DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Walker (U.S. PGPUB 2003/0114217).
Re claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 20: Walker discloses a method comprising:
receiving, from an electronic casino gaming device of a plurality of electronic casino gaming devices, an indication of a game outcome of a first game of a plurality of games of a gaming session, wherein the gaming session comprises a game delay between each game of the plurality of games (see paragraph [0077, 0194]: “ For example, a new game play cycle may be commenced automatically after a losing game play cycle but the gaming device may wait for player input before commencing a new game play cycle after some or all winning game play cycles.”);
decreasing, based on the game outcome not meeting at least one criterion, the game delay between each game of the plurality of games (see paragraph [0077, 0194]: “For example, a new game play cycle may be commenced automatically after a losing game play cycle...” Here, the game outcome does not meet the at least one criterion of a winning game outcome); and
initiating, according to the decreased game delay between each game of the plurality of games, a second game of the plurality of games (see paragraph [0077, 0194]: a following game, i.e. a second game, is commenced after the losing game).
Re claims 2, 9, and 16: Walker discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one criterion comprises one or more of: an occurrence of a symbol displayed on at least one stopped game reel, a threshold award amount associated with the game outcome (paragraph [0077]: a winning game encompasses displayed winning symbols and inherently a threshold award amount).
Re claims 3, 10, and 17: Walker discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein the electronic casino gaming device comprises one or more of: a virtual slot machine, a virtual card game, or a virtual table game (see paragraph [0121, 0171, 0196, 0296]).
Re claims 7 and 14: Walker discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, further comprising stopping one or more reels of the electronic casino gaming device based on the game outcome not meeting the at least one criterion (see paragraph [0253]: Walker discloses a game outcome that is indicative of a small payout amount. Based on determining that the game outcome is associated with said small payout amount, the game machine stops the game reels to reveal the game outcome to the player. This process starts a brief pause, i.e. delay, in fore player to review the winning outcome. However, said delay is a decrease in time that would be spent in between rounds, if the game outcome was a larger payout which would have caused a longer pause).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walker.
Re claims 4, 11, and 18: Walker fails to specifically disclose with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one criterion is selected by a player. However, Walker teaches that players can configure the limiting criterion of the automated gaming session (see paragraph [0013]). Walker also teaches that limiting criterion can include outcomes that include small payout amounts and large payout amounts (see paragraph [0253]), whereby on occurrences of said outcomes, the gaming device is paused for different time periods. Because Walker teaches allowing players to configure the limiting criterion of the automated gaming session, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to permit players to configure the small and large payout amounts, as said amounts constitute limiting criterion of the automated gaming session.
Re claim 5, 12, 19: Walker fails to disclose with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one criterion is determined based on a player account. However, Walker teaches that player accounts can contain accessible configuration information that include limiting criterion for configuring automated gaming session (see paragraph [0013]). Walker also teaches that limiting criterion can include outcomes that include small payout amounts and large payout amounts (see paragraph [0253]), whereby on occurrences of said outcomes, the gaming device is paused for different time periods. (see paragraph [0222]). Because Walker teaches accessing player accounts to configure the limiting criterion of the automated gaming session, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to use player accounts to configure small and large payout amounts, as said amounts constitute limiting criterion of the automated gaming session.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights