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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 01, 2021 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to point out any particular references in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1, 10 and 18 held to claim an abstract idea, and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Claims 1, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “displaying an animation across multiple displays.”
The limitations of “providing a first electronic gaming device comprising a first curved display device; providing a second electronic gaming device comprising a second curved display device; and positioning the first electronic gaming device adjacent to the second electronic gaming device laterally, wherein the first curved display device and the second curved display device form a continuous curvature, and wherein at least one processor is configured to cause display of an animation on at least part of the first curved display device and the second curved display device” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “providing and positioning” in the context of this claim encompasses displaying an animation across multiple displays. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the ranking and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10, 13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shaffer, JR et al (US 2023/0360469 A1).
As per claim 1, Shaffer, JR et al disclose an electronic gaming system comprising: a first electronic gaming device comprising a first curved display device (see abstract, fig. 3, element 314); a second electronic gaming device comprising a second curved display device, (see abstract, fig. 3, element 316) wherein the first electronic gaming device is positioned adjacent to the second electronic gaming device laterally (see fig. 3, 314, 316), and wherein the first curved display device and the second curved display device form a continuous curvature (see fig. 3, 314, 316); and at least one processor configured to cause display of an animation on at least part of the first curved display device and the second curved display device ([0025], [0063]).
As per claim 6, Shaffer, JR et al disclose the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the first electronic gaming device and the second electronic gaming device have a shared base (see fig. 3).
As per claim 7, Shaffer, JR et al disclose the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the animation is associated with at least one of a theme of an electronic game, a progressive jackpot, an advertisement, or a promotion (inherent feature).
As per claim 8, Shaffer, JR et al disclose the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause display of the animation in response to receiving a message associated with the animation from a server (inherent feature).
As per claim 9, Shaffer, JR et al disclose the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, wherein the first electronic gaming device and the second electronic gaming device form a half-circle shape.
As per claim 10, Shaffer, JR et al disclose an electronic gaming device comprising: a base; a first curved display device coupled to the base (see abstract, fig. 3, element 314); a second curved display device coupled to the base (see abstract, fig. 3, element 316), wherein the first curved display device is positioned adjacent to the second curved display device laterally (see fig. 3, 314, 316), and wherein the first curved display device and the second curved display device form a continuous curvature (see fig. 3, 314, 316); and at least one processor configured to cause display of an animation on at least part of the first curved display device and the second curved display device ([0025], [0063]).
As per claim 13, Shaffer, JR et al disclose the electronic gaming device of Claim 10, further comprising: a first flat display device positioned adjacent to the first curved display device laterally; and a second flat display device positioned adjacent to the second curved display device laterally (see fig. 3, 314, 316).
As per claim 15, Shaffer, JR et al disclose the electronic gaming device of Claim 10, wherein the animation is associated with at least one of a theme of an electronic game, a progressive jackpot, an advertisement, or a promotion (inherent feature).
As per claim 16, Shaffer, JR et al disclose the electronic gaming device of Claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause display of the animation in response to receiving a message associated with the animation from a server (inherent feature).
As per claim 17, Shaffer, JR et al disclose the electronic gaming device of Claim 10, wherein the first curved display device and the second curved display device form a half-circle shape (see fig. 1).
As per claim 18, Shaffer, JR et al disclose a method of assembling an electronic gaming system comprising: providing a first electronic gaming device comprising a first curved display device (see abstract, fig. 3, element 314); providing a second electronic gaming device comprising a second curved display device (see abstract, fig. 3, element 316); and positioning the first electronic gaming device adjacent to the second electronic gaming device laterally (see fig. 3, 314, 316), wherein the first curved display device and the second curved display device form a continuous curvature (see fig. 3, 314, 316), and wherein at least one processor is configured to cause display of an animation on at least part of the first curved display device and the second curved display device ([0025], [0063]).
No references have been found for the following dependent claims.
As per claims 2 and 3, the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, further comprising: a third electronic gaming device comprising a third curved display device, wherein the third electronic gaming device is positioned adjacent to the first electronic gaming device laterally; and a fourth electronic gaming device comprising a fourth curved display device, wherein the fourth electronic gaming device is positioned adjacent to the second electronic gaming device laterally.
As per claim 4 and 5, the electronic gaming system of Claim 1, further comprising: a third electronic gaming device comprising a first flat display device, wherein the third electronic gaming device is positioned adjacent to the first electronic gaming device laterally; and a fourth electronic gaming device comprising a second flat display device, wherein the fourth electronic gaming device is positioned adjacent to the second electronic gaming device laterally.
As per claims 11 and 12, the electronic gaming device of Claim 10, further comprising: a third curved display device, wherein the third curved display device is positioned adjacent to the first curved display device laterally; and a fourth curved display device, wherein the fourth curved display device is positioned adjacent to the second curved display device laterally.
As per claim 14, the electronic gaming device of Claim 13, further comprising: a third curved display device positioned adjacent to the first flat display device laterally; and a fourth curved display device positioned adjacent to the second flat display device laterally.
As per claim 19, the method of Claim 18, further comprising: providing a third electronic gaming device comprising a third curved display device; positioning the third electronic gaming device adjacent to the first electronic gaming device laterally; providing a fourth electronic gaming device comprising a fourth curved display device; and positioning the fourth electronic gaming device adjacent to the second electronic gaming device laterally.
As per claim 20, the method of Claim 18, further comprising: providing a third electronic gaming device comprising a first flat display device; positioning the third electronic gaming device adjacent to the first electronic gaming device laterally; providing a fourth electronic gaming device comprising a second flat display device; positioning the fourth electronic gaming device adjacent to the second electronic gaming device laterally; providing a fifth electronic gaming device comprising a third curved display device; positioning the fifth electronic gaming device adjacent to the third electronic gaming device laterally; providing a sixth electronic gaming device comprising a fourth curved display device; and positioning the sixth electronic gaming device adjacent to the fourth electronic gaming device laterally.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See references cited on PTO form 892.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD LANEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-6784. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 6-4:30 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, David L Lewis can be reached on 5712727673. 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
275
275
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/Ronald Laneau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715