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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “near real time” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Without specific guidelines, one of ordinary skill would not be able to determine what would or would not infringe on the claim, as “near real time” could encompass any range of time, including simultaneously, seconds apart, milliseconds, etc.
The examiner will interpret any transmission of an alert as being near real time until further clarification and correction is provided by applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al (US 2006/0073888) in view of Lube (US 2008/0274796).
Re claim 1, Nguyen discloses an electronic gaming system comprising: at least one memory with instructions stored thereon (fig. 5, 416); and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory (402), wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: cause a player dashboard to be displayed as a graphical user interface (GUI) at a player device associated with a player account (par. [0048]), wherein the player dashboard comprises a plurality of selectors associated with a plurality of requests associated with a plurality of request types and a plurality of casino personnel (figs. 3C-3D, 3I, the GUI provides options for players to request reservations, prize redemptions, casino promotions, entertainment choices, and games to play, see [0165]); receive a first message based upon selection of a selector of the plurality of selectors, wherein the first message comprises request data associated with a request associated with the selector and a request type of the plurality of request type ([0083], players making a prize selection interacts with the prize redemption interface and utilizes a combination of available credits, loyalty points, and cash from a bank account to redeem the selected prize, and may also input additional information such as a shipping address); generate an alert based upon the request data (fig. 8, 715); determine a casino device to transmit the alert to based upon the request type and casino personnel assigned to fulfill requests of the request type ([0048], based on the player’s selections, the player is able to communicate to make drink orders, communicate with other players or casino service personnel, make entertainment service reservations, etc., therefore the requests and communications are directed to the relevant personnel and device, e.g. drink orders would be sent to a bartender, entertainment service reservations with the entertainment service provider).
However, while it is implied that the relevant personnel would be alerted to any requests (i.e. it is assumed that a player making a drink order would notify the bartender in order to allow them to fulfill the drink order), this is not explicitly discussed by Nguyen. Lube teaches a casino system for interactions between the player and casino personnel wherein messages sent by the player are displayed on a computer terminal to alert them of the message so that the player’s request may be addressed ([0084]).
It would have been obvious to implement the alert system of Lube with Nguyen in order to properly allow casino personnel to address player requests, therefore keeping players satisfied and serviced.
Re claim 2, Nguyen discloses the player device comprises an electronic gaming machine (fig. 1, 90).
Re claim 3, Nguyen discloses the request type comprises at least one of a food or beverage request, and wherein the casino device is associated with at least one of a bartender or a food services employee ([0048], players may request drink orders). See Lube regarding providing casino personnel with alerts regarding requests.
Re claim 4, Nguyen discloses a gaming service request, and wherein the casino device is associated with a casino employee ([0048], players may participate in casino promotions, play games, and communicate with casino service personnel).
Re claim 5, Lube teaches a vehicle request, wherein the casino device is associated with a valet ([0081], [0083], and [0085]).
Re claim 6, Nguyen discloses a host dashboard displayed by the casino host device; and causing display of player account data associated with the player account based upon the alert ([0048] and [0165], the display 16 may also be used as an interface by casino service personnel to access player tracking unit status information, player status information, etc.).
Re claim 9, Nguyen discloses transmitting the alert to the casino device in near real time with respect to receipt of the first message ([0048]).
Re claims 10-15 and 18-20, see the above rejections, mutatis mutandis.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Lube as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amaitis et al (US 2007/0060355).
Re claims 7 and 16, Nguyen does not disclose determining that an electronic gaming device associated with the player account will be taken offline at a predetermined time, generating a second alert based upon determining that the electronic gaming device will be taken offline, and causing the second alert to be displayed at the player dashboard.
Amaitis teaches a gaming system where devices may have scheduled maintenance ([0034]), upon which an alert will be sent to the user (fig. 11, 1114, 1116, and 1118). The examiner considers scheduled maintenance of a gaming machine to be equivalent to be taken offline as both render the game unavailable to players. It would have been obvious to provide players with advance notice of scheduled maintenance as taught by Amaitis in order to allow players to plan around the scheduled downtime.
Re claims 8 and 17, Amaitis teaches electronic gaming device is one of the player device or a different electronic device (fig. 11, 1118, since the user receives the alert, therefore the player is receiving the alert at some electronic device associated with them).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights