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 § 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 (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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-14, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nguyen (US 20050192099)
In claims 1, 9, and 13 Nguyen discloses
A processor and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that when executed by the processor responsive to a request to play a game cause the processor to (paragraph 63)
Determine if a software package associated with the game is authenticated (figure 20, #1620, #1622 #1628, #1630 if the certificate has not expired and the rules are in compliance, the software package is authenticated)
Responsive to the software package associated with the game being authenticated, execute the software package associated with the game, wherein the execution occurs independent of another software package associated with another game being unauthenticated and (figure 20 #1616 after following the flow chart wherein the certificate is not expired as per #1622 and onto #1628. With respect to a second game software being unauthenticated, see paragraphs 21 and 22 which disclose various embodiments where some software is not authenticated and the authenticated software may still execute)
Responsive to the software package associated with the game being unauthenticated: authenticate the software package associated with the game, wherein the authentication occurs prior to the other software package associated with the other game being authenticated and (figure 20 #1622, #1624 #1626, #1628 #1630. The software package is not authenticated when the certificate has expired, and then the software package is authenticated as per the new certificate of #1626. Additional pieces of software may be downloaded and/or authenticated at a later time, see paragraphs 22 and 23 for example which discloses a second instance of a game of chance, and paragraph 156 which discloses “later” software transfer requests)
Execute the software package associated with the game, wherein the execution occurs independent of the other software package associated with the other game being unauthenticated (figure 20 #1616 after following the flow chart thru #1622, 1624, 1626, 1628, 1630, see paragraphs 21 and 22 which disclose various embodiments where some software is not authenticated and the authenticated software may still execute)
In claims 2 and 14, Nguyen discloses the other software package with the other game is authenticated based on an authentication order (paragraph 156 discloses “later” software transfer requests. The order is whatever order in which they are downloaded and authenticated)
In claims 7 and 19, Nguyen discloses the request to play the game occurs in association with a game selection menu displayed prior to the software package associated with the game being authenticated (paragraph 193)
In claims 8 and 20, Nguyen discloses the software package associated with the game and the other software package associated with the other game are authenticated based on when an initial play of the game is requested (authentication occurs after the game is requested and downloaded)
In claim 10, Nguyen disclose the feature comprises a responsible gaming module (the BRI of “responsible gaming module” can be basically any module related to a game, as the word “responsible” has almost no patentable weight in this context, unless the module creates irresponsibility in some way, For example paragraph 130 discloses downloading and installing a new graphical feel for he game without changing any of the other gaming software components.)
In claim 11, Nguyen discloses enabling a peripheral device (paragraph 130 discloses various enabling of peripheral devices, such as a communications module allowing for gaming devices to communicate with other gaming devices, which would enable the other gaming devices for purposes of communication)
In claim 12, Nguyen discloses the request to enable the feature is received from an operator menu displayed prior to each of the software packages being authenticated (paragraph 193)
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) 6 and 18is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen
In claims 6 and 18, Nguyen discloses the claimed invention except displaying a loading screen while authenticating the software package associated with the game, however Official notice is taken that displaying loading screens while preparing to execute software was notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Nguyen with this well known technique in order to allow for the players to know what is going on.
Claim(s) 3-5, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Furuhashi (US 20090298581)
In claims 3 and 15, Nguyen discloses the claimed invention except responsive to the software package associated with the game being unauthenticated, cause the processor to pause authenticating software packages based on the authentication order, however Furuhashi discloses a scheduling server which orders to scheduling for software authentication and orders authentication pauses (paragraphs 14 and 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Nguyen with Furuhashi in order to allow for appropriate scheduling of authentication
In claims 4 and 16, Furuhashi discloses after the software package associated with the game is authenticated, cause the processor to resume authenticating software packages based on the authentication order (paragraphs 14 and 34)
In claims 5 and 17, Nguyen in view of Furuhashi discloses the claimed invention except authentication order is based on at least one of a prioritization of one software package relative to a related software package, however Official notice is taken that setting priority levels of software packages was notoriously well known in the art, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Nguyen in view of Furuhashi with this well known technique in order to allow for higher priority pieces of software authenticated quicker
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715