Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/671,836

ELECTRONIC GAMING MACHINE WITH DISPLAY HAVING COMPONENT PASSTHROUGH

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
May 22, 2024
Examiner
PANDYA, SUNIT
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Aristocrat Technologies, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
616 granted / 941 resolved
-4.5% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
969
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
§103
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
§102
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 941 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
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 . Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/21/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,027,010. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application substantially claims same limitations as the patent, with one exception. The current application fails to claim a wager acceptor that converts the wager to credit balance used to play a game. It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to modify the gaming device currently claimed to include a wager acceptor to allow players an opportunity to earn awards/rewards when participating in the game. 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crowder Jr. et al. (US Patent 8,272,957; referred to hereinafter as Crowder). Claims 1, 2, 8 & 16: Crowder disclose an electronic gaming machine (figure 1), comprising: a housing (figure 1), a processor (figure 2), a display coupled to the housing and operative to display a game played by a player (figures 1-3), a component passthrough defined as at least one of a recess in an edge of the display or an aperture within an area of the display (col. 10: 37-61, disclose an aperture within the display to allow portion of the information to protrude through the opening), and an electronic component at least partially disposed within the housing (cols. 10-11: 62-22, game reels), configured to communicate with an external environment of the electronic gaming machine through the component passthrough (col. 11: 33-50, game reels being displayed). Claim 3: Crowder disclose wherein the display is curved (figure 1 & abstract). Claims 4 & 9: Crowder disclose wherein the electronic component is a wager acceptance mechanism (figure 1). Claims 5 & 6: Crowder disclose wherein the component passthrough is filled with an opaque material (col. 10: 37-61, LCD). Claim 10: Crowder disclose wherein the gaming component protrudes through the component passthrough (col. 10: 37-61). Claim 11: Crowder disclose wherein the gaming component protrudes through the component passthrough (col. 6: 5-40). Claim 12: Crowder disclose wherein the material is transparent to sound or electromagnetic waves (touchscreen). Claim 13: Crowder disclose the component passthrough extends through a display layer of the display and a cover layer of the display (col. 10: 37-61), and the gaming component extends at least partially through the display layer of the display and the cover layer of the display (figures 3-6). Claim 14: Crowder disclose wherein a player is able to physically interact with the gaming component (figure 1, buttons). Claim 15: Crowder disclose the component passthrough extends through a display layer of the display and a cover layer of the display (col. 10: 37-61) and the gaming component extends through the display layer of the display but not the cover layer of the display (figures 3-6, disclose gaming component extends through the display layer only). Claim 17: Crowder disclose at least a second part of the gaming component is not concealed from view by the display (figure 1, element 24). Claim 18: Crowder disclose wherein a player is able to physically interact with the second part of the gaming component (col. 5: 28-39). Claim 19: Crowder disclose wherein the second part of the gaming component is an input of the gaming component (col. 13: 66-13). Claim 20: Crowder disclose wherein the component passthrough is stepped in cross-section (col. 10: 37-61). Examiner’s Note The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kelly (20120220360) refers to a gaming machines projecting video images onto a curved display are disclosed herein. A display manager receives one or more video signals from a controller and one or more video signals from the system device and displays one or multiple video signals on the curved display. The display manager sends the multiple video signals to a projector which projects the multiple video signals on the curved display. The curved display may be split between multiple signals, or one or more signals may overlay one or more background signals. The overlaid signals may completely obscure the background signals, or they may provide a level of transparency by allowing the background signal to be partially or completely visible. The display manager the video signals regarding how to split, overlay, superimpose, and otherwise share the display among the video input signals. Lee (9,101,826) refers to a display device for a slot machine. The display device for a slot machine includes: a front display part outputting a first image and a rear display part disposed at a rear side of the front display part to output a second image. The second image of the rear display part can be viewed through a predetermined area of the front display part, the front display part includes: a liquid crystal panel, a light guide plate, disposed at a rear side of the liquid crystal panel, the light guide plate having a viewing window at a position corresponding to the predetermined area so that the second image of the rear display part is transmitted, and a light source is disposed around the light guide plate to provide backlight to the liquid crystal panel. Castro (20180075689) refers to usually uniform multi-level, multi-sectioned deck for a gaming machine player interface is disclosed. Sections of the interface are configured with modular panel assemblies having corresponding sets of electronic components. The panel assemblies may be exchanged to customize and flexibly configure the player interface. The deck includes partitions housing individual modular panel assemblies engaged via mated fastener components, shielding visibility of the installed electronic components from the player position until activated. A plurality of the modular panel assemblies, each having distinct and functional sets of electronic components, are available for engagement in each of the partitions of the deck. The assembled deck comprising a plurality of interchangeable modular panel assemblies, each having distinct and functional sets of electronic components, provides a configurable player interface having spatially segregated and demarked functional areas that appear uniform from the player position until activated. The referenced citations made in the rejection(s) above are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art document(s) in which the examiner believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate examiner's rationale of record. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed ...." In re Fulton, 391F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIT PANDYA whose telephone number is (571)272-2823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30PM. 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. /SUNIT PANDYA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 22, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603015
ENHANCED CLASSROOM APPLICATIONS, METHODS, AND SYSTEMS USING SENSOR RELAYS INCLUDING SOLAR AND VIRTUAL EMBODIMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601571
ELECTRONIC SHOOTING TRAINING TARGET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597312
ELECTRONIC GAMING MACHINE DISPLAY UNIT WITH AN INTEGRATED SPEAKER TRANSDUCER FOR FORMING A DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CONE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597068
Systems and Methods for Geolocation Portfolio Exchanges
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597063
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR UTILIZING TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY UNITS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+28.2%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 941 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month