DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 13-14, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angell et al., US 2004/0043814, Nguyen et al., US 2006/0073888, Okada, US 2009/0082093, and Van Baltz et al., US 2002/0111206.
In Reference to Claims 1 and 13
Angell et al. teaches a method and a device comprising a communication interface having a first protocol interface connectable to port of an electronic gaming machine (Fig. 3 where the “linking component” is connected to the “game processor), and a network interface (Fig. 3 ref. 206, and Par. 43 and 49) a processor distinct from additional devices and distinct from a game controller of the electronic gaming machine, a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (Fig. 4 and Par. 55 which teaches that the linking component includes its own processor and memory and Fig. 3 and 11 which teaches the linking component is distinct from the gaming controller and additional devices in the gaming machine. See also Par. 11 which teaches that the linking component is a retrofit device that is designed to be added to gaming machines to add additional functionality to a gaming machine), and, cause the processor to: receive, via the network interface, data from a remote device distinct from the processor (Fig. 10 and Par. 75-77 which teaches receiving a message from a remote transaction processor authorization to transfer credits to a gaming machine), determine, based on the first slot accounting system data, second data (Fig. 10 and Par. 75-77 where determining a subset of data, e.g. just an amount of credits to add to the gaming machine from the server message constitutes determining “second data,” the amount to credit, from “first data,” the server message), where the remote device operates independently of a ticket-in/ticket-out server, and the second data for adding credits is determined independent of any receipt of any tickets associated with the ticket-in/ticket-out server (Fig. 2-3 Par. 42, 46-48, which teaches the remote device is a “transaction processor” which facilitates electronic transfers of funds from a players account using player account information from a card reader see Fig. 6A. And Fig. 6B and 10 which teach data to cause credits to be added to the gaming machine separate from any ticket-in/ticket-out server. Par. 87 makes clear that the primary embodiment utilizes a server with account-based non-ticket cashless gaming system and suggests any use of a ticket based system would be an alternative embodiment), via the first protocol interface and to the game controller of the electronic gaming machine, the command to add a first amount of credits to a credit meter of the electronic gaming machine (Fig. 10 and Par. 77 which teaches adding credits to the gaming machine), and following a receipt of data associated with the remote device approving a request for a funds transfer, send, to the game controller of the electronic gaming machine, a second command to add a second amount of credits to the credit meter of the electronic gaming machine, there the command is independent of any tickets associated with the ticket-in/ticket-out server (Fig. 10 and Par. 75-81 which teach that after confirmation from the remote transaction processor that the player’s account has been debited a signal is sent to the game processor to add credits to the credit meter of the gaming machine. Examiner considers this confirmation to be remote device approval. Furthermore, as this action is taken in response the player inserting their card and requesting a certain amount of funds, See Par. 75 and Par. 81 which teaches the amount is player preference and where the system include hardware for player input of amounts, and it could be taken first and second times to have multiple funds transfers. See also Par. 80 which explicitly teaches that additional requests for credit can be made and Fig. 6A-6B which teaches in an embodiment individual gaming events such as wagers can each represent an approved remote funds transfer. Finally see Par. 87 which teaches independence from tickets associated with a ticket-in/ticket-out server).
Further, Angell et al. teaches where the gaming machine can include additional distinct components associated with a player tracking system (Fig. 11 and Par. 83-84 which teaches both a player tracking processor and player tracking computer that to provide player tracking functions.) Further Angell et al. Par. 84 teaches that the linking component may intercept, relay, and emulate various signals between the devices of the existing gaming machine.
However, Angell et al. does not explicitly teach where the various protocol interfaces are slot accounting system protocol interfaces, a second slot accounting system protocol interface connectable to a distinct slot machine interface board, where the data from the remote device is responsive to an occurrence of a bonus event, determining based on the second data, a first slot accounting system enabled command, and using the slot accounting system enabled command to add credits to the gaming machine, or communicating, via the second slot accounting system protocol interface and to slot machine interface board, data associated with the added credits.
Okada teaches a gaming machine which includes receiving, via a network interface and responsive to an occurrence of a bonus event, first slot accounting system data from a remote device and communicate second slot accounting system data to the electronic gaming machine which results in adding credits to a credit meter of the electronic gaming machine (Par. 158 which teaches that, in response to a predetermined jackpot timing, the CPU of a server device sends a message over the network to the CPU of a slot machine where the jackpot is to be paid out, where the message includes data that the jackpot is generated and the amount of credits to be paid out. And further teaches that the jackpot can be paid out by adding credits to the amount stored by the gaming machine).
It would be desirable to modify the method and device of Angell et al. to include the receiving the jackpot data from a remote server and sending data to the EGM to increase the credits of the gaming machine as taught by Okada in order to increase the enjoyment of the player by facilitating the implementation of centralized jackpots such as mystery jackpots or shared progressive jackpots on the gaming machine of Angell et al., and to add the credits to the credit meter of the gaming machine so the jackpot winnings can easily be use by the player for further wagering if desired.
Van Baltz et al. teaches determining based on the second data, a first slot accounting system enabled command, and using the slot accounting system enabled command to add credits to the gaming machine (Par. 38 which teaches a retrofit device determining an SAS command to added credits to a gaming machine).
It would be desirable to modify the method and device of Angell et al. al. to successfully add credits to a gaming controller that is expecting standardized SAS commands for credit transfer operations within the gaming machine.
Nguyen et al. teaches a gaming machine with an add-on board (Fig. 1 Comm Board 52) where the interface connecting the device to the electronic gaming machine is a slot accounting system protocol interface (Par. 56 and 183 which teaches the devices in the gaming machine communication with the SAS communication standard), and a second slot accounting system protocol interface connectable to a slot machine interface board as well as communicating, via the second slot accounting system protocol interface and to the slot machine interface board, data associated with the credits added based on the command (Fig. 1 and Par. 59-60 which shows the distinct comm board 55 connected to both the electronic gaming machine and a SMIB and where the SMIB gathers player tracking data for a player tracking unit. And where the player tracking unit and SMIB may communicate to the gaming controller through connection 72 in the communication board for receiving metering data by employing slot accounting system protocol. Examiner considers such metering data, see Par. 118 for example, to constitute data associated with the credits added to the gaming machine. Par. 56 and 183 teach use of SAS interfaces).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Angell et al. to use SAS protocol for gaming machine communications in order to a well-known industry standard interface for connecting gaming machine components, and to include an SAS connection for communication of metering data between the gaming machine and SMIB via a secondary device, such as the retrofit device of Nelson et al., as taught by Nguyen et al. in order to allow the retrofit device to better monitor and ensure that all metering information associated with bonus transactions enabled via retrofit are properly recorded and accounted for in the player tracking system as well as in the hard and soft meters. See Angell et al. Par. 80 which teaches that the linking component could monitor and control how transactions are recorded on meters in the in the gaming machine include tracking the credits separately. It also would be desirable so that an SMIB and player tracking device with new functionality and features, including the meter tracking described in Par. 80 of Angell et al. could be added to a gaming machine or upgraded with additional functionality without the need to change the functionality or expected input and output of Game Controller 50 of Angell et al. thanks to the device emulation, relaying, and interception of the “Retrofit Device’ to make it invisible to the gaming machine as described in Par. 84 of Angell et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the method and device of Angell et al. to include the receiving the jackpot data from a remote server and sending data to the EGM to increase the credits of the gaming machine as taught by Okada, to successfully add credits to a gaming controller that is expecting standardized SAS commands for credit transfer operations within the gaming machine, and to modify the system of Angell et al. to use SAS protocol for gaming machine communications in order to a well-known industry standard interface for connecting gaming machine components, and to include an SAS connection for communication of metering data between the gaming machine and SMIB via a secondary device, such as the retrofit device of Nelson et al., as taught by Nguyen et al.
In Reference to Claims 2 and 14
Angell et al. teaches a communication device for including in a slot machine (Fig. 3) which teaches messages from a remote device over a network where the second data provided from the communication device to the EGM comprises a subset of the first data sent from the server to the communication device (Fig. 10 and Par. 75-77 where the amount of money to be added that is send to the gaming machine is a subset of the overall message sent by the transaction processor).
In Reference to Claim 5-6 and 17-18
Angell et al. does not explicitly teach where the system includes a wireless communication interface and where the wireless communication interface comprises at least one of a wireless personal area network interface and a Near Field Communication device
Nguyen et al. teaches where the system includes a wireless communication interface and where the wireless communication interface comprises at least one of a wireless personal area device and a Near Field Communication device (Par. 62 “Bluetooth”).
It would be desirable to modify the method and device of Angell et al. to includes a wireless personal area device communication interface as taught by Nguyen et al. in order to allow the linking component of to connect to devices wirelessly for adding additional functionality to the gaming device, and thus not require all communication to remote device be performed over a potentially cumbersome physical wire.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the method and device of Angell et al. to includes a wireless personal area device communication interface as taught by Nguyen et al.
In Reference to Claim 7 and 19
Angell et al. teaches where the network interface comprises an Ethernet Interface (Par. 49).
In Reference to Claims 8-9 and 20-21
Angell et al. teaches that the gaming machine can include player tracking functions (Par. 84). However, Angell et al. does not explicitly teach where the remote device is part of a patron management system and where the remote device is part of a player tracking system.
Nguyen et al. teaches where a remote server device communicating to a gaming machine is part of a patron management system and where the remote device is part of a player tracking system (Nguyen et al. Par. 132-140 which teaches that jackpots are maintained be a remote server such as a player tracking server. See also Fig. 1 and Par. 66 which teaches that the system includes various servers to provide services to the user. See for example Fig. 3C and 3D which teach that the player tracking unit is involved in reservation and prize services. As such, examiner considers the remote servers constitute both part of a patron management system and part of a player tracking system).
It would be desirable to modify the device and method of Angell et al. to include a remote device that is part of the patron management and player tracking system as taught by Nguyen et al. in order to add additional patron service and player tracking functionality to the gaming machine in the casino. Thus increasing the enjoyment of the player by allowing them to tack advantage of player loyalty and other patron service rewards in addition to bonus rewards.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the device and method of Angell et al. to include a remote device that is part of the patron management and player tracking system as taught by Nguyen et al.
In Reference to Claim 22
Angell et al. teaches wherein the processor is distinct from a printer peripheral device of the electronic gaming machine (Par. 87 which teaches adding a printer peripheral and a linking component. See also Fig. 3-4 and 11 which shows the linking component distinct from the other peripheral and components of the gaming machine).
In Reference to Claim 23
Angell et al. teaches wherein the processor is distinct from a bill validator peripheral device of the electronic gaming machine (Fig. 3 and 11).
In Reference to Claim 24
Angell et al. teaches where the processor is distinct from a card reader peripheral device of the electronic gaming machine (Fig. 3 and 11).
Claim 4 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angell et al., US 2004/0043814, Nguyen et al., US 2006/0073888, Okada, US 2009/0082093, and Van Baltz et al., US 2002/0111206, further in view of Schneider, US 2005/0043086.
In Reference to Claim 4 and 16
Angell et al., Nguyen et al., Okada, and Van Baltz et al. teach a system which both first and second slot accounting system interfaces. Further Angell et al. teaches where communications can be emulated, relayed and intercepted (Par. 84) and teaches maintain additional metering information (Par. 80). Nguyen et al. teaches where data can be sent to the player tracking unit and the remote servers for player tracking purposes (Fig. 1 and Par. 59-60). However, They do not teach responsive to a communication received from the EGM, further cause the processor to clone the communication.
Schneider teaches responsive to a communication received from the EGM, further cause the processor to clone the communication (Fig. 3-4 and Par. 7, 38-40 which teaches a communication module called a “bonus engine” and teaches that whenever accounting data including metering data is registered by the bonus system a copy of the transaction can be sent to a central server).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Angell et al., Nguyen et al., Okada, and Van Baltz et al. to include cloning metering data as taught by Schneider so that the remote server is able to maintain a full duplicate of the EGMs metering information remotely for enhancing accounting or security purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Angell et al., Nguyen et al., Okada, and Van Baltz et al. to include cloning metering data as taught by Schneider.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angell et al., US 2004/0043814, Nguyen et al., US 2006/0073888, Okada, US 2009/0082093, and Van Baltz et al., US 2002/0111206, further in view of Burnside et al., US 2003/0064815.
In Reference to Claim 10
Angell et al., Nguyen et al., Okada, and Van Baltz et al. teaches a communications interface device which includes a processor and memory device and a plurality of connections as described above in reference to Claim 1. However, Angell et al. does not explicitly teach a housing that encloses at least a portion of the device, wherein the electronics of the device are contained within the housing, and wherein the device contains a plurality of connectors that are located on a single planar surface of the housing.
Burnside et al, teaches an electronics device for using in the cabinet of a gaming machine which includes a housing that encloses at least a portion of the device, wherein the electronics of the device are contained within the housing, and wherein the device contains a plurality of connectors that are located on a single planar surface of the housing (Abstract, Fig. 1-3 and Par.17, 23 which teaches a metal housing which contains the device electronics and which include a plurality of connectors on the “rear 20” of the device. Note that as described in Par. 18, features 24 and 29A-C of Fig. 2 are not connectors).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Angell et al., Nguyen et al., Okada, and Van Baltz et al. to include a housing with a plurality of connectors on the side as taught by Burnside et al. in order to contain the communications board in the gaming machine in a manner that allows it to be easily mounted or remove from the cabinet of the gaming device in order to speed up repairs of the gaming machine and provide more robust coupling and uncoupling of communications connectors used to connect various components of the gaming machine when the communication board is replaced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Angell et al., Nguyen et al., Okada, and Van Baltz et al. to include a housing with a plurality of connectors on the side as taught by Burnside et al.
In Reference to Claim 12
Angell et al., Nguyen et al., Okada, and Van Baltz et al. and Burnside et al. teach where the housing is located within a cabinet of the electronic gaming machine (Nguyen et al. Fig. 1 and Burnside et al. Par. 25-26).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angell et al., US 2004/0043814, Nguyen et al., US 2006/0073888, Okada, US 2009/0082093,, Van Baltz et al., US 2002/0111206, and Burnside et al., US 2003/0064815, further in view of budind.com webpage “Converta Boxes,” (hereinafter Bud).
In Reference to Claim 11
Angell et al., Nguyen et al., Okada, Van Baltz et al. and Burnside et al. teach a system as described above in reference to Claim 10 including a metal housing. However, they do not explicitly teach where the housing has an internal volume less than 100 cubic inches.
Bud teaches a metal enclosure for components where the housing has an internal volume less than 100 cubic inches (“Converta Box” with dimensions of 2”x8”x4” which has a volume of 64 cubic inches. See also where the enclosure can be customized for any particular application “Bud can meet your special requirements by customizing any of our standard enclosures by punching, drilling, painting” and “Components or controls can be mounted to any surface”).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Angell et al., Nguyen et al., Okada, Van Baltz et al., and Burnside et al. to include a housing with an internal volume of less than 100 cubic inches as taught by Bud, in order to allow the communications board to be easily mounted in the gaming machine cabinet while leaving plenty of room for other components of the gaming machine.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the system of Angell et al., Nguyen et al., Okada, Van Baltz et al., and Burnside et al. to include a housing with an internal volume of less than 100 cubic inches as taught by Bud.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 15 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 filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant has incorporated some, but not all of the limitations of the indicated allowable subject matter into Claims 1 and 13. Examiner disagrees with applicant’s argument, and in the examiner’s opinion Angell et al., as modified by Nguyen et al., Okada, and Van Baltz et al. teach the limitations of independent claims 1 and 13. Specifically, as described above, Angell et al. teaches where multiple funds transfers can be made and where a funds transfer to the gaming processor via the linking component is following the receipt data associated a remote device, in this case the transaction processor, approving the funds transfer (See Fig. 10). Furthermore as described above Angell et al. teaches where this is independent of any ticket-in/ticket-out server or system (Par. 87). Nguyen et al. and Van Baltz teach the remaining limitations of a slot accounting system protocol and slot accounting system enabled command for adding credits. As such, rejection under Angell et al., as modified by Nguyen et al., Okada, and Van Baltz et al. is considered proper.
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 CARL V LARSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday; 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/CARL V LARSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights