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
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0380826 to Taylor in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20210021580 to McCallum.
In Reference to Claims 1, 5, 12, and 17
Taylor discloses an electronic gaming device (Fig. 1 104A [0010]), comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 2 204);
memory (Fig. 2 208); and
control logic (program 206 [0045]), implemented using the one or more processors and memory, configured to perform operations, comprising:
executing an on-board controller (OBC) (progressive system server 112), wherein the OBC is configured to be able to:
perform progressive award calculations and store results of the progressive award calculations to the memory (Fig. 3 112 [0007, 0022]);
executing a peer device discovery process (system inspects for new deposits [0024]), wherein the peer device discovery process is configured to cause:
discovery of a first number, n1, of electronic gaming devices that comprise a peer group (Fig. 5 participating nodes in an EGM cluster 414 [0020], see also Fig. 3 linked program 320B);
determination of a second number, n2, of electronic gaming devices within the peer group to be part of a leader quorum (Fig. 5 EGM 2 410B); and
election of one electronic gaming device within the leader quorum as a current leader of the peer group (selection of leader node 410A EGM1 of quorum 412), wherein an OBC of the current leader is configured to:
perform requested progressive award calculations; store results of the requested progressive award calculations; and transmit the results of the requested progressive award calculations to the other electronic gaming devices in the peer group ([0007, 0022, Fig. 5 522 to 526 [0079]);
executing at least one gaming platform comprising a progressive award, wherein the progressive award is able to be contributed to by each eligible electronic gaming device in the peer group (Fig. 5 deposit 414 to 410B); and
executing an OBC client, wherein the OBC client is configured to transmit and receive messages to and from the at least one gaming platform (see messages exchanged [0060, 0062]).
Taylor discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose an election process and wherein the election of the current leader is performed using a RAFT consensus algorithm. One of skill in the art would be aware of McCallum.
According to McCallum, where the client 102 may be a game console and run on a PC, server, or database, concerning clusters of nodes ([0026, 0030]). Among the nodes may be elected as the leader of an enclave cluster 140 based on a Raft consensus algorithm. McCallum teaches this system and method in order to protect data (Abstr.)
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(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; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the selection process of Taylor with the RAFT consensus algorithm of McCallum to achieve the predictable result of protecting the system data to improve the integrity of the gaming system as a whole.
In Reference to Claims 2 and 13
Taylor discloses wherein the OBC of the current leader is further configured to be able to: store configuration information related to all active progressive awards within the peer group (leader is a transaction replicator [0024] participates in their own blockchain and journals progressive jackpots across all EGM clusters [0067]).
In Reference to Claims 3-4 and 14-15
Examiner deems a quorum to be three of fewer and that the n2 be odd are deemed to be design choices as Applicant has not discloses that these numbers serve any particular purpose or solve any specific problem and the numbers of Taylor would work equally as well. According to Taylor, Fig. 5 depicts clusters are depicted as a plurlaity, as well as new blocks 504, clusters 412, and other groupings 522, 510).
In Reference to Claim 8
Taylor discloses wherein the current leader is further configured to: maintain a state
machine log; and transmit the state machine log to the other electronic gaming devices of the
leader quorum (maintain a journal and distribute [0067]).
In Reference to Claim 9
Taylor discloses wherein the current leader is further configured to: receive configuration information from each of the other electronic gaming devices of the peer group (Examiner construes deposit information as configuration information ([0024]).
In Reference to Claims 10 and 19
Taylos discloses that the leader detects new deposits and automatically adds them to the block chain ([0024]).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 6-7, 11, 16, 18, and 20 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.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art references as to wherein, in response to the leader quorum dropping below a threshold number of electronic gaming devices, a replacement electronic gaming device is identified and configured to be part of the leader quorum; wherein, in response to the current leader becoming unavailable for a threshold amount of time, a replacement leader from the leader quorum is elected to be the current leader; and wherein the replacement leader is configured to synchronize its state machine log with the other electronic gaming devices of the leader quorum upon being elected the current leader; and wherein the OBC of the current leader is further configured to be updated with a new IP address for at least one electronic gaming device within the peer group.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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