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 1-9, 11-16 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 1-9, 11-16 recite an abstract idea of organizing of human activity. 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 1-9, 11-16 recite the following.
A game monitoring system comprising: a chip ID identifying unit configured to identify, when a gaming chip to which a chip ID is given is in a predetermined area on a game table, the chip ID of the gaming chip;
an imaging unit configured to image a player playing a game at the game table and the gaming chip on the game table to generate an image;
a player detecting unit configured to detect the player from the image, the image including a face, an upper body, at least one arm, or at least one hand of the player;
a chip detecting unit configured to detect a first gaming chip from the image;
a first associating unit configured to associate, based on a positional relationship between the hand of the player detected by the player detecting unit and the first gaming chip, the player detected in the image by the player detecting unit with the first gaming chip detected in the image by the chip detecting unit;
a second associating unit configured to
determine whether the gaming chip whose chip ID is identified by the chip ID identifying unit and the first gaming chip detected in the image by the chip detecting unit correspond to the same gaming chip based upon a relationship between information associated with the gaming chip and the first gaming chip, and
associate a chip ID of the first gaming chip, which is determined to be the same gaming chip as the first gaming chip, as the chip ID of the first gaming chip, with the first gaming chip by the first associating unit; and
a recording unit configured to record a pair of the chip ID of the first gaming chip and an image of the player associated with the chip ID of the first gaming chip by the second associating unit.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organization of human activity. The claimed limitations recite steps of managing a game by associating a player with a chip for a game.
In addition, the claims recite a mental step. The steps of detecting chips and player from an image, and associating the chips, chips Id and player, and recording the information are steps that can be done mentally.
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 1-9, 11-16 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 1-9, 11-16 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 imaging unit amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The chip ID identifying unit, player detecting unit, chip detecting unit, first associating unit, second associating unit, and a recording unit amount (which are processes performed by an information processing device) is a generic computer or computer component (processor) used to implement the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-16 recite an imaging unit configured to image a player and gaming chip. Nicastro (US 2006/0205484) discloses it is known in the art to collected game data in wagering game using a camera such as the game participants, cards, and chips at a table (paragraph 20).
Claim 1-9, 11-16 recite a chip ID identifying unit, player detecting unit, chip detecting unit, first associating unit, second associating unit, and a recording unit amount (which are processes performed by an information processing device). A processor to process the management of a game including detecting identifying or detecting objects from an image is well known in the art. McClellan (US 10,217,312) discloses it is known in the art for use a computer to manage a casino table including identifying objects from images (col. 4:43-36, 5:16-27, 14:27-32).
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16 further recite the abstract idea of managing a game by comparing the information and indicating a mismatch; making associations with the data; and identifying the chip. The claims limitations considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 8 recite a chip using RFID tag. Mathis (US 2007/0060313) discloses it is known in the art to track chips using RFID tags (paragraphs 13, 45). The claims limitations considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 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 1-9, 11-16 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 player detecting unit configured to detect the player from the image, the image including a face, an upper body, at least one arm, or at least one hand of the player; and a first associating unit configured to associate, based on a positional relationship between the hand of the player detected by the player detecting unit and the first gaming chip, the player detected in the image by the player detecting unit with the first gaming chip detected in the image by the chip detecting unit.
The claim recites that the detecting unit can detect the player from an image including a face, an upper body, at least one arm, or at least one hand of the player. In other words, at least one hand of the player is not required in the image. However, the claim then requires a player hand to be detected by the detecting. It is not clear how the player hand is detected from the player image if the image does not include at least one hand.
Claims 2-9, 11-16 are rejected by dependency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by associating based on a positional relationship between the hand of the player detected and the gaming chip detected, the player detected in the image and the first gaming chip. The second associating unit allows associating the player with the chip ID. The recording unit then records a pair of the chip ID of the first gaming chip and an image of the player. This allows an improved system to monitor and grasp amounts of betting, win, loss of a player.
However the steps of associating based on a positional relationship between the hand of the player detected and the gaming chip detected, the player detected in the image and the first gaming chip, associating the player with the chip ID, and recording a pair of the chip ID of the first gaming chip and an image of the player are steps of managing a game by associating a player with a chip for a game. In addition, the claims recite a mental step. The steps of detecting chips and player from an image, and associating the chips, chips ID and player, and recording the information are steps that can be done mentally.
In addition, Claims 11-14 further recite detecting the chip for images, making determinations from the images and associating information. These limitations further recite the abstract idea of managing a game and performing a mental process.
Prior Art
The rejection is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
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
Prosecution Insights