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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application 19/056,580 originally filed on February 18, 2025. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1 and 19 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on August 28, 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Priority
This application claims priority of US Provisional Application 63/557,272, filed February 23, 2024.
Drawings
Regarding FIG. 1, 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1), stated in part, normally requires black and white drawings. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. In the present case, portions of the drawings have very faint lines. Therefore, the failure to use solid black lines render FIG. 1 from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1).
Regarding FIGS. 2B-C, 7, and 10, 37 CFR 1.84(m), stated in part, prefers the use of shading when parts are shown in perspective. In the present case, the drawings use dashed lines and shading in an otherwise non-perspective view that would not be of sufficient quality so that all details in the drawings are reproducible in the printed patent. Therefore, the use of shading in an otherwise non-perspective view prevents FIGS. 2B-C, 7, and 10 from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(m).
Regarding FIGS. 4-6, 8, 9, and 11-16, 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1), stated in part, indicates that black and white photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs (or in this case, screenshots) are reproducible in the printed patent. Therefore, the use of a black and white photographs (or screenshots) lacking sufficient reproducible quality prevents FIGS. 4-6, 8, 9, and 11-16 from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbour et al. (hereinafter “Barbour,” US 2019/0080554) in view of Kando et al. (hereinafter “Kando,” US 2020/0368622), and in further view of Urban et al. (hereinafter “Urban,” US 2020/0388106).
Regarding claim 1, Barbour discloses a seating system for electronic gaming on an electronic gaming machine (Barbour Abstract, “systems include gaming chairs integrated with player interface hardware elements in a chair structure and in communication with a game controller”), the seating system comprising:
a seat with a seating surface and a backrest (see Barbour Fig. 2 and [0052], “The gaming chair 102 includes structural elements such as a base 180, a seat 182, opposing arm rests 184, 186 and a backrest 188”);
a kiosk directly or indirectly coupled to the seat (see Barbour Fig. 3 and [0044], “the gaming chair 102 includes a number of operative player interface hardware elements such as one or more speakers 120, one or more displays 122, one or more input elements 124, a card and/or ticket reader 126, a printer 128, a bill acceptor and/or coin input mechanism 130 and a coin or token output mechanism 132.”); and
an operating console … coupled to the kiosk (see Barbour Fig. 3 and [0044], “the gaming chair 102 includes a number of operative player interface hardware elements such as one or more speakers 120, one or more displays 122, one or more input elements 124”) and having:
a button deck (see Barbour Fig. 3, showing displays 122 and input elements 124, which appear to be buttons).
Barbour does not teach a first end piece detachably coupled to a first end of the operating console and having a first button, and a second end piece detachably coupled to a second end of the operating console, opposite the first end, and having a second button or a display, wherein: the first end piece and the second end piece are configured to be detached from the operating console, the operating console is configured to receive a third end piece at the first end or the second end when the first end piece or the second end piece, respectively, has been detached … and the button deck, the first end piece, and the second end piece are configured to be communicatively coupled to a game controller of the electronic gaming machine.
However, Kando discloses a first end piece detachably coupled to a first end of the operating console and having a first button, and a second end piece detachably coupled to a second end of the operating console, opposite the first end, and having a second button or a display, wherein: the first end piece and the second end piece are configured to be detached from the operating console, the operating console is configured to receive a third end piece at the first end or the second end when the first end piece or the second end piece, respectively, has been detached … and the button deck, the first end piece, and the second end piece are configured to be communicatively coupled to a game controller of the electronic gaming machine (see Kando Fig. 2, showing first and second end pieces 3 and 4 having buttons and detachably coupled to the console 1. End pieces 3 and/or 4 are capable of being replaced by a third, replacement, end piece of identical design).
Kando is analogous to Barbour, as both are drawn to the art of gaming devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Barbour, to include a first end piece detachably coupled to a first end of the operating console and having a first button, and a second end piece detachably coupled to a second end of the operating console, opposite the first end, and having a second button or a display, wherein: the first end piece and the second end piece are configured to be detached from the operating console, the operating console is configured to receive a third end piece at the first end or the second end when the first end piece or the second end piece, respectively, has been detached … and the button deck, the first end piece, and the second end piece are configured to be communicatively coupled to a game controller of the electronic gaming machine, as taught by Kando, because it would combine prior art console and controller elements of Kando with the gaming seat with console and controller of Barbour according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Barbour in view of Kando does not explicitly teach the operating console is configured to be rotated between a first orientation and a second orientation 90 degrees apart from the first orientation.
The secondary reference Kando does disclose removing the end piece controllers from the console and rotating them 90 degrees for use (Kando [0142]), but does not disclose rotating the entire operating console 90 degrees for use.
However, Urban discloses the operating console is configured to be rotated between a first orientation and a second orientation 90 degrees apart from the first orientation (see Urban Figs. 3A-C, and paragraph [0164], “the first variable position display 308 may rotate (e.g., here, counterclockwise from a player's or user's viewpoint when looking at the screen for game play, as depicted by arrows 312), and may orient the first variable position display 308 to a new orientation for game play, e.g., from the landscape view into a portrait mode”).
Urban is analogous to Barbour in view of Kando, as both are drawn to the art of gaming devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Barbour in view of Kando, to include the operating console is configured to be rotated between a first orientation and a second orientation 90 degrees apart from the first orientation, as taught by Urban, since it would have combined the prior art elements of a rotatable console interface with the gaming machine of Barbour in view of Kando according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Barbour in view of Urban does not explicitly teach wherein the button deck, the first end piece, the second end piece, or a combination thereof are configured to: receive input from a user, and provide information related to the input from the user to the game controller of the electronic gaming machine.
However, Kando discloses wherein the button deck, the first end piece, the second end piece, or a combination thereof are configured to: receive input from a user, and provide information related to the input from the user to the game controller of the electronic gaming machine (see Kando Fig. 2, showing first and second end pieces 3 and 4 having buttons for input and detachably coupled to the console 1; also Kando [0080], “Each of the left controller 3 and the right controller 4 is an apparatus including operation sections with which a user provides inputs.”).
Kando is analogous to Barbour in view of Urban, as both are drawn to the art of gaming devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Barbour, to include wherein the button deck, the first end piece, the second end piece, or a combination thereof are configured to: receive input from a user, and provide information related to the input from the user to the game controller of the electronic gaming machine, as taught by Kando, because it would combine prior art console and controller elements of Kando with the gaming seat with console and controller of Barbour in view of Urban according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Barbour in view of Kando does not explicitly teach wherein the operating console is further configured to translate along a translation axis.
However, Urban discloses wherein the operating console is further configured to translate along a translation axis (Urban [0189], “during movement and with little or no interference with the gaming cabinets 604A-C, the variable position display 608A may translate away from the gaming cabinets 604A-C, and rotate counterclockwise (as indicated by arrow 612A) at a first rate from a landscape view into a portrait view”).
Urban is analogous to Barbour in view of Kando, as both are drawn to the art of electronic gaming devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Barbour in view of Kando, to include wherein the operating console is further configured to translate along a translation axis, as taught by Urban, since it would have combined the prior art elements of a rotatable console interface with the gaming machine of Barbour in view of Kando according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Barbour in view of Kando does not explicitly teach wherein the translation axis is perpendicular to the axis of rotation.
However, Urban discloses wherein the translation axis is perpendicular to the axis of rotation (see Urban Figs. 3A-3C, showing translation axis perpendicular to axis of rotation).
Urban is analogous to Barbour in view of Kando, as both are drawn to the art of gaming devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Barbour in view of Kando, to include wherein the translation axis is perpendicular to the axis of rotation, as taught by Urban, since it would have combined the prior art elements of a rotatable console interface with the gaming machine of Barbour in view of Kando according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Barbour in view of Kando does not explicitly teach wherein the operating console is configured to translate along the translation axis without the use of tools.
However, Urban discloses wherein the operating console is configured to translate along the translation axis without the use of tools (see Urban [0161-162], “The movement and orientation of the first variable position display 308 may be manual, automatic or in some combination of manual or automatic. For example, the first variable position display 308 may move, in response to detection of one or more gaming conditions, manually by the player, e.g., for player game preferences or game parameters, or automatically, e.g., in response to player game preferences or game parameters… the first variable position display 308 may, in response to detection of one or more gaming conditions, automatically translate away from the first gaming cabinet 304 and rotate, where the rotation of the first variable position display 308 may involve unidirectional or bidirectional rotations.”).
Urban is analogous to Barbour in view of Kando, as both are drawn to the art of gaming devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Barbour in view of Kando, to include wherein the operating console is configured to translate along the translation axis without the use of tools, as taught by Urban, since it would have combined the prior art elements of a rotatable console interface with the gaming machine of Barbour in view of Kando according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Barbour in view of Kando does not explicitly teach wherein: the translation axis has a first end and a second end, the second end is closer to the seat than the first end, and the operating console is closer to the seat when positioned at the second end than when positioned at the first end.
However, Urban discloses wherein: the translation axis has a first end and a second end, the second end is closer to the seat than the first end, and the operating console is closer to the seat when positioned at the second end than when positioned at the first end (see Urban Figs. 4A-C, showing the display 408 in landscape orientation, and in Fig. 4C after rotation, one end of the display is closer to the user).
Urban is analogous to Barbour in view of Kando, as both are drawn to the art of gaming devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Barbour in view of Kando, to include wherein: the translation axis has a first end and a second end, the second end is closer to the seat than the first end, and the operating console is closer to the seat when positioned at the second end than when positioned at the first end, as taught by Urban, since it would have combined the prior art elements of a rotatable console interface with the gaming machine of Barbour in view of Kando according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Barbour in view of Urban does not explicitly teach wherein the second end piece is oriented at a non-parallel angle with respect to the button deck.
However, Kando discloses wherein the second end piece is oriented at a non-parallel angle with respect to the button deck (see Kando Fig. 2, showing first and second end pieces 3 and 4 removable from the display [where the button deck of the instant invention resides in one embodiment, see instant specification paragraph 177]. Once removed the end pieces may be oriented in any angle with respect to the display).
Kando is analogous to Barbour in view of Urban, as both are drawn to the art of gaming devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Barbour, to include wherein the second end piece is oriented at a non-parallel angle with respect to the button deck, as taught by Kando, because it would combine prior art console and controller elements of Kando with the gaming seat with console and controller of Barbour in view of Urban according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Barbour in view of Kando and Urban does not explicitly teach wherein the first button is a physical button.
However, Kando discloses wherein the first button is a physical button (see Kando Fig. 1, showing first and second end pieces 3 and 4 having physical buttons).
Kando is analogous to Barbour in view of Urban, as both are drawn to the art of gaming devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Barbour, to include wherein the first button is a physical button, as taught by Kando, because it would combine prior art console and controller elements of Kando with the gaming seat with console and controller of Barbour in view of Urban according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Barbour in view of Kando and Urban discloses further comprising: a display of the electronic gaming machine coupled to the kiosk and/or the seat, and the game controller that is configured to cause a game instance to be displayed on the display (see Barbour Fig. 2, showing a second video display 122b affixed to the rear side of a seat).
Regarding claim 12, Barbour in view of Kando and Urban discloses wherein the seat further comprises at least one display panel configured to display game information, attractions, a portion of a game instance, images, videos, or a combination thereof (Barbour [0058], “Also in the exemplary gaming chair 102, a second video display 122b, which may be a touchscreen display, is shown affixed to the rear side of the backrest 188. The second video display 122b may be used, for example, passively or interactively for signage purposes, to attract players to the game via display of simulated game action video, to display an actual game in action for observers to see from a vantage point behind the gaming chair 102, or for other gaming facility purposes such as advertising, product or game promotions, previews, to display maps and information of a facility or area attractions, restaurant menus and hours, general announcements and information, or other desired information and graphics”).
Regarding claim 13, Barbour in view of Kando and Urban discloses a controller communicatively coupled with the game controller, wherein the controller is configured to display, based on an outcome of a game instance on the electronic gaming machine, game information, attractions, a portion of a game instance, images, videos, or a combination thereof (see Barbour Fig. 4, showing second video display 122a; also Barbour [0056-0057], “The gaming chair 102 further includes a video display 122a coupled to the arm rest 186 on a support bracket as shown. In contemplated embodiments, the video display 122a may be, for example, a touch screen display (e.g., a capacitive touch screen display) allowing the player to provide game inputs and make game selections in an interactive manner. The screen displays generated on the video display 122a are synchronized in the example shown with a main screen video display 104 to provide an intuitive, yet immersive game play experience to a player seated on the gaming chair 102… In some cases, however, the video display 122a may be coordinated with the input/output elements 124a, 124b to fully play a game via the video display 122a using only the gaming hardware and peripheral elements provided on and in the gaming chair 102.”).
Regarding claim 14, Barbour in view of Kando and Urban discloses wherein the game information, attractions, a portion of a game instance, images, videos, or a combination thereof displayed based on the outcome of the game instance is related to a game theme of the game instance (see Barbour Fig. 4, showing second video display 122a; also Barbour [0056-0057], “The gaming chair 102 further includes a video display 122a coupled to the arm rest 186 on a support bracket as shown. In contemplated embodiments, the video display 122a may be, for example, a touch screen display (e.g., a capacitive touch screen display) allowing the player to provide game inputs and make game selections in an interactive manner. The screen displays generated on the video display 122a are synchronized in the example shown with a main screen video display 104 to provide an intuitive, yet immersive game play experience to a player seated on the gaming chair 102… In some cases, however, the video display 122a may be coordinated with the input/output elements 124a, 124b to fully play a game via the video display 122a using only the gaming hardware and peripheral elements provided on and in the gaming chair 102.”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbour in view of Kando and Urban, and in further view of Nishino et al. (hereinafter “Nishino,” US 6,540,614).
Regarding claim 9, Barbour in view of Kando and Urban does not teach wherein the second end piece has a display that is configured to display player related information.
However, Nishino discloses wherein the second end piece has a display that is configured to display player related information (see Nishino Fig. 11, showing subunit controllers 3, each having display screen 39; also Nishino col. 7 lines 56-63, “The sub monitor 39 displays images of drawing data stored in the video memory. These elements (38, 39) are structured so as to make characters and images, such as the LCD in a portable information terminal, recognizable to the player. The CPU 30 displays on the sub monitor 39 sub images corresponding to the game processing in the game machine main body 1 pursuant to the program stored in the ROM 33.”).
Nishino is analogous to Barbour in view of Kando and Urban, as both are drawn to the art of electronic gaming devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Barbour in view of Kando and Urban, to include wherein the second end piece has a display that is configured to display player related information, as taught by Nishino, because it would combine prior art removable controller display elements of Nishino with the removable controllers of Barbour in view of Kando and Urban according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbour in view of Kando and Urban, and in further view of Filipour et al. (hereinafter “Filipour,” US 8,858,343).
Regarding claim 11, Barbour in view of Kando and Urban does not explicitly teach wherein the electronic gaming machine is without any physical coupling to the seat or the kiosk.
However, Filipour discloses wherein the electronic gaming machine is without any physical coupling to the seat or the kiosk (see Filipour Figs. 1 and 5, showing the electronic gaming machine in Fig. 1, and the gaming seat in Fig. 5, wherein the gaming machine and the gaming seat are physically uncoupled).
Filipour is analogous to Barbour in view of Kando and Urban, as both are drawn to the art of electronic gaming devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Barbour in view of Kando and Urban, to include wherein the electronic gaming machine is without any physical coupling to the seat or the kiosk, as taught by Filipour, since it would have been a simple substitution between having a gaming seat and gaming machine connected by a platform or not connected by a platform. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbour in view of Kando and Urban, and in further view of Rothschild (US 2005/0181879).
Regarding claim 15, Barbour in view of Kando and Urban does not explicitly teach wherein the game information includes one or more wager amounts of the game instance.
However, Rothschild discloses wherein the game information includes one or more wager amounts of the game instance (see Rothschild Fig. 1 and [0028], “the secondary display 41 displays information related to the inputs related to the wager and the identification of the player that are received by the gaming input region 39.”; also Rothschild [0007], “The secondary display provides substantial versatility to the gaming terminal. For example, the secondary display can display a wager amount, account balance information, and player-tracking information”).
Rothschild is analogous to Barbour in view of Kando and Urban, as both are drawn to the art of electronic gaming devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Barbour in view of Kando and Urban, to include wherein the game information includes one or more wager amounts of the game instance, as taught by Rothschild, in order to add versatility to the gaming terminal (Rothschild [0007]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbour in view of Kando and Urban, and in further view of Schoonmaker et al. (hereinafter “Schoonmaker,” US 2022/0366758).
Regarding claim 16, Barbour in view of Kando and Urban does not explicitly teach wherein: the at least one display panel comprise one or more curved flexible display panel, the seat further includes at least one side panel adjacent to the seating surface and the backrest, and the curved flexible display panel is positioned on the side panel.
However, Schoonmaker discloses wherein: the at least one display panel comprise one or more curved flexible display panel, the seat further includes at least one side panel adjacent to the seating surface and the backrest, and the curved flexible display panel is positioned on the side panel (see Schoonmaker Figs. 5 and 6, and paragraph [0092], “As shown in FIGS. 5 and 6, in some embodiments chair 401 includes a back-side electronic screen 418 (e.g., a high-resolution liquid crystal display (LCD), plasma, light emitting diode (LED), or organic light emitting diode (OLED) panel which may be flat or curved as shown, a cathode ray tube, or other conventional electronically controlled video monitor) that may be controlled to display pictures and/or animations/videos in accordance with a device in communication with system 400 (e.g., an EGM, a server, etc.)”).
Schoonmaker is analogous to Barbour in view of Kando and Urban, as both are drawn to the art of electronic gaming devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Barbour in view of Kando and Urban, to include wherein: the at least one display panel comprise one or more curved flexible display panel, the seat further includes at least one side panel adjacent to the seating surface and the backrest, and the curved flexible display panel is positioned on the side panel, as taught by Schoonmaker, since it would have been a simple substitution of a curved flexible display panel for a flat display panel. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, Barbour in view of Kando and Urban does not explicitly teach wherein the curved flexible display panel comprises a flexible liquid crystal display (LCD), a flexible electrophoretic display (EPD), a flexible organic light emitting diode (OLED) display, a rollable TFT-driven OLED display, or an electronic paper display.
However, Schoonmaker discloses wherein the curved flexible display panel comprises a flexible liquid crystal display (LCD), a flexible electrophoretic display (EPD), a flexible organic light emitting diode (OLED) display, a rollable TFT-driven OLED display, or an electronic paper display (see Schoonmaker Figs. 5 and 6, and paragraph [0092], “As shown in FIGS. 5 and 6, in some embodiments chair 401 includes a back-side electronic screen 418 (e.g., a high-resolution liquid crystal display (LCD), plasma, light emitting diode (LED), or organic light emitting diode (OLED) panel which may be flat or curved as shown, a cathode ray tube, or other conventional electronically controlled video monitor) that may be controlled to display pictures and/or animations/videos in accordance with a device in communication with system 400 (e.g., an EGM, a server, etc.)”).
Schoonmaker is analogous to Barbour in view of Kando and Urban, as both are drawn to the art of electronic gaming devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Barbour in view of Kando and Urban, to include wherein the curved flexible display panel comprises a flexible liquid crystal display (LCD), a flexible electrophoretic display (EPD), a flexible organic light emitting diode (OLED) display, a rollable TFT-driven OLED display, or an electronic paper display, as taught by Schoonmaker, since it would have been a simple substitution of a curved flexible LCD or OLED display panel for a flat display panel. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Barbour in view of Kando, Urban, and Schoonmaker does not explicitly teach wherein: the side panel includes an armrest, and the curved flexible display panel is positioned on the armrest.
However, the Applicant’s placement of the curved flexible display in place of the armrest display is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that placement of the curved flexible display in place of the armrest display solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any type of display placed on the armrest of Barbour in view of Kando, Urban, and Schoonmaker or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Barbour in view of Kando, Urban, and Schoonmaker to obtain the system as specified in claim 18, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Barbour in view of Kando, Urban, and Schoonmaker.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbour in view of view of Schoonmaker.
Regarding claim 19, Barbour discloses a seating system for electronic gaming on an electronic gaming machine, the seating system comprising:
a seat with a seating surface, a backrest, and at least one armrest adjacent to the seating surface and the backrest (see Barbour Fig. 3; see also Barbour Fig. 2 and [0052], “The gaming chair 102 includes structural elements such as a base 180, a seat 182, opposing arm rests 184, 186 and a backrest 188”);
…
a kiosk directly or indirectly coupled to the seat see Barbour Fig. 3 and [0044], “the gaming chair 102 includes a number of operative player interface hardware elements such as one or more speakers 120, one or more displays 122, one or more input elements 124, a card and/or ticket reader 126, a printer 128, a bill acceptor and/or coin input mechanism 130 and a coin or token output mechanism 132.”; and
an operating console coupled to the kiosk and having a button deck configured to be communicatively coupled to a game controller of the electronic gaming machine, wherein the at least one … display panel is configured to display game information, attractions, a portion of a game instance, images, videos, or a combination thereof (see Barbour Fig. 4, showing second video display 122a; also Barbour [0056-0057], “The gaming chair 102 further includes a video display 122a coupled to the arm rest 186 on a support bracket as shown. In contemplated embodiments, the video display 122a may be, for example, a touch screen display (e.g., a capacitive touch screen display) allowing the player to provide game inputs and make game selections in an interactive manner. The screen displays generated on the video display 122a are synchronized in the example shown with a main screen video display 104 to provide an intuitive, yet immersive game play experience to a player seated on the gaming chair 102… In some cases, however, the video display 122a may be coordinated with the input/output elements 124a, 124b to fully play a game via the video display 122a using only the gaming hardware and peripheral elements provided on and in the gaming chair 102.”).
Barbour does not explicitly teach at least one flexible curved display panel.
However, Schoonmaker discloses at least one flexible curved display panel (see Schoonmaker Figs. 5 and 6, and paragraph [0092], “As shown in FIGS. 5 and 6, in some embodiments chair 401 includes a back-side electronic screen 418 (e.g., a high-resolution liquid crystal display (LCD), plasma, light emitting diode (LED), or organic light emitting diode (OLED) panel which may be flat or curved as shown, a cathode ray tube, or other conventional electronically controlled video monitor) that may be controlled to display pictures and/or animations/videos in accordance with a device in communication with system 400 (e.g., an EGM, a server, etc.)”).
Schoonmaker is analogous to Barbour, as both are drawn to the art of electronic gaming devices. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Barbour, to include at least one flexible curved display panel, as taught by Schoonmaker, since it would have been a simple substitution of a curved flexible display panel for a flat display panel. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Barbour does not explicitly teach that the flexible curved display panel is on the at least one armrest.
However, the Applicant’s placement of the curved flexible display in place of the armrest display is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that placement of the curved flexible display in place of the armrest display solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any type of display placed on the armrest of Barbour and Schoonmaker or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Barbour and Schoonmaker to obtain the system as specified in claim 18, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Barbour and Schoonmaker.
Regarding claim 20, Barbour in view of Schoonmaker discloses a controller communicatively coupled with the game controller, wherein the controller is configured to display, based on an outcome of a game instance on the electronic gaming machine, the game information, attractions, a portion of a game instance, images, videos, or a combination thereof (Barbour [0058], “Also in the exemplary gaming chair 102, a second video display 122b, which may be a touchscreen display, is shown affixed to the rear side of the backrest 188. The second video display 122b may be used, for example, passively or interactively for signage purposes, to attract players to the game via display of simulated game action video, to display an actual game in action for observers to see from a vantage point behind the gaming chair 102, or for other gaming facility purposes such as advertising, product or game promotions, previews, to display maps and information of a facility or area attractions, restaurant menus and hours, general announcements and information, or other desired information and graphics”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights