order to assist in determining the location of devices in the network by utilizing each device’s own location information in conjunction with others in a mesh network, increasing the reach, accuracy, and ease of determining location in the network.
Re claim 2, Morrison discloses the gaming asset comprises a gaming device ([0043], remote devices play a wagering game utilizing a web-browser or dedicated application), and the at least one location controller is further configured to generate a profile based on a device configuration of the gaming device and the location of the at least one location controller, the profile defining a role of the gaming device ([0076], the user logs in or prepares to place a wager, whereupon the system updates location information, therefore the user, account, and location information being considered a profile).
Re claim 3, Morrison discloses updating the profile based on the change in the location of the at least one location controller ([0076], location information is only disclosed when a user logs on or prepares to place a wager).
Re claim 4, Morrison discloses wireless device identifiers broadcast by one or more of the plurality of location controllers that are proximate to the at least one location controller ([0030] and [0031], since the location of devices are determined by cell phone signal strength, the cell phone signals of the various cell phone devices connected to the cell network is considered a plurality of device identifiers for a plurality of location controllers as every cell phone will have its own unique device identifier).
Re claim 8, Morrison discloses the gaming asset comprises a gaming device ([0043]).
Re claims 9-11 and 16-17, see the above rejections.
Claim(s) 6, 12, 14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison in view of Bytnar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gelman et al (US 2008/0015013).
Re claims 6, 12, 14, and 18, while Morrison discloses determining the location of devices on a wireless network, there is no explicit disclosure of determining one of the location controllers proximate to the location controller and querying the controllers in order to verify the location of the at least one location controller. Gelman teaches a wireless networking system wherein multiple devices may use positioning technologies to determine their own location, and use an algorithm to determine whether the devices are close to one another or not ([0121]). It would have been obvious to implement the location technologies of Gelman with the system of Morrison in order to supplement the cell tower information with known location data of devices on a network, increasing the accuracy of location determination in the wireless network.
Re claim 19, Morrison discloses querying the mobile device in order to verify the location of the mobile device ([0029], [0030]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 13, 15, and 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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
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 Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715