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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner presents new prior art (below) for Applicant’s consideration. In light of the new prior art previous allowable subject matter is withdrawn.
Interview Summary
Because prosecution was in an after Final Rejection point is prosecution, Examiner spoke with Applicant on 7/1/2025 (See Interview Summary filed 7/15/2025) to provide notice of this new Non-Final Rejection. Examiner appreciates Applicant’s understanding in the matter.
Claim Markings – 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) (MPEP 714)
Several claims improperly use double brackets. Applicant is kindly reminded “The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived, for example, if amending a number or punctuation. In order to avoid downstream publication delays, please cure all double brackets and submit a revised claim set as part of your response to this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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.
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claims 7-11, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0011107 to Seitz in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0116032 to lutnick and U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0319649 to Danielson.
In Reference to Claims 10 and 11
Seitz discloses a Radio Frequency (RF) enabled card game table (Fig. 12A), comprising:
an RF reader associated with the game table receiving RF signals transmitted by a plurality of RF tags associated with playing cards and chips (0075, 0076, 0077); and
a processor (controller 120 [0076]) communicatively coupled to the RF reader ([0075-0076]), the processor rendering a game state from the RF signals (game state [0176, 0178]),
However, Seitz is silent wherein game state data is formed and transmitted, via an Application Programming Interface (API), a packet including the rendered game state and of ignoring RF signals received from an RF tag associated with a folded player position or a completed betting round.
One of skill in the art would be aware of lutnick. According to lutnick, game data is bundled as data packets ([0614, 0615]) with APIs used to facilitate the data exchange ([2201, 2039]).
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the RF system of Seitz with the features of lutnick in order to better understand the means in which data packets of game state data are streamed to the controller. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
Applicant has amended the claims to recite ignoring RF signals received from an RF tag associated with a folded player position or a completed betting round. Seitz discloses RF signals received from an RF tag having a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI [0076]) lower than a predetermined threshold is ignored wherein signals are outside of a threshold distance their amplitudes are not detected ([0028, 0110, 0105, 0106]). However, Seitz is silent as to ignoring RF signals received from an RF tag associated with a folded player position or a completed betting round.
One of skill in the art would be aware of the teachings of Danielson. Danielson teaches of RF gaming tables (Figs. 5 and 9, [0012]) and of programmable playing cards (video programmable playing card (VDPPC) Fig. 1A-E). Th e gaming table can utilize all or a combination of physical cards and VDPPCs ([0045]) and Near Field Communications (NFC) to send and receive data between an RF antenna connected to a table control unit to change the state on the VDPPCs e.g., to display the card type of value of a face card ([0047, [0054]) on the LED display of the VDPPC 150 display ([0050, 0053], Fig. 2 VDPPC 100 and antenna 202 [0054]), where the RF antenna is in communication with an RFID tag ([0069]). Playing card management instructions 642 permits a gaming device 312 to perform folding a hand and determining a winning player at the end of a hand or card game ([0146, 0202]). Regarding Fig. 9, a charging pad area is in the center of the table where players show their final hand to others ([0169]) as well as each player station 912 a-h communicating via RF signals ([0170]). When the received command is to fold a hand where the player is inactive for the remainder of the game, a player may fold where the player may press or tap a physical button or digital button on the VDPPC or alternatively tap the NFC reader or an antenna. This process helps the gaming server 504 determine and track a current state of the game ([tap to discard 0203, 0208, 0215]) where tapping an antenna un-enrolls a VDPPC ([0145]). Danielson provides this invention to improve customer satisfaction and higher casino revenues (0041]).
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
It would require only routine skill in the art to modify the received RF signals and antenna of Seitz with the tap functionality allowing players to discard, fold, or complete a hand or game of Danielson in order to achieve the predictable result of maintaining an accurate game state at a gaming table. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claim 15
Seitz discloses displaying RF data ([0177]) but is silent of displaying, by a television screen communicatively coupled to the processor, the rendered game state. Lutnick teaches that card game {game state} outcomes are displayed on led tv ([2472]).
In Reference to Claims 7, 17, and 18
Seitz discloses an RF antenna ([0075]) and wherein the RF antenna is spaced apart from other components of the RF reader (Fig. 1 antennae located separated from readers).
In Reference to Claims 8 and 19
Danielson teaches a processor responds to malfunctions by not advancing the game state and reconstructing the previous state by restoring the cards that were previously displayed [0268]) in response to completing a valid game outcome based on current game rules (the state is proper once it is stored [0268], see determining a winning player at the end of a hand or card game ([0146]).
In Reference to Claim 9 and 20
Danielson teaches pausing RF reading in response to a reversal from a current game state to a previous game state where “the gaming device may not advance from a first state to a second state until critical information that enables the first state to be reconstructed has been atomically stored.” [0268]). Examiner interprets this teaching to mean that the reading or storing of second state data is delayed until or while first {prior} state data is stored.
9. Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitz, lutnick, Danielson further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0357850 to Moore (Moore ‘850).
Seitz discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose an LED light associated with a player position, wherein the controller 120 controls the LED light based on the rendered game state.
One of skill in the art would be aware of the teachings Moore ‘850 utilizing data capture of RF-enabled gaming tables (Tit;.) wherein gaming tables may be equipped with LED light strips (Fig. 2B, light strip, LED lights [0019]) at player positions (for example, player positions 1-7[0052]). The LED light strips where “[p]rovided herein is a gaming table system design (and methods for operating such) which includes (i) LED components (e.g., LED light strips which include a plurality of lights and at least one Integrated Circuit (IC) for controlling the lights); (ii) a main controller (comprising at least one processor and associated logic) which communicates with the RFID components of the gaming table system in order to identify and manage desired updates for the LED lights along with identifying and tracking the RFID-enabled wagering chip activity at the table” [0021, 0029] and “to backlight or highlight certain desired area of the table (e.g., as a mechanism for outputting information to a game participation and/or dealer).”[0050]. Moore ‘850 invents this LED light strip feature to include colored lights and patterns in order to convey certain information to game participants e.g., which wagers a re winning wagers [0051, 0052]).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the gaming table of Seitz with the LED light strips of Moore ‘850 in order to better provide more conspicuous identification of table activity and game information sharing among the dealer and participants. The Courts have held that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to be indicia of obviousness.
10. Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitz, lutnick, Danielson further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0122187 to Moore (Moore ‘187)
Seitz discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor selectively shares with other players player data extracted from the received packet.
Moore ‘187 teaches of RF-enabled gaming tables tracks game elements [0003] as part of the game state data from a particular antenna [0046] to inform an associated player that a particular game element of a particular player position is a selected game element [0020] and a player is not informed until the game element is utilized [0025] where, for example, output to common display 350 facing the players [0053] indicates that player John Smith in position 310f has wagered a lucky chip 705 [0056]. Moore ‘187 provides this functionality in order to implement a promotion scheme on card tables using RFID technologies (Abstr.).
One of skill in the art would be aware of the capabilities of the gaming table processor to identify in the game data and provide data with particularity to other players of Moore ‘187 to modify the game table of Seitz so that the RFID capabilities are utilized to their fullest to include offering promotions capitalizing on the computing and interrogating power of the RFID technology. The Courts have held that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to be indicia of obviousness.
11. Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitz, lutnick, Danielson further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0175805 to Nagata.
Seitz discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a camera communicatively coupled to the processor controlling a camera angle.
Nagata teaches of intelligent table games (Titl.) wherein RFID-enabled tables [0044] also emply cameras 104 which are positioned about the table game surface 102 in order to obtain camera angles necessary to collect desired data [0026]. Nagata invents this use of cameras to capture and verify various transactions between the players and the dealer. (Abstr.)
It would require only routine skill in the art to modify the gaming table of Seitz with the addition of camera angles to collect data to help verify various transactions between the players and dealer. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
12. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitz, lutnick, Danielson further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0078643 to Archiable.
Seitz discloses the invention substantially as claimed and discloses measures to mitigate RFID interference [0161]. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose an RF shielding fabric.
One of skill in the art would be aware of the teachings of Archiable wherein he invents systems and methods to create limited effective transmission zones and shielding to effect said zones (Abstr.). In one example shield 195 may be implemented as a wire mesh incorporated into a fabric covering a cubicle wall [0031] and fabric covering [0032]. His methods cover applications to furniture like a table [0069] and in fields of home, office, casinos, and banking [0070]. Archiable provides his mesh fabric so that electromagnetic radiation such as radio signals intended for one device do not interfere with another device [0001, 0002].
One of skill in the art would augment the mitigation of interference features of Seitz with the mesh fabric of Archiable so that radio signals intended for one device on the gaming table are not interfered with signals intended for another device on the gaming table. The Courts have held that applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
15. 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.
16. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
17. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715