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 .
Applicant’s amendments dated 8/5/26 are hereby entered.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-18 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being.
In regard to Claims 1 and 7, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] gaming [method] comprising:
[…]
[…] split[ting] a first […] signal [from one location] and transmit[ting] a version of the first […] signal to a plurality of [other locations]; and
[in each of the other locations] mix[ing] the version of the first […] signal with a second […] signal produced [at each of the other locations], and [outputting the resulting] mixed signal […]. [and]
[a] gaming [method] comprising:
[…]
[…] convert[ing] a first […] signal to a [second] version of the first […] signal and […] transmit[ting] the [second] version of the first […] signal to a plurality of [locations]; and
in each [of the plurality of locations,] receiv[ing] the [second] version of the first […] signal and mix[ing] the [second] version of the first […] signal with a second […] signal produced [at the location,] and [transmitting] a resulting mixed signal […], wherein [at each location] receiv[ing] the [second] version of the first […] signal […], mix[ing] the first and second […] signals, and […] conver[ting the resulting signal takes place].
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., a group of gaming machines each including a controller, a display system coupled to the controller, a player interface system coupled to the controller, and an audio system coupled to the controller and including a plurality of audio speakers driven with audio amplifier circuitry coupled to the plurality of audio speakers for playing game audio events; a tournament controller coupled to the plurality of gaming machines over a network; and a group public address system comprising a microphone, a microphone amplifier coupled to the microphone, and an audio signal distribution module operable; in each gaming machine audio system, a mixer operable to receive audio mix it with another audio signal, and feed a resulting mixed signal to the audio amplifier circuitry; a splitter; an external audio connector; a volume level setting; A/D and D/A convertors, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., a group of gaming machines each including a controller, a display system coupled to the controller, a player interface system coupled to the controller, and an audio system coupled to the controller and including a plurality of audio speakers driven with audio amplifier circuitry coupled to the plurality of audio speakers for playing game audio events; a tournament controller coupled to the plurality of gaming machines over a network; and a group public address system comprising a microphone, a microphone amplifier coupled to the microphone, and an audio signal distribution module operable; in each gaming machine audio system, a mixer operable to receive audio mix it with another audio signal, and feed a resulting mixed signal to the audio amplifier circuitry; a splitter; an external audio connector; a volume level setting; A/D and D/A convertors, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F3, F5-F6 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PATENT US 5259613 A to Marnell, II (“Marnell”), in view of PGPUB US 20130109469 A1 by Hill (“Hill”).
In regard to Claim 1, Marnell teaches a system for a group of gaming machines comprising:
a microphone amplifier for coupling to a microphone and producing a first audio signal;
(see, e.g., F4, 168);
a splitter to split the first audio signal and transmit a version of the first audio signal to a plurality of gaming machine audio systems; and
(see, e.g., F6, 169);
[…]
Furthermore, to the extent that Marnell may fail to teach the remaining claimed limitations, however, in an analogous reference Hill teaches at, e.g., p67-68 each gaming machine receiving a first audio signal and employing an analog/digital mixer to mix the first signal with a second signal and provide the resulting output to an amplifier that drives a speaker;
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the mixer and amplifier technology taught by Hill to each of the gaming machines otherwise taught by Marnell, and to make it easier for players to hear announcements while also listening to game audio.
In regard to Claim 2, see rejection of Claim 1 and Marnell at, e.g., F6, 169 (“respective cables”).
In regard to Claim 3, Marnell teaches an external audio input (see, e.g., F1, 142).
In regard to Claim 4, Marnell teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F4, 168.
In regard to Claim 6, Hill teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p61 and 67-68.
In regard to Claims 15-16, Marnell teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F1, 50.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marnell, in view of Hill, further in view of PGPUB US 20210319646 A1 by Tang (“Tang”).
In regard to Claim 5, Tang teaches these claimed features (see, e.g., F7);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the teaching of Tang to the system taught by the otherwise prior art, in order to adjust the volume level of the PA audio to the user-desired level.
Claims 7-11, 13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marnell, in view of Hill, in view of admitted prior art.
In regard to Claim 7, Marnell teaches a gaming machine system comprising:
a plurality of gaming machines each including a controller, a display system coupled to the controller, a player interface system coupled to the controller, and an audio system coupled to the controller and including a plurality of audio speakers […] for playing game audio events;
(see, e.g., F1, 120; F2 and F6 (“audio amplifier circuitry”));
[…];
a group public address system comprising a microphone, a microphone amplifier coupled to the microphone, and an audio signal distribution module […] to [receive] a first audio signal from the microphone and [transmit] the first audio signal […] to a plurality of gaming machine audio systems of the plurality of gaming machines; and
(see, e.g., F1, 168 (“microphone”); F6, 174 (“amplifier”); and F6, 169 (“distribution module”);
[…]
Furthermore, to the extent that Marnell may fail to teach the remaining claimed limitations, however, in an analogous reference Hill teaches those features (see, e.g., p61-62 regarding employing servers (“tournament server”) to provide data to gaming machines over a network; as well as Hill teaches at, e.g., p67-68 each gaming machine receiving a first audio signal and employing an analog/digital mixer and amplifier to mix the first signal with a second signal and provide the resulting output to an amplifier;
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the client/server and networking technology taught by Hill to the gaming system taught by Marnell, in order to increase security and reliability by using a centralized server to provide certain data over a network; as well added the mixer and amplifier technology taught by Hill to each of the gaming machines otherwise taught by Marnell, and to make it easier for players to hear announcements while also listening to game audio.
Furthermore, to the extent that the otherwise cited prior art may fail to teach the claimed limitations of
the audio signal distribution module comprises an analog-to-digital converter feeding a network interface coupled to the network on which the group of gaming machines is connected;
however, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that such technology was old and well-known at the time of Applicant’s filing its invention. Such functionality allows for analog audio to be transmitted over a digital network. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added the claimed functionality within the invention of the cited prior art so as to allow analog public address audio to be transmitted over a networked digital system of gaming machines;
Furthermore, the Applicant failed to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of official notice in a prior Office action and, therefore, these claimed limitations are now admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
In regard to Claim 8, see rejection of Claim 7.
In regard to Claim 9, Marnell teaches an external audio input (see, e.g., F1, 142).
In regard to Claims 10-11, see rejection of Claim 7.
In regard to Claim 13, Hill teaches this feature. See, e.g., p68.
In regard to Claim 17, see rejection of Claim 7.
In regard to Claim 18, Hill teaches employing a user interface to allow for setting various media settings (see, e.g., F11, 200);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added a user interface as taught by Hill to the system taught by the otherwise cited prior art, in order to allow easier configuration of the public address system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marnell, in view of Hill, further in view of admitted prior art, further in view of Tang.
In regard to Claim 12, Tang teaches these claimed features (see, e.g., F7 and p68);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the teaching of Tang to the system taught by the otherwise prior art, in order to adjust the volume level of the PA audio to the user-desired level.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 8 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image1.png
566
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s argument is replete with limitations (“microphone”, “splitter”, “mixer”, “gaming machine,” “power amplifier circuit”, etc.) that are not, in fact, alleged in the 101 as being part of the abstract idea that can be performed as a mental process. What is more, claims directed to collecting data (e.g., signal data), analyzing that data (e.g., duplicating/splitting signal data, combining/mixing signal data), and providing an output based on that analysis (e.g., transmitting the resulting duplicated/combined signal data, employing the resulting duplicated/combined signal data to provide an output) has been repeatedly held by the CAFC to be abstract as a mental process in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential).
Applicant further argues on pages 8-9 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image2.png
208
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
84
604
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Embodying a computer program to manipulate data by transforming electric signals from one state to another does not pass the “machine or transformation test”, because that is the way that every computer program functions. See from the CAFC’s opinion in, e.g., Ultramercial in this regard:
PNG
media_image4.png
96
472
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
118
464
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Id., slip. op., pages 12-13.
Applicant argues on page 10 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 103:
PNG
media_image6.png
264
624
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive as Marnell specifically teaches (at, e.g., column 9) that the intercom master station may be used to send the same audio content to all of the gaming machines simultaneously:
PNG
media_image7.png
244
288
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 103:
PNG
media_image8.png
242
642
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
184
620
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Applicant includes numerous limitations here which were not, in fact, referenced as being part of the original taking of official notice, which was solely in regard to employing an A/D convertor to then transmit signals over a digital system. The remaining claimed limitations are stated in the rejection as, instead, being taught by other prior art references.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, 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 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.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.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights