DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0172552).
Re claims 1, 16, and 17. Moore discloses a casino system in a casino at which casino items with RFID tags that store identification information are used (see paragraph [00111]: gaming chip), the casino system is located at a casino item handling location, the casino system comprising:
a storage device configured to store a list of the identification information that is registered (see paragraph [0111]: memory);
a reading device configured to read the identification information from the RFID tag of a casino item of the casino items (see paragraph [0013]: “RFID antenna or interrogator”); and
a verification device configured to check the identification information read from the casino item by the reading device against the identification information stored in the storage device (see paragraph [0111]), and
wherein the storage device, the reading device, and the verification device are integrally configured (see paragraph [0019, 0032], and claim 1: the verification/validation feature, the reading feature, and storage feature are integrally configured within the table itself.).
Re claim 4: Moore discloses with respect to the casino system according to claim 1, further comprising a holding mechanism configured to hold a predetermined number of the casino items for which the RFID tags are read by the reading device, wherein the verification device configured to inspect the casino item by comparing the number of the RFID tags read by the reading device with the predetermined number (see paragraph [0019]).
Re claim 5: Moore discloses with respect to the casino system according to claim 4, further comprising a display device configured to display a result of reading by the reading device and/or a result of verification by the verification device (see Fig. 5B), wherein:
the reading device includes an antenna and a reader (see paragraph [0013]), and
the storage device, the antenna, the reader, the verification device, the display device, and the holding mechanism are integrally configure (See Fig. 3, objects 300 and 340, paragraph [0078]).
Re claim 6: Moore discloses with respect to the casino system according to claim 1, wherein:
the RFID tag of the casino item is configured to store information that can identify a value of the casino item, wherein the reading device is further configured to read the information, the verification device is configured to compare a number of the RFID tags from which identification information is read by the reading device with an actual number of the casino items (see paragraph [0013, 0014, 0021, 0069-0070]), and
the casino system further comprises a display device configured to display a value of each of a plurality of casino items read by the reading device or a total value of the plurality of casino items read by the reading device, as a result of the reading by the reading device, and/or display a result of comparison between the number of RFID tags and the actual number of the casino items, as a result of verification by the verification device (Figs. 5A and 5B).
Re claim 8: Moore discloses with respect to the casino system according to claim 1, further comprising a central system to which a plurality of casino systems are communicatively connected, wherein the central system is configured to update the list stored in the storage device of each of the plurality of casino systems (see paragraphs [0034-0035]).
Re claim 9: Moore discloses with respect to the casino system according to claim 8, wherein the central system is configured to update the list on a regular basis or at a timing that satisfies a predetermined condition (see paragraphs [0034-0035]: when a central server is used, the central server performs all of the actions of updating list at each of the individual table systems, wherein said lists are updated when predetermined events occurred, e.g. inventory checks).
Re claim 10: Moore discloses with respect to the casino system according to claim 1, further comprising a central system to which a plurality of casino systems are communicatively connected, wherein the central system comprises:
a central storage device configured to store the list of the identification information that is registered, and a central verification device configured to check the identification information read from the casino items and transmitted from the casino system against the identification information stored in the central storage device (see paragraph [0034]: Table Game Server).
Re claim 12: Moore discloses with respect to the casino system according to claim 10, wherein the verification device is configured to, when the identification information read by the reading device includes new identification information that is not included in the identification information read by the reading device before, verify the new identification information read by the reading device with the identification information stored in the central storage device (see paragraph [0110]).
Re claim 13: Moore discloses with respect the casino system according to claim 10, wherein the verification device is configured to compare the identification information read by the reading device with the identification information read before by the reading device, and under predetermined conditions, check the identification information read by the reading device against the identification information of the casino items stored in the central storage device (see paragraph [0034-0035]: when the central server is used instead of the table device, the central server performs the same functions including verifying rfid chip tag data through identifying chips and comparing them to previously stored identification data)
Re claim 14: Moore discloses with respect to the casino system according to claim 10, wherein the identification information includes tag identification information assigned by a manufacturer of the RFID tag and item identification information assigned by a manufacturer of the casino item to which the RFID tag is attached (see paragraph [0046]: “(v) a casino identifier that uniquely identifies a casino or other registered gaming corporation associated with the chip”).
Re claim 15: Moore discloses with respect to the casino system according to claim 14, wherein the verification device is configured to compare the item identification information read from the casino items by the reading device with the item identification information read before by the reading device, and at a predetermined timing and/or under a predetermined condition, check the tag identification information read from the casino item by the reading device against the tag identification information of the casino item stored in the storage device (see paragraph [0022, 0023]: predetermined inventory checks).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Miller (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0184898).
Re claim 2: Moore fails to disclose with respect to the casino system according to claim 1, further
comprising an optical counting device configured to optically count a number of the casino items, wherein the verification device configured to inspect the casino item by comparing the number of the RFID tags read by the reading device with the number of the RFID tags counted by the optical counting device. However, Miller teaches “An optical sensing assembly is configured to optically scan each of the plurality of predetermined chip positions to detect the presence of a gaming chip in each of the plurality of predetermined chip positions if present therein and generate a count corresponding to a number of detected gaming chips. An RFID reader assembly is configured to interrogate the plurality of gaming chips disposed in the tray structure and generate a list of authenticated gaming chips, the RFID reader assembly further generating a system status based on a comparison of the list of authenticated gaming chips relative to the number of detected gaming chips counted by the optical sensing assembly.” (See Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the counting mechanism of Moore with the counting mechanism as such would have produced predictable results of using optical means to count gaming chips using RFID data.
Re claim 3: Miller discloses with respect to the casino system according to claim 2, further comprising a display device configured to display a result of reading by the reading device and/or a result of verification by the verification device (Fig. 5A and 5B), wherein:
the reading device includes an antenna and a reader, and
the storage device, the antenna, the reader, the verification device, the display device, and the optical counting device are integrally configured (see Fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to state that a storage device, a verification device, and reading device are integrally configured. However, reading the limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this can mean that the devices are integrated within the same device, and here that is the casino table of Moore. As discussed above, the casino table of Moore contains all of said objects (see Figs. 3 and Fig. 4) and thus the devices are integrally configured.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715