Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are allowed.
Claim 2 includes limitations directed towards 2. (New) The roulette-gaming system of claim 1 further comprising: a first dome disposed over a first roulette wheel; a second dome disposed over a second roulette wheel; a first ball, wherein the first ball is disposed between the first dome and the first roulette wheel; and a second ball, wherein the second ball is disposed between the second dome and the second roulette wheel. These limitations when viewed in combination with any intervening and parent claims and any remaining limitations of the claim are seen to provide patentable distinction over the cited prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ellis (US 20060178191 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ellis teaches 1. A roulette-gaming system, the roulette-gaming system for effecting a multi-wheel roulette gaming experience, the roulette-gaming system comprising: See [0037+][0057+], a grouped series of roulette wheel assemblies, each roulette wheel assembly comprising a roulette wheel, a roulette ball, automated rotation means for rotating the roulette wheel, and automated launch means for launching the roulette ball, each roulette wheel comprising a plurality of ball-receiving sectors, each ball-receiving sector comprising a select wheel symbol, the roulette balls being respectively receivable in one of the ball-receiving sectors for providing a multi-sector event; See [0057+][0016+] wherein the automation is explicitly taught and the specifics of the rotation and ball launching means being automated are considered inherent to the use of a roulette wheel., a player participation area, the player participation area for enabling grouped player participation, the player participation area being spatially separated from the roulette wheel assemblies and comprising wager-inputting means, the wager-inputting means for enabling entry of wagers, the wagers for identifying select wager symbols, the wheel and wager symbols having paired symbol correspondence; See [0084+]; (10) the betting board is the player participation area allowing for grouped play which is separate from the wheel assemblies and includes wagering input means., central processing means, the central processing means for collecting the wagers, for governing the automated rotation and launch means, for comparing wagers to the multi-sector event, for calculating payouts to players should a wager match the multi-sector event, and for governing credits-debits during roulette gaming; and See [0097+][0112+], visual display means, the visual display means for visually displaying grouped roulette wheel assembly action to the player participation area, the grouped roulette wheel assembly action comprising the multi-sector event, the grouped wheel assembly action for effecting a multi-wheel roulette gaming experience. See [0078+]; Fig. 2. Additionally, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Moreover, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As such, the functioning of the player participation area for enabling grouped plater participation is a functioning of the apparatus which the prior art is capable of and does not differentiate over the cited prior art of record.
Regarding claim 5, Ellis teaches 5. (New) The roulette-gaming system of claim 1, wherein select events form part of a progressive jackpot, and wherein the central processing means determines if an event provided by the roulette-gaming system is one of the select events. See [0118+] the examiner considers the processor determining the event to be inherit with the disclosure. Additionally, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Moreover, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As such, the determination of events as claimed is the functioning of the system and does not differentiate over the cited prior art of record.
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 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 of this title, 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.
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(a) 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The notations noted below apply to all rejections: In as much structure set forth by the applicant in the claims, the device is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired (See MPEP 2112). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim limitations. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The intended use defined in the preamble and body of the claim breathes no life and meaning structurally different than that of the applied reference.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 20060178191 A1) in view of Sokolov (US 20050167912 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Sokolov teaches 6. (New) The roulette-gaming system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of ball- receiving sectors is marked with a Mahjong symbol associated therewith. See [0136+] Additionally, the courts held that "Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability….[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate." (See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Ellis with Sokolov to provide different indicia related to other games on a roulette wheel. ([0136+]).
Response to Arguments
With regards to the applicants’ arguments against claim 1 and “the player participation area for enabling grouped player participation”, the examiner has amended the rejection on claim 1 to address this argument. These limitations are considered functional language with the system or apparatus is capable of achieving and does not differentiate over the cited prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Walker US 2010/0120487 A1 - Multiple wheel roulette system, includes central processor and display.
Ronin US 6083105 - Computerized roulette play.
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 JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3711