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) 1-10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al (US 2017/0092054) in view of Kreloff et al (US 2008/0096659).
Re claim 1, Petersen discloses a system comprising: a processor circuit and memory (fig. 4, 1010 and 1016) causing the processor circuit to: obtain, by a mobile player device associated with a player (fig. 2B, 10), site controller information from a local site controller associated with a video lottery terminal (par. [0122], mobile device 10 communicates with the EGM 50 via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, with the EGM operating with management system 60 to communicate data from servers 70, 80, and 90);
transmit, by the mobile player device, a network request to a remote server for player information from a player database ([0124] to [0128], [0036], the player engages with the EGM and provides identifying information which prompts the EGM to communicate with severs to access player tracking information);
receive, by the mobile player device from the remote server, the player information, and provide, by the mobile player device, the player information in an encoded format to the local site controller ([0222], the player provides encoded player identification information to the system via their mobile phone).
However, Petersen does not explicitly disclose the local site controller can only access the player information via the mobile player device. Kreloff teaches a wireless gaming system wherein player mobile devices are capable of encryption and decryption (fig. 2, 54). Encoded data being sent to a device server is decrypted/decoded using decryption software ([0050]), thereby providing a secure channel of communication for data between the wireless gaming device and server. By implementing the encryption/decryption software on the wireless gaming device, the server is only able to access secure data directly from the wireless gaming device due to the need for decryption/decoding. It would have been obvious to implement the encryption/decryption techniques of Kreloff with Petersen in order to increase the security of important and private data being transferred in the system.
Re claim 2, Petersen discloses obtaining the site controller information from the local site controller comprises scanning, by the mobile player device, a machine-readable code comprising the site controller information ([0033], [0124] to [0128]).
Re claim 3, Petersen discloses display of a machine-readable code comprising the player information on a display device of the mobile player device (fig. 1A, 1B, and 1C).
Re claim 4, Petersen discloses displaying the player information on the display device only in response to a player input at the mobile player device after receipt of the player information from the remote server ([0052], the player first logs into their casino loyalty account by interfacing with the gaming machine, fig. 1D, upon which player loyalty account data is communicated and after confirmation of the player’s identity, displays player information).
Re claim 5, Petersen discloses receiving the site controller information by the mobile player device wirelessly (fig. 2A, wireless device 10 communicates to the EGM via a wireless communication protocol, see [0036]).
Re claim 6, Petersen discloses wireless transmission of the player information in the encoded format by the mobile player device to the local site controller ([0108] and [0121], the wireless communication between devices are encrypted for privacy and security, encryption being considered a form of encoding).
Re claim 7, Petersen discloses receipt of the player information in the encoded format from the remote server ([0039], [0108], [0121], and [0146], encrypted data is sent and received encrypted).
Re claim 8, Petersen discloses the processor circuit encoding the player information received from the remote server into the encoded format ([0108], [0121]).
Re claim 9, Petersen discloses provision of the player information in an encrypted format ([0108], [0121]).
Re claim 10, Petersen discloses the player information comprises the player’s name and account number ([0223]).
Re claims 20-29, see the rejection to claims 1-10.
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
Prosecution Insights