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 . This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 6/9/26. Claims 1, 16, and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 19 recites a method comprising: determining, by a processor circuit, an expected downtime period for a first gaming device controller in communication with a plurality of gaming devices. The limitation of determining, by a processor circuit, a downtime period for a first gaming device controller in communication with a plurality of gaming devices, 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 processor circuit, and gaming device nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor circuit, and gaming device” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally not playing a game for a period of time. Similarly, the limitations of: provisioning and causing are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. 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. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites a couple additional elements – processor circuit, and gaming device. The processor circuit, and gaming device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do 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 elements of using processor circuit, and gaming device 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. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 1-18 and 20.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2018/0089954 A1 to Carpenter et al. (hereinafter “Carpenter”)
in view of US Patent No. 6,968,242 B1 to Hwu et al. (hereinafter “Hwu”).
Concerning claim 1, Carpenter discloses a system comprising: a processor circuit; and a memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit (paragraph [0068]), cause the processor circuit to:
a downtime period for a first gaming device controller in communication with a plurality of gaming devices (paragraphs [0068], [0071] –primary controller becomes unavailable),
determine a first controller configuration of the first gaming device controller for providing a controller service to the plurality of gaming devices (paragraphs [0068], [0071] – when primary controller becomes unavailable, a backup primary controller takes over);
before the downtime period, provision a second gaming device controller with a second controller configuration corresponding to the first controller configuration for providing the service to the plurality of gaming devices (paragraphs [0068], [0071] – the backup primary controller takes over and acts like the primary controller); and
cause the second gaming device controller to provide the service to the plurality of gaming devices during the downtime period for the first gaming device controller (paragraphs [0068], [0071] – the backup controller provides service to the gaming devices).
Carpenter lacks specifically disclosing, however, Hwu discloses determine an expected downtime period for a first device controller in communication with a plurality of devices, wherein the downtime period is determined based on a predictive event for the first gaming device (column 3, line 49-column 4, line 45; column 5, line 45-column 6, line 55; column 7, lines 20-53 – the primary controller can exit the primary state based on a hardware failure or a self-check failure and provide a downtime period based on a failure determined and/or based on the software being updated (i.e., expected downtime period)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining a downtime period for a controller as disclosed by Hwu in the system of Carpenter in order to provide updates to the system without going offline.
Concerning claims 2, 17 and 20, Carpenter discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to cause the first gaming device controller to stop provision of the service to the plurality of gaming devices (paragraphs [0068], [0071] – first gaming device controller stops provision of service).
Concerning claims 3 and 18, Carpenter discloses a gaming controller and gaming devices (paragraphs [0068], [0071]) however, lacks specifically disclosing, and Hwu discloses wherein instructions further cause the processor circuit to: determine that the downtime period for the first device controller has ended; and cause the first device controller to resume provision of the service to the plurality of devices (column 3, line 49-column 4, line 45; column 5, line 45-column 6, line 55; column 7, lines 20-53 – the primary controller can resume activity when the updates and/or fixes have been made). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining a downtime period for a controller as disclosed by Hwu in the system of Carpenter in order to provide updates to the system without going offline.
Concerning claim 4, Carpenter discloses wherein causing the first gaming device controller to stop provision of the service to the plurality of gaming devices occurs before causing the second gaming device controller to provide the service to the plurality of gaming devices (paragraphs [0068], [0071] – when primary controller becomes unavailable, a backup primary controller takes over).
Concerning claim 5, Carpenter discloses wherein causing the first gaming device controller to stop provision of the service to the plurality of gaming devices occurs after causing the second gaming device controller to provide the service to the plurality of gaming devices (paragraphs [0068], [0071] – when primary controller becomes unavailable, a backup primary controller takes over).
Concerning claim 6, Carpenter discloses a gaming controller and gaming devices (paragraphs [0068], [0071]) however, lacks specifically disclosing, and Hwu discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor circuit to cause the second gaming device controller to stop provision of the service to the plurality of gaming devices (column 3, line 49-column 4, line 45; column 5, line 45-column 6, line 55; column 7, lines 20-53 – the primary controller can resume activity when the updates and/or fixes have been made). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining a downtime period for a controller as disclosed by Hwu in the system of Carpenter in order to provide updates to the system without going offline.
Concerning claim 7, Carpenter discloses wherein the first gaming device controller is a first bank controller, wherein the plurality of gaming devices are a plurality of Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs) proximate to the first bank controller, and wherein the second gaming device controller is a second bank controller (paragraphs [0068], [0071] – when primary controller is a first bank controller for a plurality of EGMs).
Concerning claim 8, Carpenter discloses wherein the service comprises a progressive wagering game service for provision of a progressive wagering game at the plurality of gaming devices (paragraphs [0068], [0071] – game may be progressive wagering game).
Concerning claim 9, Carpenter discloses wherein provisioning the second gaming device controller with the second controller configuration further comprises transferring a liability from the first gaming device controller to the second gaming device controller (paragraphs [0068], [0071] – if system stops working, the game controller is transferred to the backup).
Concerning claim 10, Carpenter discloses wherein the first gaming device controller is a first Ticket-In/Ticket-Out (TITO) controller, wherein the plurality of gaming devices are a plurality of Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs) proximate to the first TITO controller, and wherein the second gaming device controller is a second TITO controller (paragraphs [0068], [0071] – slot machine is a TITO) .
Concerning claim 11, Carpenter discloses wherein the second gaming device controller comprises a first gaming device of the plurality of gaming devices (paragraphs [0068], [0071] – back up controller takes over for the primary).
Concerning claim 12, Carpenter discloses wherein second gaming device controller is in communication with a second plurality of gaming devices to provide the service to the second plurality of gaming devices (paragraphs [0068], [0071] – backup controller is in communication with a second plurality of devices).
Concerning claim 13, Carpenter discloses a gaming controller and gaming devices (paragraphs [0068], [0071]) however, lacks specifically disclosing, and Hwu discloses wherein the determination of the downtime period for the first gaming device controller is based on a scheduled downtime period for the first gaming device controller (column 3, line 49-column 4, line 45; column 5, line 45-column 6, line 55; column 7, lines 20-53 – the primary controller can resume activity when the updates and/or fixes have been made). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining a downtime period for a controller as disclosed by Hwu in the system of Carpenter in order to provide updates to the system without going offline.
Concerning claim 14, Carpenter discloses wherein the determination of the downtime period for the first gaming device controller is based on detection of a security breach at the first gaming device controller (paragraphs [0068], [0071] – when controller stops working, backup controller takes over).
Concerning claim 15, Carpenter discloses a gaming controller and gaming devices (paragraphs [0068], [0071]) however, lacks specifically disclosing and Hwu discloses wherein the determination of the downtime period for the first gaming device controller is based on an operator interaction with the first gaming device controller (column 3, line 49-column 4, line 45; column 5, line 45-column 6, line 55; column 7, lines 20-53 – the primary controller can resume activity when the updates and/or fixes have been made). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining a downtime period for a controller as disclosed by Hwu in the system of Carpenter in order to provide updates to the system without going offline.
Concerning claims 16 and 19, see the rejection of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection. 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. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. 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 elements of using processor circuit, and gaming device 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim amendments have been addressed in the Office Action above with additional remarks addressing the new amendments.
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 MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights