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 9/6/24 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. 11,551,505. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application substantially claim similar limitations as patent `505 with some exceptions.
The current application fails to claim a coupling tab pivotally connected to the main cabinet and comprising a first signal connector and a second signal connector defining a protrusion extending from a first end portion of the button deck enclosure in a first direction that is substantially parallel to the button surface of the button deck enclosure, the protrusion configured to be inserted into a recess defined by the first signal connector to electrically couple the one or more buttons to the game controller. It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to have modified the gaming device to include an additional signal connector and a coupling tab pivotally connected to the main cabinet to allow for more secure physical connectivity of the button deck to the gaming cabinet.
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 Haga et al. (US Patent 7,976,393; referred to hereinafter as Haga).
Claims 1, 8 & 15: Haga disclose a gaming device (figure 1) comprising, a main cabinet (figure 1), a first signal connector (figure 4, element 204), a first coupling mechanism (figure 4, elements 206 connects the panel to cabinet), electrical circuitry (figure 5), and a button deck coupled to the main cabinet and configured to receive inputs to the gaming device (figure 2), the button deck comprising, a button deck enclosure (figure 2, element 104), a second signal connector connected to the first signal connector to electrically couple the button deck to the electrical circuitry (figure 7, cols. 5-6: 30-11, disclose electrically couple the button deck to cabinet), and a second coupling mechanism, the second coupling mechanism engaged with the first coupling mechanism to mechanically couple the button deck to the gaming device (figure 5:15-11, disclose the secondary coupling mechanism on the cabinet to insert the coupling mechanism on button deck).
Claims 2 & 9-10: Haga disclose wherein the first signal connector and the second signal connector comprise a pair of mating connectors (figure 7, element 204 connecting the button deck to cabinet, wherein the insert connects to the receptors).
Claim 3: Haga disclose wherein the gaming device further comprises at least one alignment mechanism (figure 6).
Claim 4: Haga disclose wherein the button deck further comprises an additional at least one alignment mechanism operable to interact with the at least one alignment mechanism (col. 5: 51-10).
Claim 5-6: Haga disclose wherein the at least one alignment mechanism comprises a pair of alignment mechanisms positioned adjacent the second signal connector (figure 7, element 204).
Claim 7: Haga disclose further comprising a coupling tab pivotally connected to the main cabinet wherein the button deck is coupled to the coupling tab (col. 4: 26-68).
Claim 11: Haga disclose wherein a first of the at least one first coupling mechanism and the at least one second coupling mechanism is operable to be inserted into a second of the at least one first coupling mechanism and the at least one second coupling mechanism (figures 5-7).
Claim 12: Haga disclose wherein a first of the at least one first signal connector and the at least one second signal connector is operable to be inserted into a second of the at least one first signal connector and the at least one second signal connector (col. 5: 51-10).
Claim 13: Haga disclose the at least one first signal connector is positioned on a first side of the button deck enclosure and the at least one first coupling mechanism is positioned on a second side of the button deck enclosure (figure 6).
Claim 14: Haga disclose wherein the first side of the button deck is opposite the second side of the button deck (col. 4: 26-68).
Claims 16-17: Haga disclose the at least one first signal connector is positioned on a first side of an opening defined in the main cabinet; and the at least one first coupling mechanism is positioned on a second side of the opening defined in the main cabinet (figures 2-3) wherein the first side of the opening defined in the main cabinet is opposite the second side of the opening defined in the main cabinet (figures 1-3).
Claim 18: Haga disclose wherein the at least one first signal connector is oriented perpendicular to the at least one first coupling mechanism when the button deck is mechanically coupled to the gaming device (figure 4).
Claim 19: Haga disclose wherein an orientation of the at least one first signal connector with respect to the at least one first coupling mechanism is changeable (figure 4 disclose multiple changeable orientation).
Claim 20: Haga disclose wherein the at least one first signal connector is operable to pivot along a pivot axis (figures 3-4).
Examiner’s Note
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lamb (10,854,039) refers to gaming machine includes a base, a columnar pedestal extending vertically from the base, and a button deck adjustably coupled to the pedestal. The button deck includes an upper surface including a transparent touchscreen element, a lower surface opposite the upper surface, and a button deck body extending therebetween. At least one of the lower surface and the body include one or more transparent display elements, the one or more transparent display elements are configured to generate images of gaming machine control actuators viewable on the upper surface. The transparent touchscreen element is configured to receive touches and gestures indicating control inputs. The gaming machine also includes a player tracking card reader positioned within the button deck and accessible through a slot in a front edge of the button deck, the player tracking card reader communicatively coupled to a player tracking display area of the gaming machine.
Barbour (20190096161) refers to baming machines which include a slide-out player interface button deck including a video display and a glass insulator provided with a capacitive touch screen layer overlying the video display. A cast flange surrounds at least a portion of the button deck and is slidably attached and interlocked with the button deck via mating projections and openings. First and second drawer slide assemblies are coupled to the flange and a manually operable push-to release latch mechanism locks and unlocks the slide-out player interface for movement between a retracted position and an extending position relative to a gaming support structure.
Tastad (7,955,176) refers to gaming machine comprises a display, a cabinet, a front door, and a slide-in button panel. The display depicts a randomly selected game outcome. The cabinet houses the display. The front door is hinged to the cabinet and includes a frame. The slide-in button panel is mounted by sliding it into the frame and supports a plurality of physical buttons for operating the gaming machine. The button panel is easily removed from the frame for maintenance or replacement purposes.
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