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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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, 8-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11900765 and claims 1, 9-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,260,702. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct as shown in the claim cart below.
Claim of the instant application
Claim 1 of the ‘765 Patent
Claim 1 of the ‘702 Patent
Similarities and Differences
1. A slot machine interface board comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
1. A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor after a determination, based at least in part on a usage of the processor, to allocate at least a portion of control of a display device to a hypertext markup language content server, cause the processor to:
A slot machine interface board comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
The claim of the instant application are directed to an electronic gaming machine comprising a slot machine interface board comprising a processor and memory which is recited in both the ‘765 Patent and the ‘702 Patent.
The differences between the instant claims and the ‘765 Patent are that they are directed to a system which is analogous to the claimed slot machine interface board and electronic game machine in the instant claims because they both analogous electronic gaming systems.
responsive to a determination of a severed connection status with a mobile device, following a determination, based at least in part on a usage of a processor of an electronic gaming machine, to allocate at least partial control of a display device supported by a cabinet of the electronic gaming machine to a server operating independent of the processor of the electronic gaming machine, and in association with an inability of the mobile device to output information regarding a severance of an established wireless connection with the mobile device,
responsive to a determination of a first wireless connection status between the processor and a mobile device executing an application unable to output information regarding a failure or a severance of a first wireless connection,
responsive to a determination of a first wireless connection status with a mobile device and in association with an inability of the mobile device to output information regarding a failure or a severance of a first wireless connection,
The claims of the instant application and the ‘765 and ‘702 Patents each recite a determination of a failure or severance condition of a wireless connection of the electronic game system.
Differences – the instant claims recite a broader embodiment of the content server and a cabinet of the electronic gaming system. However, a housing and reciting the particular type condition (e.g., failure or severance) as opposed to either is an obvious variant as if one had the ability to detect both a failure or severance they would have been able to determine either.
With respect to ‘702-the claims recite substantially the same subject matter.
communicate data which results in the display device displaying a first message associated with the severed connection status and comprising a first action to be undertaken in association with the severed connection status, and
communicate data which results in the display device displaying, in a hypertext markup language based service window controlled, independent of the processor and by the hypertext markup language content server, a first alphanumeric message associated with the first wireless connection status between the mobile device and the processor, the first alphanumeric message comprising any first action to be undertaken in association with the first wireless connection status, and
communicate data which results in a display device supported by a cabinet of an electronic gaming machine displaying a first alphanumeric message associated with the first wireless connection status with the mobile device, wherein the first alphanumeric message comprises any first action to be undertaken in association with the first wireless connection status and the display of the first alphanumeric message associated with the first wireless connection status with the mobile device occurs after a determination, based at least in part on a usage of a processor of the electronic gaming machine, to allocate at least partial control of the display device to a remote host comprising one of a content server and a patron management server, and
The instant claims recite a broader embodiment of providing a message as being output on a display.
Differences – the instant claims recite a broader embodiment of the message in the display without the particular details of a service window in a hypertext markup language as recited by the ‘765 Patent.
responsive to a determination of a failed connection status with the mobile device and in association with an inability of the mobile device to output information regarding a failure to establish a wireless connection with the mobile device,
responsive to a determination of a second wireless connection status between the processor and a mobile device executing an application unable to output information regarding a failure or a severance of a second wireless connection,
responsive to a determination of a second, different wireless connection status with the mobile device and in association with an inability of the mobile device to output information regarding a failure or a severance of a second, different wireless connection,
The instant claims recite substantially the same subject matter of a determined state such as a failed connection with the mobile device to output a second different message than the first. The claims of the instant application are substantially the same as the subject matter of the ‘702 Patent
The claims are different in that the instant claim recites a broader embodiment that does not include the processor, mobile device executing an application to output the determined information.
communicate data which results in the display device displaying a second, different message associated with the failed connection status and comprising a second, different action to be undertaken in association with the failed connection status.
communicate data which results in the display device displaying, in the hypertext markup language based service window, a second, different alphanumeric message associated with the second, different wireless connection status between the mobile device and the processor, the second, different alphanumeric message comprising any second, different action to be undertaken in association with the second, different wireless connection status.
communicate data which results in the display device displaying a second, different message associated with the failed connection status and comprising a second, different action to be undertaken in association with the failed connection status.
The claims recite substantially the same subject matter as being directed to communicating data of a second, different message associated with a failure second connection
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of no statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 8-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,900,765 B2 and Claims 1 and 9-10 of the US Patent (US 12,260,702). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the more generic or broader claims now pending of a determination of a failed or severed connection status with a mobile device to provide a first and a second, different message onto a display (instant Claims 1-20). However, the claims of the instant application and the ‘765 Patent differ in that the instant claims recite a broader embodiment of the display device and message. Moreover, the differences such as “a slot interface board” comprising a processor and memory in the instant application as opposed a system comprising a processor and memory in the ‘765 Patent is obvious variant as if one of ordinary skill had the system of the electronic slot game system they would have the slot interface board of the system. With respect to the ‘702 Patent, the instant claims recite a broader embodiment of independent Claim 1 of the ‘702 Patent. That is, the rationale of In re Goodman applies here in that once Applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, Applicant is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent.
With respect to independent Claims 8 and 14, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter directed to the gaming system and a method of operating a slot machine interface board of the game system recited by independent Claim 9-10 of the ‘765 Patent and Claims 8-9 of the ‘702 Patent.
With respect to claim 2, the instant application recites substantially the same subject matter as recited by independent Claim 1 of the ‘765 and the ‘702 Patent.
With respect to claim 3, the claim recite substantially the same subject matter as recited by independent Claim 1 of the ‘765 Patent and Claim 1 of the ‘702 Patent.
With respect to claim 4, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as independent Claim 1 of the ‘765 Patent and independent system Claim 8 of the ‘702 Patent.
With respect to claim 5, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as recited by independent Claim 1 of the ‘765 Patent and Claim 8 of the ‘702 Patent.
With respect to claims 6-7, the claim recites substantially the subject matter that the message is an alphanumeric message as recited by independent Claim 1 of the ‘765 and the ‘702 Patent.
Regarding claims 9-13, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as independent Claims 1, 9-10 of the ‘765 Patent and Claims 1 and 8-9 of the ‘702 Patent.
With respect to claims 15-20, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as recited by independent Claims 1, 9-10 of the ‘765 Patent and Claims 1, 8-9 of the ‘702 Patent.
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 LeMay et al. (US 2013/0303263 A1).
Regarding claim 1, LeMay discloses a slot machine interface board comprising (see LeMay, Figs. 1-4, 0034): a processor (see LeMay, Figs. 1-4, 0089-0095); and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (see LeMay, Figs. 1-4, 0089-0095):
responsive to a determination of a severed connection status with a mobile device, following a determination (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0068, 0074-0076, 0078-0082, 0084-0086), based at least in part on a usage of a processor of an electronic gaming machine (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0034, 0126-0127), to allocate at least partial control of a display device supported by a cabinet of the electronic gaming machine to a server operating independent of the processor of the electronic gaming machine (see LeMay, Figs. 1-6, 0123-01240128), and in association with an inability of the mobile device to output information regarding a severance of an established wireless connection with the mobile device (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0068, 0074-0076, 0078-0082, 0084-0086, wherein the cashout is analogous to a severance of an established wireless connection to end a game session by a user of the mobile device), communicate data which results in the display device displaying a first message associated with the severed connection status and comprising a first action to be undertaken in association with the severed connection status (see LeMay, Fig. 2, 0038-0039, wherein the first action associated with a certain game events such as a cashout request (e.g., a cash out is a severed connection to disconnect the device for the game session) causes the message of a first action “Don’t forget your device”) which is associated with the severed connection status to indicate an action that the user should take the mobile device); 0063, 0068, 0072, 0085, wherein the message conveys information related to a state of communication session between the mobile device and the server/EGM; wherein the message to a mobile device problem with the connection results in a possible remedy), and
responsive to a determination of a failed connection status with the mobile device and in association with an inability of the mobile device to output information regarding a failure to establish a wireless connection with the mobile device (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0074-0076, 0079-0082, 0085), communicate data which results in the display device displaying a second, different message associated with the failed connection status and comprising a second, different action to be undertaken in association with the failed connection status (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0074-0076, 0079-0082, 0085, wherein the second different message associated with a failed connection status includes “communications lost, swipe or tap your mobile device in landing area to initial communications” and “Swipe, tap or place your device in the area below to begin mobile device services” are different actions from “Don’t forget your device” and the messages associated with a failure of the connection status may be communicated in different messages associated with a determined connection status).
Regarding claim 2, LeMay discloses the slot machine interface board of Claim 1, wherein the communication of data which results in the display device displaying the second, different message occurs following the determination to allocate at least partial control of the display device to the server (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0081-0085, wherein the communications lost message occurs after the service window and therefore following the determination to allocate at least partial control of the display device to the server)).
Regarding claim 3, LeMay discloses the slot machine interface board of Claim 1, wherein the display device comprises a display device of the electronic gaming machine (see LeMay, Figs. 1-2, 5).
Regarding claim 4, LeMay discloses the slot machine interface board of Claim 1, wherein the server comprises a content server (see LeMay, Figs. 1-6, 0150-0152).
Regarding claim 5, LeMay discloses the slot machine interface board of Claim 1, wherein the server comprises a patron management server (see LeMay, Figs. 1-6, 0034, 0047, 0053).
Regarding claim 6, LeMay discloses the slot machine interface board of Claim 1, wherein the first message comprises a first alphanumeric message (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0038-0039, “Don’t forget your device” is an alphanumeric message).
Regarding claim 7, LeMay discloses the slot machine interface board of Claim 6, wherein the second, different message comprises a second, different alphanumeric message (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0074-0076, 0079-0082, wherein “communications lost, swipe or tap your mobile device in landing area to initialize communication” is a second, different alphanumeric message”).
Regarding claim 8, LeMay discloses an electronic gaming machine comprising: a display device; a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (see LeMay, Figs. 1-4, 0034, 0091-0095):
responsive to a determination of a severed connection status with a mobile device and in association with an inability of the mobile device to output information regarding a severance of an established wireless connection with the mobile device (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0068, 0074-0076, 0078-0082, 0084-0086): determine, based at least in part on a first usage of the processor (see LeMay, 0034, 0127), whether to allocate at least partial control of the display device to a server operating independent of the processor, and responsive to the determination being to allocate at least partial control of the display device to the server and based on first data received from the server, cause the display device to display a first message associated with the severed connection status and comprising a first action to be undertaken in association with the severed connection status (see LeMay, Fig. 2, 0038-0039, 0063, 0068, 0072, 0085), and
responsive to a determination of a failed connect status with the mobile device and in association with an inability of the mobile device to output information regarding a failure to establish a wireless connection with the mobile device: determine, based at least in part on a second usage of the processor, whether to allocate at least partial control of the display device to the server (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0074-0076, 0079-0082, 0085), and responsive to the determination being to allocate at least partial control of the display device to the server and based on second data received from the server, cause the display device to display a second, different message associated with the failed connection status and comprising a second, different action to be undertaken in association with the failed connection status (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0074-0076, 0079-0082, 0085).
Regarding claim 9, LeMay discloses the electronic gaming machine of Claim 8, wherein the processor determines the severed connection status (see LeMay, Figs. 1-6, 0038-0039, wherein the cashout is analogous to severing a connection status to end the game session).
Regarding claim 10, LeMay discloses the electronic gaming machine of Claim 8, wherein the processor determines the failed connection status (see LeMay, Figs. 1-6, 0038-0039, 0081-0085) .
Regarding claim 11, LeMay discloses the electronic gaming machine of Claim 8, wherein the server comprises one of a content server and a patron management server (see LeMay, Figs. 1-6, 0034, 0047, 0053, 0150-0152).
Regarding claim 12, LeMay discloses the electronic gaming machine of Claim 8, wherein the first message comprises a first alphanumeric message (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0038-0039).
Regarding claim 13, LeMay discloses the electronic gaming machine of Claim 12, wherein the second, different message comprises a second, different alphanumeric message (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0074-0076, 0079-0082).
Regarding claim 14, LeMay discloses a method of operating a slot machine interface board (see LeMay, Figs. 1-4, 0034, 0091-0095), the method comprising:
responsive to a determination of a severed connection status with a mobile device, following a determination, based at least in part on a usage of a processor of an electronic gaming machine (see LeMay, 0034, 0127), to allocate at least partial control of a display device supported by a cabinet of the electronic gaming machine to a server operating independent of the processor of the electronic gaming machine, and in association with an inability of the mobile device to output information regarding a severance of an established wireless connection with the mobile device (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0068, 0074-0076, 0078-0082, 0084-0086), communicating data which results in the display device displaying a first message associated with the severed connection status and comprising a first action to be undertaken in association with the severed connection status (see LeMay, Fig. 2, 0038-0039, 0063, 0068, 0072, 0085), and
responsive to a determination of a failed connection status with the mobile device and in association with an inability of the mobile device to output information regarding a failure to establish a wireless connection with the mobile device (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0068, 0074-0076, 0078-0082, 0084-0086), communicating data which results in the display device displaying a second, different message associated with the failed connection status and comprising a second, different action to be undertaken in association with the failed connection status (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0074-0076, 0079-0082, 0085).
Regarding claim 15, LeMay discloses the method of Claim 14, wherein the communication of data which results in the display device displaying the second, different message occurs following the determination to allocate at least partial control of the display device to the server (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0081-0085).
Regarding claim 16, LeMay discloses the method of Claim 14, wherein the display device comprises a display device of the electronic gaming machine (see LeMay, Figs. 1-2, 5).
Regarding claim 17, LeMay discloses the method of Claim 14, wherein the server comprises a content server (see LeMay, Figs. 1-6, 0034, 0047, 0053, 0150-0152).
Regarding claim 18, LeMay discloses the method of Claim 14, wherein the server comprises a patron management server (see LeMay, Figs. 1-6, 0034, 0047, 0053, 0150-0152).
Regarding claim 19, LeMay discloses the method of Claim 14, wherein the first message comprises a first alphanumeric message (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0038-0039).
Regarding claim 20, LeMay discloses the method of Claim 19, wherein the second, different message comprises a second, different alphanumeric message (see LeMay, Figs. 1-5, 0074-0076, 0079-0082).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights