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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“gameplay platform module” in claims 1-2, 6, 11, 13, 16, and 18; and
“multi-game lobby module” in claims 1-2, 6, 11, 13, 16, and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification provides sufficient information to understand that systems similar to the claimed invention are required to meet regulatory requirements and that various hardware and software architectures are emplaced to satisfy regulatory requirements; however, it is unclear how the claimed invention discerns between when new regulatory approval is required, the communication channels utilized by the claimed invention to identify regulatory changes by the various regulatory authorities, and the structural impact of these features.
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 limitations “gameplay platform module” and “multi-game lobby module”, as recited in claims 1-2, 6, 11, 13, 16, and 18 and claims 1-2, 6, 11, 13, 16, and 18, respectively, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Furthermore, claims 1-20 are 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 term “common” in claims 1, 7, 11, and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “common” 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, the term “common” is subject and results in the set of multi-game lobby configurations being indefinite.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1, 11, and 16.
The term “first jurisdiction” in claims 3, 12, and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “first jurisdiction” 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 what regulatory body must be referenced and the structural impact made on the claimed invention by this limitation.
Furthermore, the term “first jurisdiction” depends on various third parties, such as different levels of government and the different bodies within each of the different levels of government, that may evolve over a period of time, which fails to delineate the metes and bounds of the claimed invention to a sufficient degree as required under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
The term “responsible gaming information” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “responsible gaming information” 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 the claimed invention identifies “responsible gaming information” from other forms of gaming information.
The term “regulatory approval” in claims 10, 15, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “regulatory approval” 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, the requirement of “regulatory approval” (or the lack of obtaining new regulatory approval) and the standard for completion is highly discretionary, allowing for individual interpretation to determine fulfillment; therefore, the claims are indefinite.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 recite the limitation "the multi-game lobby" in line 11, line 8, and line 9, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the claims introduce “multi-game lobby configurations”, “multi-game lobby module”, “multi-game lobbies”, and a “first multi-game lobby”. It is unclear which of the “multi-game lobby” recitations is decoupled from the gameplay platform module.
For the purposes of examination, based on the [0106] of the Specification of the Instant Application, which recites, “The decoupled nature of the multi-game lobby module and gameplay platform modules described herein…”, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended to recite “wherein the multi-game lobby module is decoupled from the gameplay platform module;” within claims 1, 11, and 16.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1, 11, and 16, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LeMay [US20080096656A1].
Regarding claim 1, 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 module (LeMay’s “Gaming Operating System (OS) 50”.), wherein the gameplay platform module defines:
(a) a set of common multi-game lobby configurations that multi-game lobbies executing on the system must implement (LeMay, [0114], “Each game 60 installed on the gaming machine is configured to support a standard game flow interface 334, presentation interface 344, a bank interface 336 and configuration interface 338.”); and
(b) a set of custom lobby configurations that multi-game lobbies executing on the system may change dynamically during execution (LeMay, [0135], “A shared object is a logical unit that may perform a number of functions and may be shared by a number of other logic units in the gaming system software 201 and may be loaded and unloaded from memory in a dynamic manner.”);
executing a multi-game lobby module (LeMay’s “gaming presentation software module 54” and “game flow software module 56”.),
wherein the multi-game lobby module is decoupled from the gameplay platform module (LeMay, [0063], “…the gaming presentation software module 54 and the game flow software module 56 may be integrated as a single game software module 60 that is decoupled from the gaming OS 50 and communicates with the gaming OS 50 and the gaming machine resources 52 via one or more APIs.”); and
implementing at least one custom lobby configuration change for a first multi-game lobby executing on the system (See claims 3-5 for citations from the prior art as claims 3-5 provide specification types of custom lobby configuration changes.).
Regarding claim 2, LeMay discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the multi-game lobby module is configured to
utilize an application programming interface (API) to perform inter-process communications with the gameplay platform module (LeMay, [0063], “…the gaming presentation software module 54 and the game flow software module 56 may be integrated as a single game software module 60 that is decoupled from the gaming OS 50 and communicates with the gaming OS 50 and the gaming machine resources 52 via one or more APIs.”).
Regarding claim 3, LeMay discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one custom lobby configuration change comprises
a change based on a requirement of a first jurisdiction (LeMay, [0137], “the bet information files, such as the betting shared objects, may be used to explain the betting relationships and requirements for each gaming jurisdiction so that a bet manager process 223 in the game OS 50 can handle the betting.”).
Regarding claim 4, LeMay 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 (LeMay, [0109], “At initialization, the game manager 203 stores information for each game listed in the game list registry file.”).
Regarding claim 5, LeMay 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 (LeMay, [0102], “When the installation of games on the gaming machine is changed, the game list registry file is also changed. When the game OS 50 detects a change in the game list registry file, the non-volatile memory on the gaming machine may be cleared.”).
Regarding claim 6, LeMay discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one custom lobby configuration change is implemented without taking the gameplay platform module or the multi-game lobby module offline (LeMay, [0135], “A shared object is a logical unit that may perform a number of functions and may be shared by a number of other logic units in the gaming system software 201 and may be loaded and unloaded from memory in a dynamic manner.” and LeMay, [0136], “As an example, a betting shared object may evaluate betting rules. These shared objects will most likely be re-used frequently for games in a jurisdiction.”).
Regarding claim 7, LeMay discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein at least one configuration of the set of common multi-game lobby configurations relates to responsible gaming information for multi-game lobbies executing on the system (LeMay, [0137], “the bet information files, such as the betting shared objects, may be used to explain the betting relationships and requirements for each gaming jurisdiction so that a bet manager process 223 in the game OS 50 can handle the betting.”).
Regarding claim 8, LeMay 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 (LeMay, [0058], “After receiving the information indicating the credit has been deposited, the game presentation software module 54 may update a meter display on the display screen to reflect the additional credit.”).
Regarding claim 9, LeMay 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 (LeMay, [0132], “The win manager 224 may also determine the types of the wins (credit, non-cashable coupons, etc.) and whether there is a progressive win and the amount of that win.”).
Regarding claim 10, LeMay 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 (LeMay, [0229], “Various gaming software modules used to play different types of games of chance may be stored on the hard drive 226. Each game may be stored in its own directory to facilitate installing new games (and removing older ones) in the field.”),
wherein adding the at least one new game is performed without obtaining a new regulatory approval for the at least one new game (LeMay, [0067], “Previously approved gaming software that may be used in conjunction with new or modified gaming software module to present a game of chance, such as a previously approved game flow software module or a previously approved gaming OS software module, may not have to be resubmitted for approval.”).
Regarding claims 11-20, the claims share similar limitations to claims 1-6, 8 and 10. For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claims 1-6, 8 and 10 above.
Conclusion
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