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, 6-8, 10-11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (US 2011/0098106) in view of Nguyen et al (US 2007/009696) and Lutnick et al (US 2008/0207296).
Re claim 1, He discloses a system for self-service processing comprising: a jackpot processing system (fig. 1, 12) in communication with at least one casino gaming machine (16) comprising a housing, processor, video display, and at least one input device (par. [0030] and [0031]), the processor configured to present a wagering game via presentation of game information via said at least one video display ([0032]), said jackpot processing system comprising a processor, memory, communication interface, and code stored in the memory and executable by the processor ([0016]); a database containing player information (52), said player information comprising mobile communication device contact information for a player and information regarding enrollment of said player in self-service jackpot processing ([0026], wireless communicator 14 stores an identifier associated with a patron in patron database 52, [0028], the patron database may be stored on self-service computer 12, and [0029] which describes components facilitating patron interaction, such as the self-service processes of figs. 2 and 3); said machine readable code of the jackpot processing system configured to cause the processor thereof to, in response to receiving an indication of an occurrence of a designated game win by said game player at said casino gaming machine, utilize player identification information to determine, from said player information stored in said database, that said player is enrolled in self-service jackpot processing (figs. 2 and 3, the system verifies the identity of the user in order to confirm the user wishes to self-service their transactions, see also [0017]); said machine readable code of the jackpot processing system configured to cause the processor thereof to generate and transmit a message to a mobile communication device of said player using said mobile communication device contact information (fig. 2, 66); said machine readable code of the jackpot processing system configured to cause the processor thereof to transmit to said mobile communication device of said player said jackpot processing information in response to a response to said message from said player (72, 74 and fig. 3, 98); said machine readable code of the jackpot processing system configured to receive one or more inputs from said player via said player’s mobile communication device relating to said jackpot processing information, said input comprising at least a signature of said player ([0044] and [0053], the user’s identity is verified via a user entry, such as a PIN or biometric signature); and said machine readable code of the jackpot processing system configured to generate a jackpot record based upon said jackpot processing information and said one or more inputs from said player and generate an approval of payment of said payable amount of said designated game win (fig. 2, 74 and fig. 3, 100).
However, He does not explicitly disclose generating said one or more game win forms including said signature of said player and storing the forms in the database. Nguyen teaches a system which, when a player wins in the game, automatically completes forms required for payouts and e-filing forms at appropriate agencies ([0188]). Such forms include entries such as name, address, social security, and digital signature ([0190]).
It would have been obvious to implement the automatic completion of forms including signature as taught by Nguyen in order to simplify, streamline, and automate the process of filing such mandatory forms upon a player winning a payout, thereby enhancing the experience for players.
He has been discussed regarding collecting a user’s signature, but is silent on the signature of the player being received via the player’s mobile communication device. Lutnick teaches a gaming service wherein player signatures may be received via the player’s mobile gaming device ([0104]). It would have been obvious to implement the receiving of player signature via mobile device as taught by Lutnick in order to provide players with the convenient option of signing forms via their own mobile device, removing the need for the player to sign a physical form, visit a dedicated kiosk, or otherwise, increasing the efficiency and convenience of the gaming system.
Re claim 6, He discloses the machine readable code of the jackpot processing system is further configured to transmit a message to an interface of said casino gaming machine to associate said payable amount to a credit balance at said casino gaming machine ([0046] and [0059]).
Re claim 7, He discloses said interface comprises a casino management system which is in communication with said casino gaming machine (fig. 1, self-service computer 12 and server 18 are in communication with gaming machine 16).
Re claim 8, He discloses said interface comprises an interface to a communication port of said gaming machine (fig. 1, self-service computer 12 and gaming machine 16 communicate via wireless interrogators 28 and 42 which are considered communication ports).
Re claim 10, He discloses transmitting a message to a financial system to associate said payable amount with an electronic wallet of said player ([0039]).
Re claim 11, He discloses a confirmation of said payable amount (fig. 2, 72, 74, and fig. 3, 98, 100).
Re claim 15, He discloses said one or more player inputs comprise player identity information provided by said player to said mobile communication device (fig. 2, 66, 68, and fig. 3, 86, 88).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Nguyen and Lutnick as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Letson et al (US 2017/0221019).
Re claims 2-3, He discloses a webserver (fig. 1, 18) but does not explicitly disclose the message comprising a hyperlink to the webserver. Letson teaches a voucher redemption system wherein users may access a self-service interface via a website ([0022]). The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known that websites are accessed via hyperlinks and hosted on a server. It would have been obvious to implement a website for self-service as taught by Letson with the self-service system of He in order to allow users to access the self-service system from any location with internet access, increasing convenience and ease of use.
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Nguyen and Lutnick as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Moneymaker et al (US 2002/0026374).
Re claims 4-5, He does not disclose transmitting a request to one or more third party systems regarding amounts owed by said player, wherein said payable amount of said designated game win comprises an award for said game win less said amounts identified by said one or more third party systems as owed by said player. Moneymaker teaches a transaction system wherein third party processors may be involved in transactions along with fees charged for providing online ordering sites ([0052]). Therefore, in exchange for the services provided by the third party system, the user would owe a certain amount to the third party. It would have been obvious to implement a third party processing system as taught by Moneymaker with the self-service system of He in order to incorporate the benefits and services of a third party while ensuring that said third party is fairly compensated for said services.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Nguyen and Lutnick as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Steil et al (US 2004/0038735).
Re claim 9, He does not explicitly disclose a slot accounting system port. Steil teaches a system wherein gaming machines include a slot accounting system serial port ([0045]) which allows for communication of various information such as game event information. It would have been obvious to implement the port of Steil with the gaming system of He in order to implement a standardized communication port enabling communication between devices on the system that complies with industry standards.
Claim(s) 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Nguyen and Lutnick as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Rowe et al (US 2002/0103027).
Re claim 13, He does not disclose generating one or more game win forms and storing the forms in the database, and transmitting a second message to said player’s mobile communication device which provides access to said forms. Rowe teaches a gaming environment wherein when a player wins, the system is issued tax documents on their portable transaction device ([0133]). It would have been obvious to generate and provide forms to users as taught by Rowe in order to ensure that upon winning, the user is able to properly handle taxes and other legal matters.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Nguyen and Lutnick as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Melesko et al (US 2004/0242309).
Re claim 14, while He discusses identifying players, there is no disclosure of a player loyalty account provided by the player to the casino gaming machine. Melesko teaches a casino system wherein the lottery interface on devices allows for user tracking of winnings, account information, and other player information ([0045]). It would have been obvious to implement the player account tracking of Melesko with He in order to better track the gameplay histories of players, enabling the casino to properly reward loyal customers.
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Nguyen and Lutnick as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Ohmori (US 2002/0103765).
Re claims 16-17, He does not disclose the player identity information comprising an image of at least a portion of said player, and transmitting the image to a third party validation service for validating an identity of said player. Ohmori teaches utilizing a settlement device (fig. 1, 3-1, considered a third party device as it is separate from the servers and terminal) to verify the identity of a user by comparing the actual face of the user with an image corresponding to image data of the user ([0035], [0139]). It would have been obvious to utilize image verification as taught by Ohmori with the gaming system of He in order to increase the level of security of the system by ensuring that users are properly identified, reducing the amount of fraud and cheating.
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