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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the UV lights (claim 1) and “more ambient light cameras” (claim 6) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10 and 14 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, 14-17, 19 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/390, 540 (“ ‘540“) in view of Person et al US 2018/0315276 (“Person”) and Bulzacki et al WO2018227294A1 (“Bulzacki”).
Claim 1 of ‘540 recites all the limitations of above claim 1, namely “A craps gaming system, comprising: a craps table having a layout and configured to enable a player to physically be the shooter of dice at the craps table; one or more near-UV cameras positioned to observe the dice above the layout (equivalent to “one or more ambient light cameras positioned to observe action above the layout and output optical data including the observed action”); and a computing device receiving and analyzing the optical data and determining a result of the dice”, except “one or more player consoles each configured to accommodate one player, each player console configured to enable the one player to place bets on a craps game played on the layout of the craps table” and “one or more near-UV lights illuminating the dice on the layout and outputting optical data”.
With respect to one or more player consoles each configured to accommodate one player, each player console configured to enable the one player to place bets on a craps game played on the layout of the craps table, in a similar field of carps game/tables, Person discloses a plurality of players stations 115 to place bet during a craps game (Figs. 3, 4 and 7; at least paragraphs [0033]-[0036]). Therefore, 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 to form ‘540 with one or more player consoles each configured to accommodate one player, each player console configured to enable the one player to place bets on a craps game played on the layout of the craps table for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in combining prior art elements according to known methods to include players’ means to place bets (in an electronic/computerize means) while observing and playing the craps game.
With respect to one or more near-UV lights illuminating the dice on the layout and outputting optical data, Bulzacki (also related to craps table [00273] and [00381]) discloses illumination strips 708/emitter 705 to provide suffice ambient lighting to UV cameras 726 (Figs. 7A-7G; and [00438]-[00443]; note at least [00386], [00407], [00422], [00424], [00430] and [004301] as the illumination strip related to ambient ultraviolet radiation). Therefore, 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 to form ‘540 one or more near-UV lights illuminating the dice on the layout and outputting optical data for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of providing additional illumination means to support the UV cameras thus providing enhance lighting environment.
Claim 3 recite the same limitations as claim 14 of the ‘540.
Claim 5 recite the same limitations as claim 15 of the ‘540.
Claim 7 recite the same limitations as claim 16 of the ‘540.
Claim 8 recite the same limitations as claim 17 of the ‘540.
Claim 9 recite the same limitations as claim 19 of the ‘540.
Claim 10 recite the same limitations as claim 12 of the ‘540.
Claim 14 recite the same limitations as claim 20 of the ‘540.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Person et al US 2018/0315276 (“Person”) in view of Bulzacki et al WO2018227294A1 (“Bulzacki”).
As per claim 1, Person discloses a craps gaming system (carps table system 300)(Figs. 1-8; at least paragraphs [0006]-[0011], [0022]-[0070], [0077], [0080]-[00821] and [0088]-[0089]), comprising:
a craps table having a layout and configured to enable a player to physically be the shooter of dice at the craps table (table 300)(Figs. 3 and 4; [0033]-[0036] and [0041]-[0042]; note also Figs. 5, 6 ([0053]+) and 8 ([0068]+), as the use of the table to physically play the game of craps);
one or more player consoles each configured to accommodate one player, each player console configured to enable the one player to place bets on a craps game played on the layout of the craps table (players stations 115)(Figs. 3 and 4; [0033]-[0035] and [0041]-[0042]) in conjunction to Figs. 1 and 2 ([0022]-[0032] as the manner of using the stations 115 to place bets);
one or more near cameras positioned to observe the dice above the layout (plurality of specialized cameras (not shown) to communicate with the system CPU 105 to track and record the dice outcome, i.e., a recognition system)([0061], [0080], [0081], and [0083]); and a computing device receiving and analyzing the optical data and determining a result of the dice (CPU 105 to receive and analyzed the capture the dice optical data of the rolled dice)(Figs. 1 and 2; [0022]-[0032] in conjunction to Fig. 4 (example of a game played; [0041]+) and Fig. 7 ([0057]+, process of operating the carps system 300).
Person is not specific regarding the one or more near camera are one or more near-UV cameras that are positioned to observe the dice above the layout and one or more near-UV lights illuminating the dice on the layout and outputting optical data.
However, in a similar field of tables suitable to play the game of carps, Bulzacki (e.g., [00273] and [00381] the gaming table to be used in a craps game) discloses the use of one or more near-UV cameras positioned to observe a gaming table layout (such as UV cameras 726); Bulzacki also discloses the use of ambient/emitter illumination means (illumination strip 708 and/or emitter 705)(Figs. 7A-7G; and [00438]-[00443]; note at least [00386], [00407], [00422], [00424], [00430] and [004301] as the illumination strip related to ambient ultraviolet radiation). Therefore, 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 to form Person’s camera/s as UV cameras for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Person’s suggestions to use specialized/high speed camera/s (e.g., [0061] and [0081]-[0083]) as part of the recognition system to provide optical data about the roll outcome. A UV-camera/s is such specialized/high speed camera/s.
With respect to the UV lights, it 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 to form Person’s with one or more near-UV lights illuminating the dice on the layout and outputting optical data for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in providing known illumination means as additional illumination means to support the UV cameras thus providing enhance lighting environment.
As per claim 3, with respect to further comprising a filter placed in front of the lens of the one or more near-UV cameras, the filter blocking ambient light outside of approximately 390-425 nm wavelength, note Bulzacki [0006], [0056], [00402] and [00423], regarding a filter (e.g.., cut-out filter position within the camera’s lens) for such use; note in particular [00423] as the range of the filter is wavelengths between 720 and 2000 nm; between 760 and 1600 nm, and between 10 nm, 20 nm or 50 nm in bandwidth; the examiner construed such range as approximately 390-425 nm wavelength, range. Therefore, 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 to form Person’s camera with As per claim a filter placed in front of the lens of the one or more near-UV cameras, the filter blocking ambient light outside of approximately 390-425 nm wavelength for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known optical means that is sufficient to provide the require wavelength of the UV radiation, to produce the optimize optical data.
With respect to “approximately 390-425 nm wavelength”, the examiner construed the ranges taught by Bulzacki to be “approximately 390-425 nm wavelength”. In addition, it is noted that claimed which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of weight or proportions. Therefore, 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 to form Bulzacki’s filter with such dimensions/range as claimed since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As per claim 4, with respect to further comprising a polarizer placed in front of the lens of the one or more near-UV cameras, the examiner construed the filter means taught by Bulzacki ([0006], [0056], [00402] and [00423], regarding a filter (e.g.., cut-out filter position within the camera’s lens) as such polarizer. Therefore, 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 to form Person’s device with a polarizer placed in front of the lens of the one or more near-UV cameras for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known optical means that is sufficient to provide the require wavelength of the UV radiation, to produce the optimize optical data.
As per claim 5, with respect to further comprising a polarizer placed in front of the lens of the one or more near-UV cameras, the examiner construed the filter means taught by Bulzacki ([0006], [0056], [00402] and [00423], regarding a filter (e.g.., cut-out filter position within the camera’s lens) as such polarizer. Therefore, 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 to form Person’s further comprising a polarizer placed in front of the lens of the one or more near-UV cameras for the similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 3.
As per claim 6, with respect to further comprising one or more ambient light cameras positioned to observe the action above the layout, the one or more ambient light cameras outputting ambient optical data, construed as any one of the plurality of specialized cameras of Person (e.g., [0061] and [0081]-[0083]) that are not construed as the plurality of UV cameras, which are communicate optical data with CPU 105. Also, note Bulzacki’s Figs. 7A-7F ([00436]-[00445]) regarding plurality of cameras 704 for capture images in ambient lighting. Therefore, 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 to form Person’s further comprising one or more ambient light cameras positioned to observe the action above the layout, the one or more ambient light cameras outputting ambient optical data for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Bulzacki’s suggestions to use such ambient light camera/s as recognition module to capture image data (e.g., [00436]).
As per claim 12, Person discloses wherein each player console includes a display displaying a graphical user interface and associated content unique to each player (each station 115 includes display 250)(Figs. 3 and 4; [0032], [0034], [0036], and [0041]-[0043]).
As per claim 13, Person discloses further comprising: a dealer console configured to control play at the craps table (dealer station 120)(Fig. 8; [0025], [0030] and [0068]) ; and a shooter console configured to enable the shooter to place bets while also being the shooter (any one of the players station 115 that acts as a shooter)(Figs. 3 and 4; [0056], [0060] and [0086]); wherein the one or more player consoles (station 115), the dealer console (120) and the shooter console (anyone of station 115 of an active players as a shooter; e.g., [0086] player station #3 is a shooter) are connected over a network, wherein the dealer console is configured to communicate with each player console and generate a list of players eligible to be the shooter and to provide an invitation to one player on the list of players to be a new shooter when a prior shooter has crapped out (Figs. 1 and 2 in conjunction to [0022]-[0032] as the CPU 105 in communication with the dealer station 120, player/s and shooter/s stations 115; for example [0037] in conjunction to Figs. 1 and 2, as CPU-to-tracking device 225 (for example a plyer’s smart phone) can be notified regarding awards and other services (e.g., been a shooter); also note [0086] as dealer/attendant invite a player to serve as a shooter).
As per claim 14, with respect to wherein the craps table is operated in a location separate from at least one player accessing the craps table remotely with a computer, note Person’s [0034] as the player station 115 with display 250 can be removeable from the table; as seen in Fig. 2 ([0027]+), station 115 is a computerize device that includes CPU 210 to communicate with central CPU 105.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Person and Bulzacki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heidemann CN104854427A (“Heidemann”).
As per claim 2, Person- Bulzacki is not specific regarding , wherein the one or more near-UV cameras are monochromatic cameras.
However, in a field utilizing camera means, Heidemann discloses the use of monochromatic cameras (monochromatic cameras 111 and 112)(Fig. 1 and page 4, 2nd par. of the machine translation). Therefore, 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 to form Person- Bulzacki’s one or more near-UV cameras as monochromatic cameras for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated utilizing known cameras that is suitable to capture monochromatic wavelength/range of the UV cameras (see for example [00407] of Bulzack, regarding the monochromatic ranges to be captured by UV camera). In addition, such monochromatic cameras, been obvious to utilized within the system of Person as specialized/high speed camera/s.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Person and Bulzacki as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Serafini WO2019056064A1 (“Serafini”).
As per claim 7, Person is not specific regarding wherein the computing device further receiving and analyzing the ambient optical data and determining a second result of the dice, wherein the second result is compared to the result.
However, Serafini discloses the use of a recording device (30 to include sensing- computing means to track and provide data about a craps game; (at least Fig. 1A in conjunction to [0033]-[0035]) to track and produce a “fault entry” ([0037]). Such fault entry, construed as “a second outcome” of capturing a roll and provide such data (note at least [0009], [0010] and [0035], as the recording device is an optical recognition sensor to provide data to recognition the pattern of the dice pips). Therefore, 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 to form Person’s wherein the computing device further receiving and analyzing the ambient optical data and determining a second result of the dice, wherein the second result is compared to the result for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in applying a known technique to a known device ready for
improvement to provide an additional securing means to insure that a correct outcome of a roll is presented to the players.
As per claim 8, with respect to wherein when the second result does not match the result a warning is triggered, note Serafini’s [0037], as the “fault entry” generates alerts to prompt the casino to inspect the game.
As per claim 9, with respect to wherein when the second result matches the result no confirmation of the result is required by a dealer, as no “fault occur”, there is no need to alert the casino. In addition, per MPEP 2114 under II. Manner Of Operating The Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim From The Prior Art "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Therefore, since the prior art includes all the structural limitations claimed, the examiner takes the position that the modified Person by at least the teachings of Serafini is fully capable to perform as such.
As per claim 10, Person - Bulzacki is not specific regarding further comprising a display system positioned over the craps table, the display system including the one or more near-UV cameras and the one or more ambient light cameras.
However, Serafini discloses further comprising a display system positioned over the craps table, the display system including the recognition means (display 38 with internal recognition system)(Fig. 2C; [0035]). Therefore, 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 to form Person- Bulzacki with a display system positioned over the craps table, the display system including the recognition means for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide a display means that display game data and alike related to the craps game. In addition, Person discloses a display 530 (Figs. 5 and 6; [0044]+) as part of the gaming table surface, and to position the display over the craps table (as taught and suggested by Serafini), would have been merely an obvious position, location, of the display that would have not changed its function as displaying means. In that regard, it is noted that claims which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the elements were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the elements would not have modified the operation of the device; see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950);In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Within the modified Person by the teaching of Bulzacki, the specialized/high speed camera/s, would have been one or more near-UV cameras and the one or more ambient light cameras (as taught and suggested by Bulzacki) and they would have been position within the display means (as taught and suggested by Serafini). In addition, with respect to the location of the one or more near-UV cameras and the one or more ambient light cameras, as discussed above the location of a device is not accorded patentability weight, as shifting the position of device would have not changed its function/operation. Therefore, 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 to form the modified Person’s UV and ambient cameras within the display means for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated as merely obvious location of parts that would have not changed the nature of the UV and ambient cameras to capture and provide optical data.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Person and Bulzacki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshizawa US 2009/0181744 (“Yoshizawa”).
As per claim 11, Person is nots specific regarding wherein each player console includes a seat for each player.
However, Yoshizawa discloses wherein each player console includes a seat for each player (stations 4/103, each includes as seat)(Fig. 1, [0076] and [0085]). Therefore, 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 to form Person’s wherein each player console includes a seat for each player for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results to includes seat to a player for comfortability and alike thus allowing players to play a lengthy game of carps to reduce fatigue.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 2/2/2026 /JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711