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 § 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 1-14, 16-29 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 1-14, 16-29 recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity and performing a mental process. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-14, 16-26, 28-29 recite, a management system comprising:
an image capturing device configured to capture an image of a plurality of gaming chips when the plurality of gaming chips is stacked, each gaming chip of the plurality of gaming chips having:
a built- in radio frequency identification (RFID) tag storing first information, and
second information written on a side surface, wherein the second information is unique for each gaming chip;
a reading device configured to read the RFID tags of one or more gaming chips of the plurality of gaming chips to obtain the first information of the one or more gaming chips;
an image analysis device configured to, based on the image:
obtain a location of each gaming chip of the plurality of gaming chips, and
obtain the second information of each gaming chip of the plurality of gaming chips, and
a control device configured to identify a location of a problem gaming chip whose RFID tag is fraudulent or damaged, or whose notation is fraudulent based on the first information and/or the second information, wherein the control device identifies the location of the problem gaming chip by comparing the first information of the one or more gaming chips obtained by the reading device with the second information of each of the plurality of gaming chips obtained by the image analysis device.
Claim 27 recite, a management system comprising:
an image capturing device configured to capture an image of a plurality of gaming chips when the plurality of gaming chips is stacked, each gaming chip of the plurality of gaming chips having a built-in RFID tag storing first information and having second information written on a side surface of the gaming chip, wherein the second information is unique for each gaming chip;
a reading device configured to read the RFID tags of the plurality of gaming chips to obtain the first information of the plurality of gaming chips;
an image analysis device configured to obtain a location of each of the plurality of gaming chips and the second information based on the image; and
a control device configured to, when there is a specific first information in the first information of the plurality of gaming chips obtained by the reading device, identify a location of the gaming chips having the second information corresponding to the specific first information by comparing the specific first information with the second information.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The process of inspecting a game token to identify a location of a gaming token that is fraudulent or damaged during a game is a management of game. In addition, the claim limitations of identifying a location of gaming chip having the second information corresponding to the specific first information is a management of a game. A game is managed by tracking or associating various game token data used in the game.
In addition, the step of identifying a location of a fraud or possible fraud by comparing data and associating a second game token information with a specific first information is a mental process that can be performed in the human made. A person can mentally make a comparison and identify the location.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration of whether the claim recites additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
An additional element or combination of additional elements that are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Additional element or combination of additional elements that are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-14, 16-29 not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-14, 16-29 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
The additional elements of an image capturing device configured to capture a plurality of gaming chips having a built- in RFID tag storing first information and having second information written on a surface thereof to generate an image; a reading device configured to read the RFID tags of the plurality of gaming chips to obtain the first information of the plurality of gaming chips; an image analysis device configured to obtain a location of each of the plurality of gaming chips and the second information, based on the image; are steps of gathering data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
For the reasons discussed above, the additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
The claims recite an image capturing device configured to capture a plurality of gaming chips having a built- in RFID tag storing first information and having second information written on a surface thereof to generate an image wherein the second information is unique for each gaming chip; an image analysis device configured to obtain a location of each of a second set of one or more gaming chips of the plurality of gaming chips and the second information, based on the image. Using an image capturing device to obtain information on game objects is well known, routine and conventional. Walton (US 2015/0038206) disclose a camera may be trained to capture images of cards, chips, chip stacks on the surface of a gaming table (paragraph 135). Known image extraction techniques are used to obtain information from the images (paragraph 135).
The claim also recites the additional element of a reading device configured to read the RFID tags of a first set of one or more gaming chips of the plurality of gaming chips to obtain the first information of the plurality of gaming chips. The use of RFID tag in gaming chips and a reader to read the RFID tags in gaming chips is well known, conventional and routine. Rowe (US 2007/0060311) discloses that RFID readers to read gaming chips with RFID tags are well known in the art (paragraphs 4, 34).
individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-14, 16-26, 28-29 further recite steps of making identifying or making a determination based on the comparison of data; how the data is obtained; and the location of chips. These limitations further recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity or performing a mental process with the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The dependent clams merely include limitations that further define the abstract idea and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
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 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 1-14, 16-26, 28-29 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.
Claim 1 recites, a control device configured to identify a location of a problem gaming chip whose RFID tag is fraudulent or damaged, or whose notation is fraudulent based on the first information and/or the second information, wherein the control device identifies the location of the problem gaming chip by comparing the first information of the one or more gaming chips obtained by the reading device with the second information of each of the plurality of gaming chips obtained by the image analysis device.
In the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim can be interpreted that the location of a problem gaming chip is based on the first information or the second information. However, the claim then specifies that the location of the gaming chip is identified by comparing the first information with the second information. The claim is indefinite because it is not clear if the claim can require the first or second information or if the claim requires both the first and second information to identify a location of a problem gaming chip.
Claims 2-14, 16-26, 28-29 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 29 recites, the first gaming chips is the problem gaming chip. Claim 28 which is incorporated by dependency species that the first gaming chip is not part of the one or more gaming chips. However, claim 1 by dependency, specifies that the problem gaming chip is of the one or more gaming chips. Therefore, it is not clear how the first gaming chip is the problem gaming chip if it is not part of the one or more gaming chips.
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 1-14, 19, 22-23, 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronau (US 2020/0234529) in view of Soltys (US 2002/0045478).
Claim 1. Gronau discloses a management system comprising:
an image capturing device configured to capture an image of a plurality of gaming chips, each gaming chip of the plurality of gaming chips having:
a built-in radio frequency identification (RFID) tag storing first information (paragraphs 26, 30, 47), and
second information written on side surface (pattern at least on the edge side of the gaming chips used to identify the type/denomination; paragraph 34).
thereof to generate an image (capture image data from video camera paragraphs 9, 31);
a reading device configured to read the RFID tags of a first subset of one or more gaming chips of the plurality of gaming chips to obtain the first information of the plurality of gaming chips (paragraphs 26, 30, 47);
an image analysis device configured to, based on the image:
obtain a location of each gaming chip of the plurality of gaming chips (bet spot, position of the token, height of chip, paragraphs 30, 31, 32) and
obtain the second information of each gaming chip of the plurality of gaming chips (paragraphs 32-3, 34, 48), and
a control device configured to identify a location of a problem gaming chip (Identify the patron using on the chip based on the location, bet location; paragraphs 30, 33, 43. Therefore the location or at least the bet location is identified. Chip height is also determined; paragraphs 32.) whose RFID tag is fraudulent or damaged, or whose notation is fraudulent, based on the first information and/or the second information wherein the control device identifies the location of a problem gaming chip (identifies the bet location or “bet spot” and can indicate discrepancy for each patron, dealer or other person associated with the bet spot; paragraphs 26, 30-32, 36, 47, 51), by comparing the first information of the one or gaming chips obtained by the reading device with the second information of each of the plurality of gaming chips obtained by the image analysis device (paragraphs 26, 42, 49).
Gronau discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach that the plurality of gaming chips is stacked and the second information is unique for each gaming chip. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art gaming systems, Soltys discloses a system that automatically monitors a wagering game. Soltys discloses the system comprise an image of gaming events including a plurality of gaming chips, wherein the plurality of gaming chips is stacked (paragraph 78). The individual edges of the chips is captured (paragraph 78) to identify the chips by the marking on the edges of the chips (paragraph 58). The edges of the chip is encoded with information such as a unique serial number (paragraph 58). This allows each chip to be identified from the image even when the chips are stacked on top of each other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art and modify Gronau’s system and incorporate the second information on a side surface and capture the image of stacked chips in order to provide the predictable result of identifying the plruiaty of chips including the chips that are stacked on top of each other.
Claim 2. Gronau discloses the management system according to claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to identify the location of the gaming chips (Identify the patron using on the chip based on the location, bet location; paragraphs 30, 33, 43. Therefore the location or at least the bet location is identified) having the second information not corresponding to the first information as the problem gaming chips (Check for discrepancies to from the RFID data and image based data to detect broken, malfunction, counterfeit chips; paragraphs 22, 26, 33, 42, 49-51).
Claim 3. Gronau discloses the management system according to claim 1 as discussed above but fails to teach that herein the control device is configured to identify as the problem gaming chip the gaming chip having the second information, when the first information for the gaming chip does not correspond to the second information. However, it is implied or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art.
Gronau discloses the system determines whether a discrepancy exists between the first reading and the second reading. In some embodiments, a discrepancy is determined between any two or more readings from any number of technologies. The discrepancy can correspond to a difference in a count if gaming chips, a difference in denomination of gaming chips, or some other discrepancy (paragraphs 22, 26, 33, 42, 49-51). Gronau discloses that the one of the determination that the system make is that the chip is defective (paragraphs 51). Therefore, it would at least have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art and identify a problem/defective gaming chip.
Claim 4. Gronau discloses the management system according to claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to determine the gaming chip having a RFID tag in which the first information not corresponding to the second information is stored as a problem gaming chip and the location thereof (Check for discrepancies to from the RFID data and image based data to detect broken, malfunction, counterfeit chips; paragraphs 22, 26, 33, 49-51).
Claim 5. Gronau discloses the management system according to claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to determine the gaming chip having an RFID tag in which the first information does not correspond to the second information (Gronau discloses determining whether a discrepancy exists between the first reading and the second reading. In some embodiments, a discrepancy is determined between any two or more readings from any number of technologies. The discrepancy can correspond to a difference in a count if gaming chips, a difference in denomination of gaming chips, or some other discrepancy; paragraph 49).
Claim 6. Gronau discloses the management system according to claim 1, wherein: each gaming chip of the plurality of gaming chips has an appearance that enables identification of a type of the gaming chip from multiple types, the second information is unique for each of the types (Color pattern used to determine denomination; paragraph 34. Therefore, each pattern is unique for each type/denomination of chip), the image analysis device is configured to obtain the second information and determine the type for each of the plurality of gaming chips based on the image, and the control device is configured to compare the first information of the one or more gaming chips obtained by the reading device with type information of each of the plurality of gaming chips obtained by the image analysis device (paragraphs 33-34, 42-43, 47-51).
Claim 7. Gronau discloses the management system according to claim 1, wherein: each gaming chip of the plurality of gaming chips has an appearance that enables identification of a type of the gaming chip from multiple types, the appearance is unique for each of the multiple types (Color pattern used to determine denomination; paragraph 34. Therefore, each pattern is unique for each type/denomination of chip),
the image analysis device is configured to, for each of the plurality of gaming chips, obtain, for each gaming chip of the plurality of gaming chips, the second information and the appearance and determine the type of the gaming chip, based on the image (paragraphs 33-34, 42-43, 47-51), and
the control device is configured to, in the case where the second information cannot be read from a particular gaming chip of the plurality of gaming chips, or in the case where it is determined that there is a presence of the problem gaming chip, identify the unreadable second information using the appearance to determine the type of the particular gaming chip determined by the image analysis device and compare the identified second information with the first information of the particular gaming chip (Gronau discloses determining whether a discrepancy exists between the first reading and the second reading. In some embodiments, a discrepancy is determined between any two or more readings from any number of technologies. The discrepancy can correspond to a difference in a count if gaming chips, a difference in denomination of gaming chips, or some other discrepancy; paragraph 49. An unreadable information would cause a discrepancy.). See also Soltys, rejection for claim 1.
Claim 8. Gronau discloses the management system according to claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to use information other than the first information and the second information of the problem gaming chip to determine whether the problem is in the RFID tag or the notation (a third reading using a third technology, i.e. weight scale, barcode scanner, to determine if the chip is defective such as the RFID tag; paragraphs 3, 10, 26).
Claim 9. Gronau discloses the management system according to claim 8, wherein: each gaming chip of the plurality of the gaming chip has an appearance that enables identification of a type of the gaming chip, the image analysis device is configured to determine the type of each of the plurality of gaming chips based on the image (Color pattern used to determine denomination; paragraph 34), and the control device is configured to determine which of the RFID tag and the notation is wrong based on the type determined by the image analysis device (paragraphs 26, 42, 49).
Claim 10. Gronau discloses the management system according to any of claim 9, wherein each gaming chip of the plurality of gaming chips has an appearance on a side thereof that can identify the type of the gaming chip (pattern at least on the edge side of the gaming chips used to identify the type/denomination; paragraph 34). See also Soltys, rejection for claim 1.
Claim 11. Gronau discloses the management system according to any of claim 9, further comprising a housing unit configured to accommodate the plurality of gaming chips, wherein the imaging capturing device is configured to capture the plurality of gaming chips accommodated in the housing unit (cameras can be positioned in a chip tray and track and count the chips in betting position and chip tray, chip recycler and other positions, paragraph 31-32).
Claim 12. Gronau discloses the management system according to claim 11, wherein the housing unit is configured to accommodate the plurality of gaming chips in an aligned manner (This is inherent for the identification service 227/230 can perform image recognition on frames of the video feed to identify information for each position; paragraph 32).
Claim 13. Gronau discloses the management system according to claim 11, wherein the housing unit is a chip tray provided on a game table (chip tray 236 on Table 103 in Fig. 2)
Claim 14. Gronau discloses the management system according to claim 13, wherein the image capturing device is fixed to the game table (Gronau discloses that the camera can be on the table such as in a chip tray, chip recycler and therefore fixed, paragraph 31).
Claim 19. Gronau discloses the management system according to claim 1, wherein: the first information and the second information are different information from each other, the management system further comprises a database that records a combination of the first information and the second information for each gaming chip, and the control device is configured to perform the comparison by referring to the database (The first and second reading can include different amount of information; paragraph 49, For example, the first reading/RFID can be a identifier for each RFID and the second reading can be denotation, identifier; paragraphs 47-48. The Data store 212 stores visual data, sensors data, and any identifiers associated the gaming chip to make the comparison; paragraphs 25-27).
Claim 22. Gronau discloses the management system according to claim 1, wherein: the second information is duplicated in some of the plurality of gaming chips, and the control device is configured to, when there is a plurality of candidates from the plurality of gaming chips for the first information for which the corresponding second information is not obtained, identify the plurality of candidates for the first information (Gronau discloses determining whether a discrepancy exists between the first reading and the second reading. In some embodiments, a discrepancy is determined between any two or more readings from any number of technologies. The discrepancy can correspond to a difference in a count if gaming chips, a difference in denomination of gaming chips, or some other discrepancy; paragraph 49).
Claim 23. Gronau the management system according to claim 1, further comprising a display device configured to indicate the location of the problem gaming chip (i.e. red and green indicator, paragraph 51).
Claim 27. See rejection for claim 1 above.
Claim 28. Gronau discloses the management system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of gaming chips includes at least a first gaming chip that is not a part of the one or more gaming chips (Gronau discloses a plurality of bet spots 239 in Fig. 2. It is interpreted that a first gaming chip is in a different location from the one or more gaming chips.).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronau (US 2020/0234529) in view of Soltys (US 2002/0045478) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steil (US 2008/0234052).
Claim 16. Gronau discloses the management system according to claim 1 as discussed above but fails to teach that the second information is information represented by a matrix pattern, a dot pattern, a barcode, a sequence of numbers, or a sequence of letters, and the image analysis device is configured to obtain the second information by decoding the matrix pattern, the dot pattern, or the barcode, or by recognizing the sequence of numbers or the sequence of letters. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled the art. Gronau discloses that the denomination can be determined based on various visual characteristic. In one example, a color pattern on the edge of the gaming chips can be used to determine the denomination. In another example, one or more visual security features can be used to determine the denomination. For example, each denomination of currency can have a different holographic symbol or other visual security protection (paragraph 34). In an analogous art to gaming chips, Steil discloses a gaming comprising second information is information represented by a matrix pattern, a dot pattern, a barcode, a sequence of numbers, or a sequence of letters that can be visually identified (alphanumerical identifiers, such as serial number added to all pieces of chips paragraphs 32, 61). This allows each chip to be uniquely and visually identified. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gronau’s invention and second information is information represented by a matrix pattern, a dot pattern, a barcode, a sequence of numbers, or a sequence of letters, and the image analysis device is configured to obtain the second information by decoding the matrix pattern, the dot pattern, or the barcode, or by recognizing the sequence of numbers or the sequence of letters in order to provide the predictable result of uniquely and visually identifying the gaming chip.
Claim 17. Gronau discloses the management system according to claim 1 as discussed above but fails to teach each gaming chip of the on the first information is a unique ID that uniquely identifies the gaming chip. Gronau discloses that the first reading can be an identifier (paragraphs 47, 48). It would have been obvious that the identifier is a unique ID. In an analogous art to gaming chips, Steil discloses a gaming comprising a first ID in the form of and RFID chip, includes token’s monetary value, a serial number, gaming establishment name, token creating data and other data (paragraph 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gronau’s invention and incorporate a unique ID that uniquely identifies the gaming chip (serial number) that is read from the RFID tag in order to provide predictable result of uniquely identifying the gaming chip.
Claim 18. Gronau in view of Steil disclose the management system according to claim 17, wherein the second information is the same unique ID as the first information (See rejection for claims 16 and 17 above. More specifically, Steil discloses that the first identifier and the second identifier are the token serial number and the secondary alphanumeric identifier provide redundancy; paragraph 31-2, 61).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronau (US 2020/0234529) in view of Soltys (US 2002/0045478) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kotab (US 2011/0227703).
Claim 20. Gronau discloses the management system according to claim 1 but fails to teach that the second information is duplicated in some of the plurality of gaming chips, and the control device is configured to, when a plurality of identical second information is obtained, and the number of the identical second information is greater than the number of first information corresponding to the identical second information, determine each of the gaming chips on which the identical second information are represented as the problem gaming chip and determine each location of the problem gaming chips. However, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. Gronau discloses that the system checks for discrepancies to from the RFID data and image based data to detect broken, malfunction, counterfeit chips (paragraphs 22, 26, 33, 49-51). The first and second information can be identifiers of the gaming chip (paragraph 47-48). A fake duplicate chip with identical information would be considered a counterfeit chip. In addition, in analogous art to gaming chips Kotab disclose that when two gaming chips have the same identifier, then it is likely that one of them is counterfeit and an indication that one or both of the chip is invalid may be outputted (paragraph 79).It would have been obvious to modify Gronau and determine the plurality of the gaming chips on which the identical second information are represented as the problem gaming chips and determine each location of the problem gaming chips since Gronau discloses that the system determines counterfeit chips based on the identifiers and it is known to identify counterfeit chips when two chips have the same identifier.
Claim 21. Gronau discloses the management system according to claim 1 but fails to teach that the second information is duplicated in some of the plurality of gaming chips, and the control device is configured to, when a plurality of identical second information is obtained, and the number of the identical second information is greater than the number of first information corresponding to the identical second information, determine each of the gaming chips on which the identical second information is represented as the problem gaming chip and determine an area of the problem gaming chips. However, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. Gronau discloses that the system checks for discrepancies to from the RFID data and image based data to detect broken, malfunction, counterfeit chips (paragraphs 22, 26, 33, 49-51). The first and second information can be identifiers of the gaming chip (paragraph 47-48). A fake duplicate chip with identical information would be considered a counterfeit chip. In addition, in analogous art to gaming chips Kotab disclose that when two gaming chips have the same identifier, then it is likely that one of them is counterfeit and an indication that one or both of the chip is invalid may be outputted (paragraph 79). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gronau’s invention and determine an area of the plurality of problem gaming chips when identical second information are represented for a plurality of the gaming chips since Gronau discloses that the system determines counterfeit chips based on the identifiers and it is known to identify counterfeit chips when two chips have the same identifier.
Claims 24-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronau (US 2020/0234529) in view of Soltys (US 2002/0045478) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of George (US 2015/0199872).
Claim 24. Gronau discloses the claimed invention according to claim 23 as discussed above but fails to teach that the display device is configured to superimpose the location on the image. However, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to management systems, George discloses tracking game object on a table game. George discloses that the system display a live video image of the gaming table and overlay images of a plurality of events, gaming metrics and event records (paragraphs 12-15, 21, 43, 100, 200). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gronau’s invention and display the event of a problem superimposed on the location on the image in order to provide the predictable result of providing event information according to the game in real time according to the location in which the event is occurring.
25. Gronau discloses the claimed invention according to claim 23 but fails to teach that the management system further comprises a housing unit capable of accommodating configured to accommodate the plurality of gaming chips in a predetermined accommodating positions, the image capturing device is configured to capture the plurality of gaming chips accommodated in the housing unit, and the display device is configured to display an address of an accommodating position of the problem gaming chip in the housing unit. However, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to management systems, George discloses tracking game object on a table game. George discloses a housing unit capable of accommodating the plurality of gaming chips in a predetermined accommodating positions (chip tray to accommodate chips in columns, 188, Fig. 15), an image capturing device is configured to capture the plurality of gaming chips accommodated in the housing unit (Fig. 15, paragraph 56) and the display device is configured to display a live video image of the gaming table and overlay images of a plurality of events, gaming metrics and event records (paragraphs 12-15, 21, 43, 100, 200). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gronau’s invention and incorporate and a housing unit as claimed and capture the plurality of gaming chips accommodated in the housing unit in order to provide the predictable result of monitoring and tracking the chips entering and exiting the chip tray and display game events occurring in the gaming table and chip tray. When modifying Gronau’s invention to incorporate George’s chip tray and display, one of ordinary skilled in the art would modify the display to address of the accommodating position of the problem gaming chip in the housing unit since Gronau’s discloses a system the detects defective gaming chips and George disclosing displaying game event overlayed on an image of a gaming table.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronau (US 2020/0234529) in view of Soltys (US 2002/0045478) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Miller (US 2007/0184898)
Claim 26. Gronau discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach a housing unit configured to accommodate the plurality of gaming chips in an aligned manner; and a light irradiation device configured to irradiate light to a designated gaming chip among the plurality of gaming chips accommodated in the housing unit, wherein: the image capturing device is configured to capture the plurality of gaming chips accommodated in the housing unit, and the control device is configured to control the light irradiation device to irradiate light on the problem gaming chip for which the location that have been determined. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to wagering systems, Miller discloses a chip housing to accommodate a plurality of chip and when the system determines a problem gaming chip the system is configured to control the light irradiation device to irradiate light on the problem gaming chip for which the location that have been determined (Chip tray include various status LED indicator lights to alert dealers detection off one or more counterfeit chips, or misplaced chip, paragraph 40. In the broadest reasonable interpretation, Miller disclose that at least the chip tray in which the chip is located is indicated by the LED light.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gronau’s invention and incorporate and a housing unit as claimed and irradiate light on the problem gaming chip for which the location that have been determined in order to alert the dear or casino personal of operating status, or detection of one or more counterfeit chip.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the claims are not an abstract idea because the claim include limitations that cannot be done in the human mind. Applicant argues that the use of RFID tags cannot be performed in the human mind. However, the RFID tag is a well-known generic device used to gather information. The step of identifying a location of a problem gaming chip based on the gathered information is a mental step that can be performed in the human mind.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a unique combination of elements, including a particular RFID tag, a particular gaming chip, a particular image analysis, and a particular control device allowing the identification of the location of the problem gaming chip. However, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Applicants argues that the claims do not recite an organization of human activity because the claims do not involve any humans, let alone any social activity. Applicant argues that management of a game is not a sub group of methods of organizing a human activity.
However, the process of inspecting a game token to identify a location of a gaming token that is fraudulent or damaged during a game is a management of game. In addition, the claim limitations of identifying a location of gaming chip having the second information corresponding to the specific first information is a management of a game. A game is managed by tracking or associating various game token data used in the game. A management of a game is a management of a social activity. The MPEP does not exclude gaming activity or management of a game from methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the management system identify a location of a problem chip such as a damaged or fraudulent gaming chip and provide a solution for being unable to identify the location. Comparing information to identify the location is not a technical solution. As indicated above, the step of identifying location of a problem gaming chip such as a damaged or fraudulent gaming chip is an abstract idea.
35 USC 112
The prior rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn in view of the claim amendments. New rejections under 35 USC 112 have been made to address the amended limitations.
Prior Art
New prior art rejections have been made to address the amended limitations using previously cited prior art.
Applicant argues that fails to teach identifying a location of a problem gaming chip. However, Gronau discloses that the control device configured to identifies a location of a problem gaming chip (Identify the patron using on the chip based on the location, bet location; paragraphs 30, 33, 43. Therefore the location or at least the bet location is identified. Chip height is also determined; paragraphs 32.) whose RFID tag is fraudulent or damaged, or whose notation is fraudulent, based on the first information and/or the second information wherein the control device identifies the location of a problem gaming chip (identifies the bet location or “bet spot” and can indicate discrepancy for each patron, dealer or other person associated with the bet spot; paragraphs 26, 30-32, 36, 47, 51), by comparing the first information of the one or gaming chips obtained by the reading device with the second information of each of the plurality of gaming chips obtained by the image analysis device (paragraphs 26, 42, 49).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715