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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant has provided citations to the specification for the recited plurality of transactions and locations. Thus, the rejection under 35 USC § 112 is withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to recite a remote gaming server provided to the user device where the CML communicates via a first adapter and the gaming sever API and of a second adaptor and an event hub to a jackpot server (See also Remarks 9 filed 8/20/2025). Examiner directs Applicant to the combination of Early in view of Topham.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
8. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0196744 to Earley in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0188311 to Topham.
In Reference to Claims 21, 32, and 38
Earley discloses an event-driven distributed network apparatus (Fig. 5) “using servers that are located either within a gaming establishment or external to a gaming establishment” ([0005]), also a processor ([0087]) and computer-readable medium ([0087, 0090]), comprising:
a casino management layer (CML) (Fig. 5 Casino CAGS) accessible via a plurality of application programming interface (API) (Fig. 5 CAGS is accessible by Host HAGS via API 516 as well as APIs for a plurality of adaptors 106 [0030])), the CML to:
i) generate a response to input provided by a user interface of a user device in a first transaction at a first location (Fig. 5 input on wagering game machine interface 102 and interface (Fig. 11) of, for example, a player logging in and responding with presentation of a game state [0039]) via a client API (host 510 provides API 516 to allow programs to interface with the CAGS and HAGS ([0042]), the input generated based on gaming content from a remote gaming server provided to the user device (Fig. 5 content from HAGS gaming server 512 to CAGS 502 of a game state on game machine 102 [0039]), the CML to communicate with the remote gaming server 512 via a first adaptor and a gaming server API (Fig. 5 {first} adaptor 104, API 516 [0039, 0042]); and
ii) update, via a second adaptor in a second transaction, an account, stored at a second location, of a user associated with the user device based on the input (Fig. 1 the CAGS is in communication with a user loyalty account via {second} adaptor 106 and API ([0030], the accounts can be local or at other locations, centrally, or locally ([0093, 0096]) to retrieve, deduct, or add loyalty points to an account ([0030]).
Earley discloses that the network also provides adapters and associated APIs to third party systems 640, 642, and 644 (Fig. 6) but is silent as to:
iii) update, with a client service via an event hub in a third transaction, a jackpot server at a third location based on the input; and the jackpot server to process the input and generate an output for the user interface of the user device in a fourth transaction based on processing of the input.
One of skill in the art would be aware of the distributed network apparatus of Topham. According to Topham, a middle tier server acting as an event hub {client service via an event hub} ([0010]) for, for example, the download of game data ([0010, 0012]). Topham also discloses:
iii) update, in a third transaction, a jackpot server at a third location based on the input ([0041] gaming machines included in a progressive game [0082] inputs can include portions of wagers {coins} [0082] or of detecting jackpot events [0041] to update a jackpot server [0041] not shown but considered one of the external systems 33 i.e., a third location (Fig. 1, see also [0029, 0038, 0040, 0044, 0046, 0050, 0054, 0061, 0064, 0083, 0090)); and
the jackpot server to process the input and generate an output for the user interface of the user device in a fourth transaction based on processing of the input (the jackpot server provided to monitor and carry out the jackpot game [0118]).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the Casino CAGS layer, adaptors, and API of Earley with the functionality and communication to a jackpot server of the middle tier hub of Topham to achieve the predictable result of including a third-party jackpot server capability connected to user game play and participation. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claims 22, 33, and 39
Topham discloses play of a game as input by a player [0116] of slot and poker machines {games} and interaction with a gaming server [0116].
In Reference to Claims 23 and 34
Tpppham discloses a message streaming service to facilitate transmission of the output from the jackpot server to the user interface where a service request from gaming machine 13 to the applications server 21 includes “[t]he message request seeks a particular service to be performed by execution of an application 35. Application 35 is run in connection with the data, if any, in the request. Application 35, if required, then generates a message back onto network 19 addressed to machine 13. SCI 101 (FIG. 2) receives the message and responds accordingly, as for example, adjusting the credit meter, generating a display of information to the player” [0084]; see also jackpot notification, jackpot event and notify specific workstation when a jackpot event occurs [0041]).
In Reference to Claim 24
Topham discloses a notification event hub to enable communication between the jackpot server and the message streaming service (middle tier to act as a hub between the servers [0010, 0012]).
In Reference to Claim 25
Topham discloses wherein the user interface 13 is a first user interface, and wherein the message streaming service is to facilitate communication between the jackpot server and at least the first user interface and a second user interface 15 where “Meter data is received by applications server 21 which indicates that a jackpot has occurred. API 37 stores the meter data and then publishes the data to all subscribers.” [0045].
In Reference to Claims 26 and 35
Topham discloses coins inserted into the gaming machine [0082].
In Reference to Claim 27
Topham discloses jackpot server meter updates [0034, 0045].
In Reference to Claims 28 and 36
Topham discloses jackpot server subscribes to the notification service [0041] to send over the network.
In Reference to Claim 29
Topham discloses a jackpot notification service {hub} [0041], the jackpot server in communication with the jackpot event hub to provide information regarding a jackpot [0041].
In Reference to Claims 30, 37, and 40
Topham discloses wherein the output includes a jackpot award and a notification [0041, 0042, 0045].
In Reference to Claim 31
Topham discloses wherein the notification is provided in conjunction with a content delivery network (network 19 delivers content from database server 23 (Fig. 1) to publish information to various subscribers [0040]).
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
11. 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.
12. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights