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 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, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruppert et al. (US 20150105162 A1; hereinafter Ruppert).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Ruppert discloses a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions (computer with processor; ¶7-8) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive data associated with a request of a new software package to be installed on an electronic gaming machine (determining a respective job to execute this respective job, such as an installation in ¶9), determine a current configuration of the electronic gaming machine (information of a respective current status; ¶8), generate, at least partially based on the current configuration of the electronic gaming machine (proposed configuration settings based on current configuration; ¶295), a configuration script associated with the new software package (configuration change command sent to gaming machine; ¶298), and cause a delivery of the generated configuration script (this type of job can be an installation job, which will require this delivery of this installation; ¶9).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Ruppert discloses wherein the new software package comprises a game software package (installation or configuration made for gaming machines includes software; abstract and ¶90).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Ruppert discloses wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to generate the configuration script at least partially based on an operational parameter associated with an electronic gaming machine supplier (making configurations based on permitted configurable options, such as each gaming machine manufacturer's operating system and game software; ¶303-304).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Ruppert discloses wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to generate the configuration script at least partially based on an operational parameter associated with an electronic gaming machine operator (configurations also take what casino directors want, such as setting their own options with game volume, minimum wagers, etc.; ¶306-307).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Ruppert discloses wherein the data associated with the request is received from a server associated with an electronic gaming machine operator (profile driven changes are implemented by operators in ¶278 and these will become requests in ¶274-275).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Ruppert discloses wherein the determination of the current configuration of the electronic gaming machine comprises receiving data associated with the current configuration of the electronic gaming machine (information of a respective current status; ¶8) from at least one of a server associated with an electronic gaming machine operator (casino directors set their own options; ¶306-307) and a server associated with an electronic gaming machine supplier (unique options to each gaming machine manufacturer’s operating system and game software; ¶303).
Regarding claim 10, Ruppert discloses a configuration script generator comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions (computer with processor; ¶7-8) that, when executed by the processor in association with an order of a new game software package associated with an electronic gaming machine (determining a respective job to execute this respective job, such as an installation in ¶9), cause the processor to: receive first data associated with a current configuration of the electronic gaming machine (information of a respective current status; ¶8), receive second data associated with at least one of a first operational parameter associated with an electronic gaming machine supplier (making configurations based on permitted configurable options, such as each gaming machine manufacturer's operating system and game software; ¶303-304), a second operational parameter associated with an electronic gaming machine operator (casino directors also want to set their own options, such as game volume, minimum wager, etc.; ¶306-307), and a first plurality of available options of the electronic gaming machine, generate, at least partially based on the received first data (proposed configuration settings based on current configuration; ¶295) and the received second data (making configurations based on machine manufacturer's permitted options and what the casino directors want; ¶303-307), a configuration script associated with the new game software package (configuration change command sent to gaming machine; ¶298), and cause a delivery of the generated configuration script (this type of job can be an installation job, which will require this delivery; ¶9).
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 2, 4, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruppert in view of Aseev et al. (US 2018/0232245 A1; hereinafter Aseev).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Ruppert discloses wherein the generated configuration script, when executed by a processor of the electronic gaming machine, causes an configuration of the electronic gaming machine for installation of the new software package (configuration change command sent to gaming machine; ¶298).
Ruppert does not appear to explicitly disclose this configuration process to be automatic. However, Aseev focuses on a system and method that automatically configures and adjust computer systems and computer software, which relates to Ruppert because they are both focused configurating and adjusting computing systems. Aseev teaches wherein the generated configuration script, when executed by a processor, causes an automatic configuration of the electronic computing machine for installation of the new software package (automatic configuration; abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ruppert to implement the teachings of Aseev because it allows the system to reduce the risk of human error. The system will automatically make the configuration depending on what the system needs, in accordance with any other parameters. This will allow the system to make this process smooth and less prone to any human error when doing it manually.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Ruppert discloses configuring a game associated with the game software package (the configurable parameters belong to both the operating system and game software; ¶302). Ruppert does not appear to explicitly disclose doing a configuration of software automatically.
However, Aseev teaches doing a configuration of software automatically (automatic configuration; abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ruppert to implement the teachings of Aseev because it allows the system to reduce the risk of human error. The system will automatically make the configuration depending on what the system needs, in accordance with any other parameters. This will allow the system to make this process smooth and less prone to any human error when doing it manually.
Claims 7, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruppert in view of Hamlin et al. (US 20140051499 A1; hereinafter Hamlin).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Ruppert does not disclose wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to generate the configuration script at least partially based on a current configuration of another electronic gaming machine.
However, Hamlin focuses on a system that configures gaming devices based on data from other gaming devices, which relates to Ruppert because they are both focused on configuring gaming devices. Hamlin teaches wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to generate the configuration script at least partially based on a current configuration of another electronic gaming machine (determine configurations from other electronic gaming machines; abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ruppert to implement the teachings of Hamlin for the benefit of using configurations that already work properly. This is the biggest benefit because the system would be using existing gaming devices that already have known configurations that work properly in order to update other gaming devices with similar settings.
Regarding claim 11, Ruppert discloses using second data for configurations (making configurations based on machine manufacturer's permitted options and what the casino directors want; ¶303-307). But does not disclose data used for configurations to be associated with a second plurality of available options of another electronic gaming machine.
However, Hamlin teaches wherein data used for configurations to be associated with a second plurality of available options of another electronic gaming machine (determine configurations from other electronic gaming machines; abstract and ¶8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ruppert to implement the teachings of Hamlin for the benefit of using configurations that already work properly. This is the biggest benefit because the system would be using existing gaming devices that already have known configurations that work properly in order to update other gaming devices with similar settings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8am-5pm.
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.
/JOSE ANGELES/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights