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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 06/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 4 June 2026:
Claims 1, 6-9, 12 and 17-20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 4 June 2026:
a. Applicant’s arguments that the applets of Yang are not “electronic gaming machine software packages” that are individually authenticated prior to being individually executed by a processor has been fully considered but is deemed not-persuasive due to the fact that Yang’s applets were not used to teach the entire limitation. Yang teaches software packages (applets) that are individually authenticated, Yang, Paragraph [0011], see “…an external electronic device performs authentication for a selected applet identification, instead of performing authentication for all of the applets stored in the electronic device, thereby reducing the time required for authentication”, which is being read as individually authenticating each software package (applet), whilst Kim teaches electronic gaming machine software packages that are authenticated prior to being executed, Kim, Paragraph [0003], see “Executable software applications that run on electronic wager based games should be authenticated prior to execution”, which is analogous to individually authenticating electronic gaming machine software packages (software applications that run on the gaming machine) prior to being individually executed.
b. Applicant’s arguments that Yang does not include sorting a list of electronic gaming machine software packages into an authentication order determined based on an authentication priority, or initiating, based on the authentication order, an authentication of the electronic gaming machine software packages has been fully considered but is deemed not-persuasive. Applicant’s attention is directed to Yang, Paragraph [0180], see “…the applet 805 may change or produce priority information…The priority may represent the order in which authentication is performed on the external electronic device 500”, which is being read as sorting the list of the plurality of software into an authentication order determined based on an authentication priority, Yang, FIG. 9, see “907”, which performs authentication using information related to selected AID, wherein the selected AID is based on highest priority order (authentication order) from among AIDS included in the list and Yang, Paragraph [0113], see “…the processor 510 may determine the applet pm which authentication is preferentially performed based on the priority information included in the information related to the applet…if the processor 510 selects a plurality of AIDS, the processor 510 may priority information corresponding to each of the plurality of AIDS. The processor 510 may perform authentication with the external electronic device 300 using an applet having the highest priority. If the processor 510 fails to perform authentication…the processor 510 may perform authentication with the external electronic device 300 using an applet having the next highest priority.”
c. Applicant’s arguments that Yasuhara does not teach or suggest executing an electronic gaming machine software package after that electronic gaming machine software package has been authenticated and before each of the electronic gaming machine software packages have been authenticated has been fully considered but is deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2020/0391695), hereinafter Yang, in view of Kim et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2014/0250299), hereinafter Kim, in further view of HARS et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2020/0358748), hereinafter Hars.
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches
a processor (Yang, FIG. 3, see “PROCESSOR 310”); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (Yang, FIG. 3, see “MEMORY 340”, “SECURITY MODULE 330”, which stores instructions), cause the processor to:
determine a list of a plurality of (Yang, Paragraph [0011], see “…an external electronic device performs authentication for a selected applet identification, instead of performing authentication for all of the applets stored in the electronic device, thereby reducing the time required for authentication”, which is being read as individually authenticating each software package (applet)) (Yang, Paragraph [0064], see “…the security module 330 may produce an applet identification (application identification) (AID) list that includes AIDs of the respective applets stored in the security module 330”, where “AIDs of the respective applets” is being read as comprising a list of a plurality of software packages (respective applets) to be individually authenticated)
sort the list of the plurality of (Yang, Paragraph [0180], see “…the applet 805 may change or produce priority information…The priority may represent the order in which authentication is performed on the external electronic device 500”, which is being read as sorting the list of the plurality of software into an authentication order determined based on an authentication priority),
initiate, based on the authentication order, an authentication of the plurality of (Yang, FIG. 9, see “907”, which performs authentication using information related to selected AID, wherein the selected AID is based on highest priority order (authentication order) from among AIDS included in the list) (Yang, Paragraph [0113], see “…the processor 510 may determine the applet pm which authentication is preferentially performed based on the priority information included in the information related to the applet…if the processor 510 selects a plurality of AIDS, the processor 510 may priority information corresponding to each of the plurality of AIDS. The processor 510 may perform authentication with the external electronic device 300 using an applet having the highest priority. If the processor 510 fails to perform authentication…the processor 510 may perform authentication with the external electronic device 300 using an applet having the next highest priority”),
Yang does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Kim: An electronic gaming machine (Kim, Paragraph [0003], see “…This is to ensure that the applications in the gaming machine are not tampered with”);
determine a list of a plurality of electronic gaming machine software packages to be individually authenticated prior to being individually executed (Kim, Paragraph [0003], see “Executable software applications that run on electronic wager based games should be authenticated prior to execution”, which is analogous to individually authenticating electronic gaming machine software packages (software applications that run on the gaming machine) prior to being individually executed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Yang, by implementing techniques of a gaming machine, comprising authenticating software prior to being individually executed, disclosed of Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for selective authentication of software of a gaming system, comprising of a gaming machine, comprising authenticating software prior to being individually executed. This allows for better security management by authenticating software before it is executed in order to prevent malware and unauthorized software from being executed. Kim is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of a gaming machine, comprising authenticating software prior to being individually executed (Kim, Paragraph [0003]).
Yang as modified by Kim do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Hars: wherein an electronic gaming machine software package of the plurality of electronic gaming machine software packages is executed by the processor after that electronic gaming machine software package is authenticated and before each of the plurality of electronic gaming machine software packages have been authenticated (Hars, Paragraph [0012], see “…After successfully authenticating the first program, the microprocessor then executes the first program…”, which is analogous to wherein a software package is executed by the processor after that software package is authenticated) (Hars, Paragraph [0031], see “…Since the second program is based on the second security artifact, the second public key may be used to verify the origin of the second program. After having authenticated the second program successfully using the second security artifact, the microprocessor then executes the second program”, which is analogous to executing the first program after it has been authenticated before each of the software packages have been authenticated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Yang, and techniques disclosed of Kim, by implementing techniques of executing software after it is authenticated and before each of the software packages have been authenticated, disclosed of Hars.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for selective authentication of software of a gaming system, comprising of executing software after it is authenticated and before each of the software packages have been authenticated. This allows for better security management and authentication efficiency by authenticating each software and individually executing each software after they have been authenticated to make sure they run properly. Hars is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of executing software after it is authenticated and before each of the software packages have been authenticated (Hars, Paragraphs [0012] and [0031]).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1.
Claims 2-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Kim, in further view of Hars, in further view of Nelson et al. (AU 2012/203188), hereinafter Nelson.
Regarding claim 2, Yang as modified by Kim and further modified by Hars do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Nelson: The electronic gaming machine of Claim 1, wherein the authentication priority is associated with a historic use of the electronic gaming machine (Nelson, Paragraph [0047], see “…gaming operating system 404 may receive data from a remote device or server, such as player tracking server 206…or from memory area 106, indicative of a player’s game or play history and may rank or may order gaming packages 406 in order of the popularity of gaming packages 406 with respective to the player”, which is analogous to the authentication priority being associated with a historic use (play history)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Yang, techniques disclosed of Kim, and techniques disclosed of Hars, by implementing techniques of the authentication priority being associated with a historic use, disclosed of Nelson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for selective authentication of software of a gaming system, comprising of the authentication priority being associated with a historic use. This allows for better security management, as well as for a more user-friendly environment by prioritizing authentication on player games based on their play history and popularity. Nelson is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the authentication priority being associated with a historic use (Nelson, Paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 3, Yang as modified by Kim and further modified by Hars do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Nelson: The electronic gaming machine of Claim 1, wherein the authentication priority is associated with an enablement of a game of the electronic gaming machine (Nelson, Paragraph [0054], see “…gaming machine 100 and authentication system 100 may increase player satisfaction by enabling gaming machine 100 to be accessible while gaming packages 406 may be in the process of being authenticated. If a player wants to play a game that has not yet been authenticated, authentication module 412 may prioritize the gaming package including the game above other gaming packages 406 in the authentication sequence”, which is analogous to the authentication priority being associated with an enablement of a game).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Yang, techniques disclosed of Kim, and techniques disclosed of Hars, by implementing techniques of the authentication priority being associated with an enablement of a game, disclosed of Nelson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for selective authentication of software of a gaming system, comprising of the authentication priority being associated with an enablement of a game. This allows for better security management, as well as for a more user-friendly environment by prioritizing authentication on enabling a game to be played by the user. Nelson is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the authentication priority being associated with an enablement of a game (Nelson, Paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Yang as modified by Kim and further modified by Hars do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Nelson: The electronic gaming machine of Claim 1, wherein the authentication priority is associated with an enablement of a feature associated with a game of the electronic gaming machine (Nelson, Paragraph [0041], see “…gaming packages 406 may be arranged or ordered within the list according to a predetermined sequence of authentication”) (Nelson, Paragraph [0051], see “…authentication module 412 may authenticate executable files and non-executable files, such as graphic files, sound files, data files, and/or any other files within gaming packages 406”, where “graphic files, sound files, data files, and/or any other files within gaming packages 406” is analogous to being associated with an enablement of a feature associated with a game, which are prioritized according to a predetermined sequence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Yang, techniques disclosed of Kim, and techniques disclosed of Hars, by implementing techniques of the authentication priority being associated with an enablement of a feature associated with a game, disclosed of Nelson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for selective authentication of software of a gaming system, comprising of the authentication priority being associated with an enablement of a feature associated with a game. This allows for better security management, as well as for a more user-friendly environment by prioritizing authentication on enabling a feature (specific files) associated with a game to be played by the user. Nelson is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the authentication priority being associated with an enablement of a feature associated with a game (Nelson, Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 5, Yang as modified by Kim and further modified by Hars do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Nelson: The electronic gaming machine of Claim 1, wherein the authentication priority is associated with a regulatory requirement of the electronic gaming machine (Nelson, Paragraph [0056], see “…method 500 may include determining 502 a physical security of gaming machine 100…physical security device 302 may be used to detect if the cabinet of gaming machine 100 has been opened. If processor 104 and/or physical security device 302 determine 502 gaming machine 100 to be physically secured, processor 104 may authenticate 504 first bootup memory device 142 and instructions from first bootup memory device 142 may be executed”, which is being read as the authentication priority being associated with a regulatory requirement (physical security of device 302 and whether it is physically secured) due to the system prioritizing the security of the device 302 (regulatory requirement) before performing subsequent authentications).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Yang, techniques disclosed of Kim, and techniques disclosed of Hars, by implementing techniques of the authentication priority being associated with a regulatory requirement, disclosed of Nelson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for selective authentication of software of a gaming system, comprising of the authentication priority being associated with a regulatory requirement. This allows for better security management by prioritizing authentication on regulatory requirements in order to verify compliance of the machine before granting access to the user and/or authenticating the software packages. Nelson is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the authentication priority being associated with a regulatory requirement (Nelson, Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 6, Yang as modified by Kim and further modified by Hars do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Nelson: The electronic gaming machine of Claim 1, wherein the authentication priority is associated with a prioritization of one electronic gaming machine software package relative to a related electronic gaming machine software package (Nelson, Paragraph [0050], see “…authentication module 412 may prioritize the selected gaming package 406 above the next identified gaming package in the sequence (i.e., above a second gaming package 406)…the selected gaming package 406 may be authenticated after…first gaming package 406 and before second gaming package 406”, which is analogous to the authentication priority being associated with a prioritization of one software package (first gaming package 406) relative to a related software package (second gaming package 406)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Yang, techniques disclosed of Kim, and techniques disclosed of Hars, by implementing techniques of the authentication priority being associated with a prioritization of one software package relative to a related software package, disclosed of Nelson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for selective authentication of software of a gaming system, comprising of the authentication priority being associated with a prioritization of one software package relative to a related software package. This allows for better security management, as well as improved user-friendliness by prioritizing a specific software package to be authenticated before a related software package in cases where the game can be executable after a certain software package is authenticated without needing the related software package. Nelson is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the authentication priority being associated with a prioritization of one software package relative to a related software package (Nelson, Paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 7, Yang as modified by Kim and further modified by Hars do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Nelson: The electronic gaming machine of Claim 1, wherein the list of the plurality of electronic gaming machine software packages is determined after an authentication of an operating system of the electronic gaming machine and an authentication of a platform of the electronic gaming machine (Nelson, Paragraph [0057], see “…When processor 104 and/or first bootup memory device 142 may have authenticated 506 second bootup memory device 144, second bootup memory device 144 may authenticate 508 a first, or primary operating system 402…”, where “primary operating system 402” is analogous to authenticating an operating system of the electronic gaming machine) (Nelson, Paragraph [0058], see “…Authentication module 412…may authenticate 510 a second, or gaming operating system 404. If authentication module 412 may authenticate 510 gaming operating system 404, gaming operating system 404 may receive or may enable 512 local user input and/or input from a remote device for gaming machine 100”, where “authentication a second, or gaming operating system 404” is analogous to authenticating a platform of the electronic gaming machine, where the first and second authentications are performed before determining the list and authenticating a plurality of gaming packages as seen in FIG. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Yang, techniques disclosed of Kim, and techniques disclosed of Hars, by implementing techniques of authenticating an operating system and a platform of the electronic gaming machine before authenticating the software packages associated with it, disclosed of Nelson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for selective authentication of software of a gaming system, comprising of authenticating an operating system and a platform of the electronic gaming machine before authenticating the software packages associated with it. This allows for better security management and overall system efficiency by authenticating the core aspects of the gaming machine before deciding to authenticate the software that are stored within. Nelson is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of authenticating an operating system and a platform of the electronic gaming machine before authenticating the software packages associated with it (Nelson, Paragraphs [0057 – 0058]).
Regarding claim 8, Yang as modified by Kim and further modified by Hars do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Nelson: The electronic gaming machine of Claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of electronic gaming machine software packages comprises game program code executable by the processor in association with a play of a game (Nelson, Paragraph [0049], see “…the authentication of gaming packages 406 may be player selectable and/or player overridable…the unauthenticated game may be indicated as unavailable, for example, by displaying the title of the game with a reduced opacity and/or using a reduced color palette…”, which is analogous to the one of the plurality of software packages comprising game program code executable in associated with a play of a game, due to the game being unavailable for play when it is unauthenticated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Yang, techniques disclosed of Kim, and techniques disclosed of Hars, by implementing techniques of the software package comprising game program code executable in association with a play of a game, disclosed of Nelson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for selective authentication of software of a gaming system, comprising the software package comprising game program code executable in association with a play of a game. This allows for better security management and improved efficiency for authenticating a game by analyzing a software package that contains files for the game. Nelson is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques the software package comprising game program code executable in association with a play of a game (Nelson, Paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 9, Yang as modified by Kim and further modified by Hars and Nelson teaches The electronic gaming machine of Claim 8, wherein at least one of the plurality of electronic gaming machine software packages is independent of any game program code (Yang, Paragraph [0011], see “…an external electronic device performs authentication for a selected applet identification, instead of performing authentication for all of the applets stored in the electronic device, thereby reducing the time required for authentication”, where “applet” is being read as comprising a software package that is independent of any game program code).
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI whose telephone number is (571)272-8747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00am – 7:00pm.
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, Philip Chea can be reached on (571) 272-3951. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights