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, 3-10, 22, 24 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 1-10, 22-24 are directed to an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claim(s) does/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.
Claim 1 recite the following:
a game management system for managing a casino game played at a gaming table in a casino facility using game tokens, wherein the gaming table includes a plurality of positions and a betting target, the game management system comprising:
a player capturing device configured to capture an image of a player at one of the plurality of player positions;
a game token capturing device configured to capture an image of one or more game tokens bet at one of the plurality of player positions;
a game result determining device configured to determine a result of the casino game; and
an information processing device configured to:
analyze the image captured by the game token capturing device to identify a respective bet amount that has been bet on the casino game for each of the plurality of player positions of the gaming table based on respective positions, types, and numbers of the game tokens that have been bet;
analyze the image captured by the player capturing device to identify, for each player position of the plurality of player position, a respective member ID of a respective player who participates in the casino game at the player position; and
ascertain, for each player of the casino game, based on the respective bet amount of the player and based on the casino game result determined by the game result determining device:
whether the player won or lost, and
a respective balance of the player to determine balances of players of the casino game; and
store in a database in correlation with each other (a) the respective member ID of the respective player of the player position, (b) the respective bet amount which has been identified by the information processing device as a bet amount of the player position at which the member ID is identified.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organization of human activity. The claims recite an abstract of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions which includes social activities, and following rules or instructions. More specifically, the claims recite how a casino game is managed. Players, player positions and bet amount are identified and stored in correlation with each other. Managing players and bet amounts is a management of a game/social activity and therefore an abstract idea of organizing human activity.
In addition, the underlined limitations recite how players, and bet amounts are identified and stored which is a fundamental economic principle or commercial or legal interaction. Keeping track of users and their spending (bet amount) is fundamental economic principle or commercial or legal interaction.
In addition, the underline limitation recite a mental process that can be performed in the human mind.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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, 3-10, 22, 24 do 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, 3-10, 22, 24 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 player capturing device and game token game capturing device amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The game result determining device and the information processing device is a generic computer in the field used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed components are used to implement the game in a computer embodiment. The use of a computer generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
The claims recite additional elements of an information processing device, a player capturing device, a game token capturing device.
Kammler (2005/0054446) discloses it is known for in the art for a processor identify player and award points (paragraph 16).
Super (US 2007/0248281) discloses that a player identifying unit are well known in the art. More specifically, Super discloses that identifying a user’s face from an image captured by a camera are well known in the art (paragraph 15). The techniques to identify and track a user based on images of a camera is also well known in the art (paragraph 15). Koyama (US 2010/0240446) discloses that it is known to track gaming chips using a camera (paragraph 23).
The additional elements are well known and used in a conventional way. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-10, 22, 24 are directed to determining bet amount, total amount at different times, comparing the total amount, storing the start and end time of players participating in the game, calculate bet amount, determining incentive amounts, allocating points, determining game results and ascertain and store a start and end time. These limitations further recite an abstract idea of managing a game and fundamental economic principle or commercial interaction of tracking players spending (bet amount) based on game play. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claims 5 specifies that the processing devices includes a face authentication system. As indicated above, Super (US 2007/0248281) discloses that facial authentication system or facial recognition are well known in the art. There is no improvement to the facial authentication system. The facial authentication system is used in a conventional manner to perform the abstract idea. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “game result determining device is configured to determine a result of the game” in claim 1; and “an incentive processing unit, wherein the incentive processing unit is configured to provide an incentive” in claims 9-10; and point allocation unit in claims 22
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 3 and 4 are improper dependent claims. Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 which is canceled. Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3. It’ll be assumed that claim 3 is dependent on claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-8, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan (US 6,267,671) in view of Gronkowski (US 9,189,918), Soltys’478 (US 2002/0045478) and Soltys’005 (US 2005/0137005) and Koyama (US 8,172672).
Claim 1. Hogan discloses a game management system (Fig. 4) for managing a casino game played at a gaming table in a casino facility using game tokens, wherein the gaming table includes a plurality of player positions and a betting target, the game management system comprising:
an information processing device (90 in Fig. 1) configured to:
identify a respective bet amount that has been bet on the casino game for each of the plurality of player positions of the gaming table based on respective positions (cols. 5:26-57, 7:23-4, 8:16-20), types of the game tokens that have been bet (Identify the total amount bet, the types or denominational values; cols. 7:15-55, 8:30-46.);
identify, for each player position of the plurality of player position, a respective member ID of a respective player who participates in the casino game at the player position (detect for each player position the player information e.g., player account number and identification of player; cols. 7:33-45) and
store in a database in correlation with each other (a) the respective member ID of the respective player for the player position, and (b) the respective bet amount which has been identified by the information processing device as a bet amount of the player position at which the member ID is identified (cols. 7:15-8:46, 11:643-12:3, 14:1-18).
Hogan discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach:
a player capturing device configured to capture an image of a player at one of the plurality of player positions;
a game token capturing device configured to capture an image of one or more game tokens bet at one of the plurality of player positions;
a game result determining device configured to determine a result of the casino game; and
the information processing device to analyze the image captured by the game token capturing device;
identifying for each of the plurality of player positions the number of the game tokens that have been bet;
analyze the image captured by the player capturing device to identify for each player position of the plurality of player positions;
ascertain, for each player of the casino game, based on the respective bet amount of the player and based on the casino game result determined by the game result determining device:
whether the player won or lost, and
a respective balance of the player to determine balances of players of the casino game.
Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art as discussed below.
In an analogous art to gaming systems, Gronkowski a game system which monitor and tracks wagering events. Gronkowski discloses a player capturing device configured to capture an image of a player at one of the plurality of player positions and analyze the image captured by the player capturing device to identify for each player position of the plurality of player positions (camera to captures player’s face for authentication and identification; cols. 4:15-34, 4:39-5:19, 6:39-45, 8:50-9:10). The use of a camera to track player would automate the identification of players and eliminate the need for players to provide player game cards. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify Hogan’s invention and incorporate a player capturing device in order to provide the predictable result of automating the identification of players.
In an analogous art to wagering systems, Soltys’478 teaches a table game system that monitors the game play (paragraph 88) and or each of the players, ascertain whether the respective player has won or lost (paragraphs 93-94, 104-107, 155, 174 and Fig. 30 illustrating win/loss for players 2, 3, 4, and 6). Soltys’478 discloses a game token capturing device configured to capture an image of one or more game tokens bet at one of the plurality of player positions and analyze the image captured by the game token capturing device for each player position (paragraphs 78-80, 91, 110-113, 132-137). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify Hogan’s invention and incorporate a game token capturing device as claimed in order to provide the predictable result of tracking the tokens used in the game player by analyzing images.
In an analogous art to wagering systems, Soltys’005 discloses a gaming system that monitors game play. Soltys’005 discloses a bet recognition device can be used to read and monitor the amount and location of the wagers (i.e., type and quantity of gaming chips constituting a given wager) of each participant (paragraph 47). Tracking the number of chips wagered will help when tracking and auditing the game play and wagering amount and provide additional security information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hogan’s invention and identify the number of game tokens that have been bet for auditing and security purposes.
In an analogous art to wagering systems, Koyama discloses a gaming system that monitors game play. Koyama discloses a game result determining device (server device 6) configured to determine a result of the casino game (server device automatically judges the game win/lose result; abstract, col. 1:65-2:4, col. 9:8-16, Fig. 12); and ascertain, for each player of the casino game, based on the respective bet amount of the player and based on the casino game result determined by the game result determining device: whether the player won or lost (col. 9:8-16, Fig. 12), and a respective balance of the player to determine balances of players of the casino game (actual dividend which includes original wager/stake and dividend paid or $0 if player lose; col. 9:8-43; Fig. 12). The system prevents improper amount of chips is awarded to the player and checks for inconsistency between the game result and the dividend returned to a player (cols. 1:46-51, 2:4-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hogan’s invention and ascertain the bet amount of the player and the determine the balances of players of the casino game in order to provide the predictable result of ensuring that the proper amount of chips are awarded to the players.
3. Hogan discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach a game token tray in which one or more game tokens can be placed, wherein the information processing device is further configured to: determine a total amount of the one or more game tokens in the game token tray; and compare information regarding a total amount of the balances of the players with a total change in the amount of the one or more game tokens in the game token tray from before a settlement of the one or more game tokens to after the settlement of the one or more game tokens. However, Soltys’478 teaches a gaming table (abstract) comprising a camera imaging a chip tray to determine the overall balance in the game regarding the chips paid in and out (Fig. 30, paragraphs 11, 56, 9091, 106) wherein an error is determined when a discrepancy is detected (Fig. 27, items 826 and 828 and paragraph 155). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hogan’s invention and detect if a discrepancy occur between a balance in a token tray against the results of the game as claimed in order to provide the predictable result of alerting the operators to possible error or fraud in the system and therefore maintain proper accounting in the system (paragraphs 7-9, 14 of Soltys’478).
4. Hogan discloses the claimed invention but fails that the information processing device is configured to offer points to the players when a result of the comparison is that the total change in the amount of the one or more game tokens in the token tray from before the settlement to after the settlement and the information regarding the total amount of the balances of the players match each other. However, Hogan teaches providing points to the identified players based their betting information (cols. 8:48-9:1). Soltys’478 teaches a gaming table (abstract) comprising a camera imaging a chip tray to determine the overall balance in the game regarding the chips paid in and out (Fig. 30, paragraphs 11, 56, 90-91, 106, and claim 17) wherein an error is determined when a discrepancy is detected (Fig. 27, items 826 and 828 and paragraph 155). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Hogan with Soltys’478, in order to provide points to players based on betting information and check discrepancy between a balance in a token tray against the results of the game (as suggest by Soltys’478; paragraphs 7-9 of Soltys’478 regarding need and advantage of tracking by the system). More specifically, it would be an obvious step to suspend awarding of points if an error is detected using the system of Soltys’478 since points have a cash value associated with them and therefore a casino would not wish to award points in such a case.
Claim 5. As indicated above, Gronkowski discloses a player capturing device that capture an image of the player and analyze the image to identify the players using face authentication system (camera to captures player’s face for authentication and identification; cols. 4:15-34, 4:39-5:19, 6:39-45, 8:50-9:10).
Claim 6. Hogan discloses the game management system according to claim 1, wherein the information processing device is configured to read the respective member ID from a storage medium in which the member ID of the respective player is stored (cols. 5:30-53, 7:32-40).
Claim 7. Hogan discloses the game management system according to claim 1, wherein the information processing device is configured to ascertain and store in a database, a start time and an end time at which each player of the casino game participates in the casino game (starting and ending times for game and sessions, cols. 7:2-5 16:43-44).
Claim 8. Hogan discloses the information processing device is configured to calculate a bet amount of each player for each casino game (cols. 7:15-55, 8:30-46).
Claim 22. Hogan discloses a point allocation unit configured to allocate points to players based on the correlation between the member ID of the respective player for the respective player position and the bet amount of the respective player position in the database (cols. 8:48-9:1).
Claim 24. Hogan discloses the game management system according to claim 22, wherein the information processing device is further configured to ascertain and store in a database, a start time and an end time at which each player of the casino game participates in the casino game (starting and ending times for game and sessions, cols. 7:2-5 16:43-44).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan (US 6,267,671) in view of Gronkowski (US 9,189,918), Soltys’478 (US 2002/0045478) Soltys’005 (US 2005/0137005) and Koyama (US 8,172672) as applied to claim 1, in view of Kaminkow (US 2003/0036425).
Claim 9. Hogan discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to teach an incentive processing unit, wherein the incentive processing unit is configured to provide an incentive based on respective accumulations of the bet amount per month or per year. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to wagering systems, Kaminkow discloses a gaming system comprising a loyalty point system with a processor (server 200 in Fig. paragraphs 54-60). Kaminkow discloses points are awarded based on identified respective bet amount of the respective player (loyalty points based on amount wagered over a specific period of time, total amount wagered, amount of time spending playing; calculated amount for a play session; paragraphs 58-60, 69. Parameters from game play performed on the gaming machine, such as an amount bet, is converted to player tracking points; paragraph 129.). Loyalty point corresponds to player’s level of patronage and help to sustain a game player’s interest in additional game play during a visit to a gaming establishment and entice players to partake in various gaming activities (paragraph 6). Kaminkow discloses that the loyalty points may be adjusted “according to the following parameters (without limitation thereto): 1) the time of the day, 2) the day of the week, 3) month of the year, 4) a total amount wagered, 5) an amount of time spent playing” (paragraph 58). Loyalty points may also be based on an amount wagered “over a particular amount of time” (paragraphs 72). A rate at which the patron accrues loyalty points may vary according to one or more of a time of day, days of a week, months of a year, an amount wagered, a game denomination, a promotional event, a game type and a rate of wagering (paragraphs 58, 99). A change in rate such as a higher rate is an incentive. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Hogan’s invention and provide an incentive based on respective accumulations of the bet amount per month or per year since Kaminkow discloses that the rate may change based on the month, duration and wagered amount.
Claim 10. Hogan discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to teach an incentive processing unit, wherein the incentive processing unit is configured to provide an incentive based on respective accumulations of the bet amount per every predetermined number of days. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to wagering systems, Kaminkow discloses a gaming system comprising a loyalty point system with a processor (server 200 in Fig. paragraphs 54-60). Kaminkow discloses that the loyalty points may be adjusted “according to the following parameters (without limitation thereto): 1) the time of the day, 2) the day of the week, 3) month of the year, 4) a total amount wagered, 5) an amount of time spent playing” (paragraph 58). Loyalty points may also be based on an amount wagered “over a particular amount of time” (paragraphs 72). A rate at which the patron accrues loyalty points may vary according to one or more of a time of day, days of a week, months of a year, an amount wagered, a game denomination, a promotional event, a game type and a rate of wagering (paragraphs 58, 99). A change in rate such as a higher rate is an incentive. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Gronkowski in view of Kaminkow’s invention and provide an incentive based on respective accumulations of the bet amount per every predetermined number of day since Kaminkow discloses that the rate may change based on the duration and wagered amount.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the considered as a whole the claims is not directed to a judicial exception. Applicant argues does not involve any humans let alone interactions between people. However, the claim requires players to place a wager, and play a game for a game result so that the system determines whether the player won or lost and determine a respective balance. The claims recite an abstract of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions which includes social activities, and following rules or instructions. More specifically, the claims recite how a casino game is managed. Players, player positions and bet amount are identified and stored in correlation with each other. Managing players and bet amounts is a management of a game/social activity and therefore an abstract idea of organizing human activity.
For step 2a prong 2, Applicant argues that the player capturing device, the game token capturing device and the information processing device integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The player capturing device and game token game capturing device amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The information processing device is a generic computer in the field used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed component is used to implement the game in a computer embodiment. The information processing device can “analyze the image captured by the game token capturing device to identify a respective bet amount that has been bet on the casino game for each of the plurality of player positions of the gaming table based on respective positions, types, and numbers of the game tokens that have been bet” and “analyze the image captured by the player capturing device to identify, for each player position of the plurality of player positions, a respective member ID of a respective player who participates in the casino game at the player position.” Furthermore, the information processing device can then associate these disparate pieces of data (e.g., “respective member ID of the respective player for the player position, and (b) the respective bet amount which has been identified by the information processing device as a bet amount of the player position at which the member ID is identified”) by storing in a database in correlation with each other. By doing so, the game management system associates each player with the respective bet amount, allowing the game management system to verify points corresponding to a bet amount of each player.
However, the use of a player capture device to capture images of a player and identify the player, a token capture device to capture images of a token and track the use of the token for a game is well known, routine and conventional. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that the combination of the claimed elements are not well understood routine and convention elements. For example, the claim relies on both a player capturing device and a game token device to capture images of different aspect of a casino game. However, these elements are well known, routine and conventional as indicated in the rejection above. Even as an ordered combination, the additional elements combined are used in a conventional, routine, and well known manner. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Prior art
New grounds of rejection using new additional prior art has been made to clearly address the claim limitations and advance prosecution.
Conclusion
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