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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/28/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 25-26, 29-39 and 42-45 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10 include the limitations of “automatically adjust a physical setting of the projector, comprising at least one of a focus setting, a zoom setting, a projection-orientation setting, or a luminosity setting, that compensates for the non-orthogonal positioning of the projector relative to the planar playing surface”, emphasis added. The sole disclosure in Applicant’s PGPUB in regard to this functionality appears at paragraph 85 and there is no mention therein that this automatic adjustment function can compensate for the non-orthogonal positioning of the projector.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 25-26, 29-39 and 42-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 25-26, 29-39 and 42-45 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being, mathematical concepts, and/or claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular environment.
In regard to Claims 1 and 10, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); claim mathematical concepts as outlined at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] method of operating a self-referential gaming table system comprising:
[receiving] captur[ed] image data of a gaming table [wherein there is] perspective distortion in the [received] image data;
determining […] that a physical change event has occurred by detecting a change between a first set of [dot] coordinates for a fiducial marker in previously-captured image data and a second set of [dot] coordinates for the fiducial marker in the captured image data, the physical change event comprising one or more of a movement of [an] image sensor, a movement of [a] projector, or a change in a layout on [a] planar playing surface;
in response to determining that the physical change event has occurred, […] performing a calibration sequence to generate a corrective mapping that compensates for the perspective distortion by analyzing the fiducial marker within the captured image data […]; and
in response to performing the calibration sequence, performing operations comprising:
determining, based on known chip dimensions (KCD) and a known distance of an object on the planar playing surface from the fiducial marker, an expected [dot]-width for a standard gaming chip at that distance; and
comparing a detected width of a base of the object to the expected [dot]-width;
wherein, if the detected width matches the expected [dot]-width within a predetermined tolerance,
the method further comprises performing a first additional sequence comprising:
classifying the object on the planar playing surface as a standard chip stack;
analyzing […] by using [an algorithm], the corrective mapping, and the KCD, the captured image data, to detect an identifying pattern on an edge of one or more gaming chips within the standard chip stack;
determining, […] based on the detected identifying pattern, a monetary value for each of the one or more gaming chips;
computing, […] a total monetary value for the standard chip stack; and
transforming […] the total monetary value into […] control signals and [employing] the […] control signals to [provide a visual display of] a first notification indicative of the computed total monetary value relative to the standard chip stack, onto the planar playing surface at the bet spot, the first notification being aligned orthogonally to the standard chip stack to overcome the perspective distortion; and
wherein, if the detected width fails to match the expected [dot]-width within the predetermined tolerance, the method further comprises performing a second additional sequence comprising:
classifying the object as not a standard chip stack; and
transforming […] the classification into […] control signals and [employing] the […] control signals to drive the projector to [provide a visual display] a second notification indicating that the object is not a standard chip stack onto the planar playing surface adjacent to the object.
In regard to Claims 1 and 10, Applicant claims training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular environment which has held by the CAFC to be abstract in, e.g., Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp (2023-2437; 4/18/25), in terms of the Applicant claiming training/employing a machine-learning model in a particular technological environment.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being, mathematical concepts, and/or claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular environment.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., employing digital images comprised of pixels, a processor, an image sensor, a gaming table, a projector, training/employing a machine learning model, automatically adjusting certain physical settings of the projector, projecting light on something to make it more visible, and/or employing augmented reality, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., employing digital images comprised of pixels, a processor, an image sensor, a gaming table, a projector, automatically adjusting certain physical settings of the projector, projecting light on something to make it more visible, training/employing a machine learning model, and/or employing augmented reality, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F2 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same; e.g., p85 regarding automatically adjusting certain physical settings of the projector; e.g., p86 regarding projecting light on something to make it more visible; e.g., p95-95 regarding training/employing an ML model; and/or, e.g., p98 regarding employing augmented reality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 12-13 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image1.png
106
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
310
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant references numerous limitations (“processor”, “automatically”, “automatically adjusting…positioning of the projector”, “outputting projector control signals to drive the projector”) which are not, in fact, identified in the 101 rejection as being part of the abstract idea alleged to being able to be performed as a mental process. To the extent that Applicant’s claims are directed to collecting image data (“first set of [dot] coordinates”, “second set of [dot] coordinates”) and data regarding a total monetary value; analyzing dot data to determine if there is a difference between the two, and transforming a total monetary value into a visual display; and providing an output in regard to that visual display, such activities has been held by the CAFC to be patent ineligible as a mental process in decisions such as Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential). The CAFC has also specifically held claims directed to image analysis functions to be patent ineligible in decisions such as Mobile Acuity v. Blippar, Coffelt v. Nvidia (non-precedential), and Longitude Licensing v. Google (non-precedential).
Applicant argues on pages 12-13 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image3.png
258
662
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the claimed automatic adjustment has no functional relationship to any “claimed calibration”. In terms of, the “calibration” is not the physical calibration of, e.g., a sensor but, instead a mathematical process using a homography matrix to transform the coordinates of a captured image to different coordinates corresponding to a different alignment/location in space to provide a certain visual display for a human being to look at. The “automatic adjustment” feature has nothing to do with this so-called “calibration” process other than it is involved in providing the visual output, which is an abstract idea, as outlined supra. What is more, the automatic adjustment feature is not identified in the rejection as being part of the abstract idea and given the lack of disclosure (one sentence) in regard to how to make and/or use the automatic adjustment feature it must have been well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of filing and, therefore, fails to add “significantly more” to Applicant’s otherwise abstract idea.
Applicant argues on pages 13-14 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image4.png
320
656
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
192
688
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant includes numerous limitations (“machine-learning model”, “processor”, “pixel”) which are not identified in the 101 rejection as being part of the alleged abstract idea. What is more, to the extent that Applicant contends that a human being cannot perform the otherwise claimed limitations mentally it is unclear how Applicant would believe that a human being could, then, program a computer to perform its claimed invention. Also, and as outlined supra, claims directed to such image analysis functions have been held to be patent ineligible by the CAFC.
Applicant argues on pages 14-15 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image6.png
520
660
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
212
660
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s newly claimed limitations in regard to “automatically adjusting” are already addressed supra. Applicant’s newly claimed limitations in regard to shining a light on something to make it more visible to the human eye are addressed in the “practical application” and “significantly more” parts of the 101 rejection. And to the extent that Applicant now claims further limitations in regard to image analysis (“incrementally adjusting a…threshold applied to the captured image data”) those are, likewise, abstract in terms of analyzing data in order to provide an output based on that analysis. Contrary to Applicant’s contention, Applicant’s invention is not analogous to that of Thales because Applicant’s invention does not result in the increased accuracy of Applicant’s claimed sensing device. Instead, to the extent that Applicant’s claimed computer program “calibrates” the projector it is in terms of the output of the projector is formulated such that the visual appearance of the projected image is appears recognizable to the human beings viewing the image. Applicant is, in other words, seeking to gain a patent on a particular method of drawing a picture, a picture that is potentially helpful to human beings playing a game. Such a visual appearance of a display, however, is not patent eligible under the Mayo test as, at best, it improves the human performance of the game players but not the technological performance of the projecting device itself, in terms of allowing the projector to generate images quicker or more precisely, or use less power, or be manufacture less expensively. See, e.g., from the CAFC’s decision in Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC (2017-2257; 4/18/19):
PNG
media_image8.png
478
490
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Id., slip. op., page 9.
Applicant argues on page 15 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image9.png
392
666
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Applicant merely employs its projector for the well-understood, routine, and conventional purpose of providing a visual display. That Applicant further embodies its abstract idea by employing “projector control signals” to operate its projector is, likewise, well-understood, routine, and conventional. Applicant’s claimed “calibration” is, again, not some physical adjustment to the projector itself other than the mathematical calculation of certain data that is displayed by that projector. Such a visual display of this data is, again, abstract. What is more Applicant’s mere visual display of data is not analogous to the specific set of unique morph rules employed to provide an improved animation of human faces claimed in McRO, nor the method of harmonizing webpages over the internet claimed in DDR Holdings, nor the method of providing a user interface to optimize a small mobile device display in Core Wireless.
Applicant further argues that its claimed invention is not analogous to Recentive because Applicant’s claimed use of the machine learning model employs “specific technical operations tied to the physical configuration of the system, not the application of a generic model to a new domain.” Applicant’s independent claim includes these limitations in regard to employing the ML model:
analyzing, by the processor using a machine-learning model, the corrective mapping, and the KCD, the captured image data to detect an identifying pattern on an edge of one or more gaming chips within the standard chip stack;
In other words, Applicant claims providing certain inputs to a machine-learning model (“the corrective mapping, and the KCD, the captured image data”) and the model then providing an output (“to detect an identifying pattern on an edge of one or more gaming chips within the standard chip stack”). This is functionally indistinguishable from the use of the ML model in Recentive:
PNG
media_image10.png
142
466
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Id., slip. op., page 4.
No detail is claimed nor disclosed, in other words, by the Applicant in regard to the manner in which the ML model functions. All that is claimed is that certain inputs are made to the ML model and the model then renders certain outputs bases on those inputs, same as in Recentive.
Applicant further argues that because it claims training its ML model using training data its claimed invention is distinguishable from Recentive. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive:
PNG
media_image11.png
306
496
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Id., slip. op., page 12.
In other words, the fact that the Applicant chose a particular set of training data to train its ML model does not provide an improvement to ML modeling itself.
Applicant further argues on pages 16-17 that its claimed ordered combination of its abstract idea and the elements claimed in addition to its abstract idea are not well-understood, routine, and conventional and, thereby, that allegedly render patent eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because only the ordered combination of the elements claimed in addition to the abstract idea must be found to well-understood, routine, and conventional in order to support the 101 rejection. And the Berkheimer finding need only be made in regard to the elements claimed in addition to the abstract idea (and not in regard to the ordered combination of the abstract idea and those elements). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I): “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”, (emphasis added).
For these reasons the rejections made under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights