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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/19/2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response received on 08/19/2025. Presently, claims 1-13, 15, and 16 are pending.
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.
Claims 2-13 are 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.
With regard to claim 2, in the second limitation Applicant has now changed “the member information” to “a member information read at a play position.” Previously in claim 1 there is already “a member information of a sitting player” as well as “a member information of a back betting player.” Thus, now, it is unclear if this new “a member information read at a play position” relates to either one of these. Even more grievous though, is at the end of the limitation it states, “a member corresponding to the member information,” emphasis added. It is entirely unclear which of the three previous “a member information” that this relates to.
With regard to claim 3, there is a similar problem as the first part of claim 2 mentioned above, but then Applicant fixes the second issue mentioned above.
With regard to claim 4, Applicant now switches the problem entirely because it is now “the member information read at a play position,” (emphasis added) which again it is unclear which one we are referring to because of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1. It is also unclear why Applicant felt like it should be “a” in claim 2 and “the” in claim 4 when they both depend from claim 1. Applicant is encouraged to be consistent before arguing the version they believe clarifies the matter.
Claims 5-7 all have similar issues that need to be consistent addressed before the argument as to which version should be correct and why it is clear. Claim 5 also has changes “the play position” to “a play position” however it is unclear how this relates to “the play position of claim 1.” Claim 6 has “a betting area of a paly position” but these are as well already mention in claim 1 and thus is unclear. Claim 7 suffers similar issues as discussed in 5 and 6. Additionally in claim 7 it is now “a value of chips owned by the member” but it is unclear if this is related to “value of the one or more chips owned by the sitting player” and/or “value of the one or more chips owned by the back betting player” of claim 1.
Claims 8-13 are rejected as depending from a previously rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0131151 to Harris in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0122187 to Moore and US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0072752 to Melnick.
With regard to Claim 1, Harris discloses a management system in a facility providing a game, the management system comprising: a game table having a plurality of play positions, each play position of the plurality of play positions having a betting area (fig. 2; 0125); one or more member’s cards, each member's card having a respective card RFID tag storing a respective member information built in (0072); one or more chips, each chip having a respective chip RFID tag (0304); an RFID reader provided at each play position of the plurality of play positions of the game table, and configured to: read the respective card RFID tag to determine the member information stored in the card RFID tag, and determine the member information stored in the card RFID tag as one of a sitting player (0064; 0072; 0121; 0617; 0620) and read the respective chip RFID tag of the one or more chips placed in the betting area of the play position (0617-0620 wherein the reader 174 can identify player-tracking cards in 0617 and further the reader 174 can track the value of wagering tokens “which are located within a player’s personal space” in 0620; Harris is explicitly clear that all readers mentioned are 174 and are thus all the same type of reader; in addition RFID readers only need to send out a radio signal that activates the card or chip to send back identification and thus whether it is reading a card or a chip it will work exactly the same; thus whether the various readers are located at the middle of the table for reading member cards or at player positions would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as all the RFID readers are the same and thus for convenience having the player card being at the player station would have been obvious); a database configured to: store information associating he member information for the sitting player with a value of one or more chips owned by the sitting player (0111).
While Harris discusses back betting (0360; 0401) it is not explicitly clear about the particulars. However, the combination of Harris and Moore teaches the member information of the back betting player; a databased configured to: store information associating the member information of the back betting player with a value of one or more chips owned by the back betting player; and a management control device configured to differentiate the member information of the sitting player and the associated value of the one or more chips owned by the sitting player from the member information of the back-betting player and the associated value of the one or more chips owned by the back-betting player (Harris at 0111; 0360; 0401; 0620; Moore at 0082 wherein Moore states, that the back bettor must be separately tracked from the game player).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the teachings of Moore with the disclosure of Harris in order to give more information about how back betting (as disclosed by Harris at 0360 and 0401) would be able to work and track active players and back betting players (as taught by Moore 0082) and thus be able to entertain and earn money from not only “active” players but also back betting players.
While Harris does discuss verification of the user (0615) it does not appear to explicitly disclose face matching. However, Melnick teaches store an image of a face of a player in association with a member information of the player (0063, “photo on file”); and wherein the management system determines whether the image of the face of the player stored in the database in association with the member information stored in the card RFID tag and read by the RFID reader matches a face of a player recognized at the game table (0063).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the teachings of Melnick with the disclosure of Harris in order to further verify the player and “ensure that the correct person is using the universal player’s tracking card,” (Melnick 0063).
With regard to claim 2, as best understood, Harris discloses a chip determination device configured to, based on a reading result of the RFID reader, determine chip identification information of a payout chip to be paid out to a play position (0101; 0202; 0524-0525); a storage medium configured to store a member information read at a play position in association with the chip identification information of a chip owned by a member corresponding to the member information (0101-0104); and a management control device configured to store the member information read at the play position with the chip identification information of the payout chip determined at the play position in association with each other in the storage medium (0101-0104).
With regard to claim 3, Harris discloses: a chip determination device configured to based on a reading result of the RFID reader, determine a value of a payout chip to be paid out to the play position (0101; 0202; 0524-0525); a storage medium configured to store a member information read at a play position and the value of a chip owned by a member corresponding to the member information stored at a play position in association with each other (0101; 0202; 0524-0525); and a management control device configured to store the member information read at the play position and the value of the payout chip determined in the play position in association with each other in the storage medium (0101-0106; 0202; 0524-0525).
With regard to claim 4, Harris discloses a storage medium configured to store the member information read at a play position and a bet amount corresponding to the member information read at a play position in association with each other; a chip determination device configured to based on a reading result of the RFID reader determine chip identification information of a bet chip bet at the play position (0101-0106; 0620); a database configured to store corresponding relationship between the chip identification information and a value of the bet chip (0101-0106; 0202; 0524-0525); and a management control device configured to determine value corresponding to the chip information determined in the play position by referring to the database and update the bet amount associated with the member information stored in the storage medium for the member information read at the play position based on the value (0101-0106; 0202; 0524-0525).
With regard to claim 5, Harris discloses a storage medium configured to store member information associated with the bet amount (0101-0106); a chip determination device configured tom based on a reading result of the RFID reader, determine the value of bet chips bet in a play position (0101-0106; 0202; 0524-0525; 0620); and a management control device configured to update the bet amount associated with a member information stored in the storage medium for the member information read at the play position based on the value of the bet chip determined at the play position (0101-0106; 0202; 0524-0525).
With regard to claim 6, Harris discloses a chip determination device configured to, based on a reading result of the RFID reader, determine chip identification information of a reserve chip that is not bet at a betting area of a play position (0202; 0620); a storage medium configured to store a member information read at the play position and the chip identification information of the chip owned by the member corresponding to the member information read at the play position in association with each other (0101-0106; 0202); and a management control device configured to store the member information read at the play position and the chip identification information of the reserve chip determined at the play position in association with each other in the storage medium (0101-0106; 0202).
With regard to claim 7, Harris discloses a chip determination device configured to, based on a reading result of the RFID reader determine a value of reserve chips that is not bet in a play position (0202; 0620); a storage medium configured to store a member information read at a play position and a value of chips owned by the member corresponding to the member information in association with each other (0101-0106; 0202); and a management control device configured to store the member information read at the play position and the value of the reserve chips determined at the play position in association with each other in the storage medium (0101-0106; 0202).
With regard to claim 8, Harris discloses wherein the chip identification information of the chip is stored in the chip RFID tag (0063; 0620-0621).
With regard to claim 9, Harris discloses wherein the value of the payout chip is stored in the chip RFID tag (0063; 0640-0642; 0620; 0650-0652).
With regard to claim 10, Harris discloses wherein the management control device is configured to, when one RFID reader reads a plurality of member information from a plurality of members' cards at the same time, store the plurality of member information read and the chip identification information in association with each other in the storage medium (0070; 0101-0106; 0650-0652).
With regard to claims 11 and 12 it is not explicitly clear that the storage medium is in the chip or the card; however, Harris does make clear that the card and the chip can store information and thus simply moving the storage to a different location would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a well understood alternative to move memory from location to another (0101-0106; 0640-0642).
With regard to claim 13¸Harris discloses wherein the storage medium may be provided in the database (0061; 0101-0106).
With regard to claim 15, Harris discloses wherein the member's card includes: a regular member's card in which member information unique to a registered member is stored in the card RFID tag; and a non-regular member's card in which temporary member information is stored in the card RFID tag (0121-0123).
With regard to claim 16, Harris discloses wherein the non-regular member’s card includes a plurality of the non-regular members' cards, and wherein for each non-regular member’s card of the plurality of non-regular member’s cards, different temporary member information is stored in the respective card RFID tag of the non0regular member’s card (0121-0123).
Response to Arguments
The rejection based upon 35 USC 112(b) as discussed in the previous Office action has been withdrawn based upon Applicant’s amendments. However, as noted above, Applicant’s amendments have introduced new issues that required a new rejection based upon 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant’s arguments related to the rejection with prior art have been considered and are answered in the new rejection presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715