Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
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.
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. It is unclear what the limitation “any data that is wirelessly communicated with the mobile device occurs independent of any content being displayed by any display device” means. Communication between two devices usually involves a confirmation for communication. How do the devices communicate without such confirmation, which usually is displayed to the user/player for the confirmation. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the limitation to be the data is wirelessly communicated through a communication protocol such as NFC, Bluetooth or Wi-Fi as expressed in [0174] of the instant application. Clarification is required in the next response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-12, 16-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Muir (US 2007/0021198 A1).
1. Muir discloses a device comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Fig. 5-7):
receive data associated with a cashless wagering account maintained by a gaming establishment cashless system and accessible via a digital wallet associated with a mobile device (i.e. the gaming machine receives data associated with cashless wagering account (e.g. player account) with the casino, wherein the cell phone acts as a digital wallet because it sends an instruction message to a server controlling the account to perform fund transfer to the gaming machine), [0034], [0162], wherein:
the mobile device (605: Fig. 6) is distinct from the processor (610: Fig. 6), the cashless wagering account is maintained independent of the mobile device and independent of the digital wallet (i.e. the player account is maintained by the casino server which is independent of the mobile device and independent of the digital wallet), and any data that is wirelessly communicated with the mobile device occurs independent of any content being displayed by any display device (i.e. data are wirelessly communicated via wireless protocol such as Bluetooth or Wi-Fi), [0036], [0134], [0144] , and
responsive to a requested amount of funds being approved for a transfer from the cashless wagering account, communicate data that results in an increase of a credit balance of an electronic gaming machine, wherein the increase of the credit balance is based on the requested amount of funds, a balance of the cashless wagering account is reduced based on the requested amount of funds, the amount of funds is determined in association with the digital wallet, and the transfer of the requested amount of funds from the cashless wagering account occurs separate from the mobile device, separate from the digital wallet and separate from any bank accounts (i.e. it is common practice in the wagering game field for funds to be approved before its transferred to the gaming machine and the player’s account is reduced to reflect the transfer amount. Muir discloses “the funds or credits can be transferred from the financial account (e.g. player account with the casino) to the gaming machine through an intermediary device such as a central server”. This is equivalent to the transfer of the requested amount of funds from the cashless wagering account occurs separate from the mobile device, separate from the digital wallet and separate from any bank accounts), [0034], [0162].
2. Muir discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein the cashless wagering account is funded via at least one of: a transfer of funds from a bank account, a transfer of funds from a credit card account, a transfer of funds associated with a redemption of a cashless ticket voucher, and a deposit of physical currency (i.e. it is common practice for a player account with the casino to be funded via such mediums), [0034].
3. Muir discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein the received data is associated with player identification data accessed via the digital wallet (i.e. player account with the casino is accessed via the digital wallet of the cell phone), [0034], [0162].
4. Muir discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a receipt of data associated with a request to cashout the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine to the cashless wagering account, cause the processor to cause a transmission of data associated with an amount of the credit balance, the transmission of data results in an increase of the cashless wagering account based on the amount of the credit balance (i.e. the player can cash out at the machine or request transfer of credits back to the player's account), [0186].
8. Muir discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein the processor comprises one of: a processor of a bill validator supported by a housing of the electronic gaming machine, a processor of a printer supported by the housing of the electronic gaming machine, and a processor of a player tracking unit supported by the housing of the electronic gaming machine (Fig. 2), [0052], [0056].
9-12. Muir discloses an electronic gaming machine comprising: a display device supported by a cabinet; a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive data associated with a cashless wagering account maintained by a gaming establishment cashless system and accessible via a digital wallet associated with a mobile device, wherein: the mobile device is distinct from the processor, the cashless wagering account is maintained independent of the mobile device, the cashless wagering account is maintained independent of the digital wallet, and any data that is wirelessly communicated with the mobile device occurs independent of any content being displayed by the display device, and responsive to a requested amount of funds from the cashless wagering account being approved for a transfer: cause an increase of a credit balance of the electronic gaming machine based on the requested amount of funds, wherein a balance of the cashless wagering account is reduced based on the requested amount of funds, the transfer of the requested amount of funds from the cashless wagering account occurs separate from the mobile device, separate from the digital wallet, and separate from any bank accounts and the requested amount of funds is determined in association with the digital wallet, and cause the display device to display the credit balance as similarly discussed above.
16-18. Muir discloses a method of operating a device, the method comprising: receiving data associated with a cashless wagering account maintained by a gaming establishment cashless system and accessible via a digital wallet associated with a mobile device, wherein: the mobile device is distinct from a processor of the device, the cashless wagering account is maintained independent of the mobile device, the cashless wagering account is maintained independent of the digital wallet, and any data wirelessly communicated with the mobile device occurs independent of any content being displayed by any display device, and responsive to a requested amount of funds being approved for a transfer from the cashless wagering account, communicating data that results in an increase of a credit balance of an electronic gaming machine, wherein the increase of the credit balance is based on the requested amount of funds, a balance of the cashless wagering account is reduced based on the requested amount of funds, the amount of funds is determined in association with the digital wallet, and the transfer of the requested amount of funds from the cashless wagering account occurs separate from the mobile device, separate from the digital wallet, and separate from any bank accounts as similarly discussed above.
Claim(s) 5-7, 13-15, 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Muir (US 2007/0021198 A1) as applied above and further in view of Nguyen (US 2005/0020354).
5, 13, 19. Muir discloses the invention above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a receipt of data associated with a request to cashout the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine, cause the processor to cause an issuance of a virtual ticket voucher associated with an amount of the credit balance. Nguyen discloses responsive to a receipt of data associated with a request to cashout the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine, cause the processor to cause an issuance of a virtual ticket voucher associated with an amount of the credit balance [0079]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Muir with Nguyen and would have been motivated to do so for easier storage.
6, 14, 20. Muir and Nguyen discloses the invention above, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause data associated with the virtual ticket voucher to be communicated to the mobile device, Nguyen [0079].
7, 15. Muir and Nguyen discloses the invention above, wherein the memory device stores data associated with the virtual ticket voucher independent of the electronic gaming machine and independent of the mobile device (i.e. the virtual ticket can be emailed to the user), Nguyen [0079].
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. 11,403,913 B2 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,687 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they all are claiming similar invention relating to at least a device comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive data associated with a cashless wagering account maintained by a gaming establishment cashless system and accessible via a digital wallet associated with a mobile device, wherein: the mobile device is distinct from the processor, the cashless wagering account is maintained independent of the mobile device, the cashless wagering account is maintained independent of the digital wallet, and any data that is wirelessly communicated with the mobile device occurs independent of any content being displayed by any display device, and responsive to a requested amount of funds being approved for a transfer from the cashless wagering account, communicate data that results in an increase of a credit balance of an electronic gaming machine, wherein the increase of the credit balance is based on the requested amount of funds, a balance of the cashless wagering account is reduced based on the requested amount of funds, the amount of funds is determined in association with the digital wallet, and the transfer of the requested amount of funds from the cashless wagering account occurs separate from the mobile device, separate from the digital wallet and separate from any bank accounts.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached USPTO form PTO-892.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights