DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Remarks received on July 21, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending with no claims canceled and claims 1-3, 6-7, 10-13, 15-18, and 20 currently amended.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “policies or practices that aim to promote safe and enjoyable gambling experiences” in claim 7 is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “policies or practices that aim to promote safe and enjoyable gambling experiences” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear how one ensures a policy or procedure sufficiently “aims” to promote “safe” and “enjoyable” gambling experiences.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeMay [US20080096656A1], Nguyen [US20060073887A1], and Arbogast [US20070111791A1].
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), LeMay discloses:
A system, comprising:
one or more processors;
memory; and
control logic, implemented using the one or more processors and memory, configured to perform operations, comprising:
executing a gameplay platform implemented in software instructions (LeMay, Gaming OS 50, gaming machine resource software modules 52, game presentation module 54, game flow module 56), wherein the gameplay platform defines:
executing a multi-game lobby implemented in software instructions,
wherein the multi-game lobby is decoupled from the gameplay platform (LeMay, [0014], “so that the logic in many of the gaming software modules may be designed independently of each other.”); and
LeMay discloses the limitations of claim 1 cited above, but LeMay does not explicitly disclose the multi-game lobby is capable of displaying two or more game icons simultaneously according to a layout.
Nguyen, however, discloses:
the multi-game lobby is capable of displaying two or more game icons simultaneously according to a layout (Nguyen, [0106], “The second screen layout 302 shows four non-progressive games 307 and two progressive games 308 that are available for play on the gaming machine. … The screen message 305, “Select a Game,” encourages the player to select a game of chance for play on the gaming machine.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the game system of LeMay the display features as taught by Nguyen since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
LeMay/Nguyen discloses the limitations of claim 1 cited above, but LeMay/Nguyen does not explicitly disclose a set of multi-game lobby configurations that are commonly-implemented by all multi-game lobbies executing on the system, a set of custom lobby configurations that multi-game lobbies executing on the system may change dynamically during execution, and implementing at least one custom lobby configuration change for a first multi-game lobby executing on the system.
Arbogast, however, discloses:
(a) a set of multi-game lobby configurations that are commonly-implemented by all multi-game lobbies executing on the system (Arbogast, [0159], “Certain configuration options have to do with regulatory requirements. The system provides for those options to be visible but not reconfigurable. This permits the administration and review of EGMs for jurisdictional compliance without requiring manual inspection of the EGM.”);
(b) a set of custom lobby configurations that multi-game lobbies executing on the system may change dynamically during execution (Arbogast, [0022], “The operator has the ability to change any number of options from the set of EGM provided options.”); and
implementing at least one custom lobby configuration change for a first multi-game lobby executing on the system (Arbogast, [0012], “Generally, the system may configure an EGM from a remote terminal thereby providing improvements in operational efficiency when configuring EGMs”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Arbogast to LeMay/Nguyen would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Arbogast to the teachings of LeMay/Nguyen would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such configuration features into similar systems/methods. Further, applying such dynamic configurations to LeMay/Nguyen with jurisdictions accounted for accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for increased efficiency in the maintenance process of the system.
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), LeMay/Nguyen/Arbogast discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the multi-game lobby is configured to utilize an application programming interface (API) to perform inter-process communications with the gameplay platform (LeMay, [0051], “API's let application programmers use functions of a software module without having to directly keep track of all the logic details within the software module used to perform the functions.”).
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), LeMay/Nguyen/Arbogast discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one custom lobby configuration change comprises a change based on a requirement of a relevant jurisdiction (LeMay, [0150], “The betting shared object may incorporate the betting rules for the gaming jurisdiction where the gaming machine is played.”).
Regarding claim 4 (Original), LeMay/Nguyen/Arbogast discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one custom lobby configuration change comprises changing at least one game listed in the first multi-game lobby (Arbogast, [0014], “a casino operator may schedule the download of a new game theme during off-hours and have the network host configure the new game theme as soon as installation is completes without requiring operator intervention.”).
Regarding claim 5 (Original), LeMay/Nguyen/Arbogast discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one custom lobby configuration change comprises a change to at least one characteristic of the first multi-game lobby that is based on a game listed in the first multi-game lobby (Nguyen, [0105], “The selection of a particular progressive game may trigger a number of changes on the gaming machine as was described with respect to FIG. 1.”).
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), LeMay/Nguyen/Arbogast discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one custom lobby configuration change is implemented without taking the gameplay platform or the multi-game lobby offline (Arbogast, [0035], “the game does not need to be disabled before the changes are applied.”).
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), LeMay/Nguyen/Arbogast discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein at least one configuration of the set of multi-game lobby configurations comprises gaming information related to policies or practices that aim to promote safe and enjoyable gambling experiences (Arbogast, [0108], “Every configuration object is responsible for defining rules that will prevent illegal configurations.”).
Regarding claim 8 (Original), LeMay/Nguyen/Arbogast discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first multi-game lobby is configured to display real-time, game-specific information related to at least one game listed in the first multi-game lobby (Nguyen, [0104], “The jackpots 304 may be regularly updated with information received from one or more wide area progressive systems as described with respect to FIG. 1.”).
Regarding claim 9 (Original), LeMay/Nguyen/Arbogast discloses:
The system of claim 8, wherein the real-time, game-specific information related to the at least one game listed in the first multi-game lobby comprises a progressive prize value (Nguyen, [0004], “The central server updates the progressive jackpot value as it receives information regarding game play on the linked gaming machines and broadcasts this progressive jackpot value to the linked gaming machines.”).
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), LeMay/Nguyen/Arbogast discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one custom lobby configuration change comprises
adding at least one new game to the first multi-game lobby, and wherein implementing the at least one custom lobby configuration change does not comprise resubmission of the first multi-game lobby to any regulatory authority for new regulatory approval (LeMay, [0067], “only new or modified gaming software modules installed on a gaming machine, such as a new game presentation software module for a new game, may have to be submitted for approval to a gaming jurisdiction prior to installation on the gaming machine.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12 of 15 of the Remarks, filed July 21, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14 of 15 of the Remarks, filed July 21, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection is made in view of new interpretations to the instant claims as a result of the amendments made to the instant claims in the amendments filed July 21, 2026.
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 ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm ET.
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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights