DETAILED ACTION
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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 have been amended and no new claims have been added..
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative discussed the Claim Interpretation, rejections under 35 USC 112(a), and 35 USC 112(b) which are addressed in the sections below.
With respect to ‘Claim Interpretation’, the Applicant’s representative discusses that the amendments made to the instant invention remove the specialized particular structural components of the game table system and implements the functions with “one or more processors” that would have been understood by one ordinary skill in the art (see Remarks, pg. 8-9). The Examiner acknowledges the change in scope that broadens the subject matter of the claimed invention to be directed to a general purpose computer comprising a processor, memory, and storage device as discussed in the Specification (see Specification, Fig. 2, 0045) and refers to the general statements, that are absent of any particulars, other than the desired result of use of known AI technology for image recognition to realize the claimed desired result (see Specification, 0053, 0057). Stated differently, the cited portions mere recite the general statement of the use of AI technology but does not provide the particular details of how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function by transforming the general purpose AI technology to perform the claimed computer-implemented functionality. It follows that reconsideration of the prior art and claimed subject matter is reflected in the rejections below.
With respect to 35 USC 112(a), the Applicant’s representative argues that the claimed computer-implemented functionality has been amended to be implemented by “one or more processors” that are configured to perform the operations of these units. Specifically, the applicant’s representative cites to portions of the Specification that the operations of the specialized units may be realized by arithmetic device by “executing computer programs according to the present embodiment by a computer comprising a processor, memory, and storage device”, “[e]ach function of the arithmetic device 13 may be implemented on plurality of distributed computers, some or all functions may be in the cloud” and “[a] computer program for configuring each function in the arithmetic device 13 may be installed on a computer through a network or via a non-temporary storage” which satisfies the written description requirement. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in MPEP 2161.01, it is not enough that one of ordinary skill in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function but the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function too satisfy the written description requirement. In this instance, the claim recites a one or more processors that are configured to perform specialized functions from specialized units in which the Specification does not provide a disclosure of the algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one or ordinary skill in the art to show possession of the claimed processor and computer program functionality recited in the claims. Stated differently, while the claim may disclose the hardware (e.g., one or more processors) it fails to adequately describe the algorithm to show the interrelationship between hardware and software to perform the specialized function that would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the written description was satisfied. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and a rejection under 35 USC 112(a) has been maintained under 2161.01.
With respect to 35 USC 112(b), after further reconsideration of the submitted amendments, the claims have been removed from 112(f) interpretation and therefore the rejections that found the claim indefinite for failing to clearly linked the structure, material, or acts to the function have been withdrawn.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they recite a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
1. A gaming table system comprising:
a first camera configured to image a chip placed on a gaming table in a casino;
a second camera configured to image a player playing a game at the gaming table to generate an image;
one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to:
recognize a position, type, and number of chips on the gaming table by performing image recognition using AI technology to an image imaged by the first camera; - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
recognize a body of the player playing the game on the gaming table by performing image recognition using AI technology to the image imaged by the second camera; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
correlate the recognized chip and the player whose body is recognized with each other, based on the position of the recognized chip and the body of the recognized player identify a player ID of the player seated at the gaming table; - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
acquire a reference image of the player seated at the gaming table;
determine a combination of the player ID of the player identified and the reference image of the player acquired; - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
identify the player ID of the player shown in the image imaged by the second camera based on a plurality of combinations determined for a plurality of players seated at the gaming table, and -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
correlate the identified player ID and the player shown in the image imaged by the second camera with each other; and - certain method of organizing human activity;
identify the player ID of the player operating the chip, based on a correlation between the player and the player ID and a correlation between the player and the chip; and -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process
a storage device configured to store the player ID identified and the type and number of chips recognized so as to be in association with each other, or record the player ID identified by and a total amount based on the type and number of chips
The limitations, as underlined above, are found to recite a series of rules and/or instructions for managing a bet on a gaming table in a casino which is analogous to a certain method of organizing human activity under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “image recognition using AI technology to an image imaged by the first camera” “on the gaming table by performing image recognition using AI technology to the image” “acquire a reference image of the player seated at the gaming table;” and “a storage device configured to store the player ID identified and the type and number of chips recognized so as to be in association with each other, or record the player ID identified by and a total amount based on the type and number of chipse.g., using AI technology)), insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). The remaining limitations such as: “A gaming table system comprising:” “a first camera configured to image a chip placed on a gaming table in a casino;” “a second camera configured to image a player playing a game at the gaming table to generate an image;” “one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to:” are found to be directed to general components of a computing system which amount to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). For at least these reasons, the remaining additional limitations were not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as: “a first camera”, “a gaming table in a casino”, “a second camera”, “one or more processors”, and “a storage device” when viewed individually and/or as a combination of elements are found to amount to reciting highly-generalized computer components to be invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). A review of the Specification discusses these components as being conventional components of a computer and/or a technological environment such as a commercially available gaming table found in a casino that are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, Hill (US 2006/0160600 A1) discloses that conventional automatic bet recognition techniques are known in conventional systems to use a camera image to determine a placed wager (see Hill, 0004). Similarly, Pertgen (US 2019/0385417 A1) discloses that the use of a camera in a gaming table environment to capture a feed of a player and images of the card faces, chips, and chip stacks on the surface of the gaming table to perform recognition routines are well known in the art (see Pertgen, Fig. 7, 0080). Moreover, a review of the Specification merely recites the general statement of “using AI recognition technology” and does not provide further detail as to how the inventor intended to perform the claimed computer functions to be performed “using AI recognition technology” which indicates that the recognition technology is directed to commercially available and known techniques to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. For at least these reasons, the additional elements are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to dependent claims 2-20, the additional limitations have been analyzed and were found to recite at least one of: an additional limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the computer-implemented functions performed by the “one or more processors” to perform the functions of: “recognize a body of the player playing the game on the gaming table by performing image recognition using AI technology to the image imaged by the second camera”, “correlate the recognized chip and the player whose body is recognized with each other, based on the position of the recognized chip and the body of the recognized player”, “determine a combination of the player ID of the player identified and the reference image of the player acquired”, “identify the player ID of the player shown in the image by the second camera based on a plurality of combinations determined for a plurality of players seated at the gaming table, and correlate the identified player ID and the player shown in the image imaged by the second camera with each other” and “identify the player ID of the player operating the chip, based on a correlation between the player and the player ID and a correlation between the player and the chip” which as indicated in the Specification are performed by one or more processors of a computer including computer programs to perform the functions of “a chip recognizing unit”, “a body recognizing unit”, “a first correlating unit”, “an ID identifying unit”, “a combination determining unit”, “a second correlating unit”, and “a chip operating player identifying portion” which are not adequately described to show possession of the claimed computer-implemented functions (see MPEP 2161.01). A review of the Specification fails to adequately describe (e.g., the computer program or the algorithms) in the specification as to how the inventor intended to achieve the claimed function. For instance, a review of the Specification does not provide any corresponding algorithm and/or necessary steps to achieve the claimed computer-implemented functions that would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application to show possession of how the inventor intended to use AI technology, deep learning technology, or support vector machine to achieve the claimed function of the gaming table system to recognize body parts of the player as claimed (see Specification, 0053, 0057, 0074, 0112). Additionally, as noted above, the corresponding algorithm and/or necessary steps to achieve the claimed computer-implemented functions to correlate the recognized chip, the recognized body part, determine a combination of the player ID of the player identified and the reference image of the player, identify the player of the player shown in the image imaged by the second camera, identify the player ID of the player operating the chip, based on a correlation between the player and the player ID and a correlation between the player and the chip are not adequately described as to how they are achieved by the use of AI technology. For at least these reasons, the claims 1-20 are not found to adequately describe to satisfy the written description requirement.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11, 13-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shigeta (US 2021/0150853 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shigeta discloses a gaming table system comprising (see Shigeta, Fig. 1, 0010, 0045):
a first camera configured to image a chip placed on a gaming table in a casino (see Shigeta, Fig. 1, 0046-0047);
a second camera configured to image a player playing a game at the gaming table to generate an image (see Shigeta, Fig. 1, 5, 0016, 0046-0047, 0068-0070);
one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to (see Shigeta, Fig. 5, 0068-0070, wherein the information processing device comprises one or more processors):
recognize a position, type, and number of chips on the gaming table by performing image recognition using AI technology to an image imaged by the first camera (see Shigeta, Figs. 1-6, 0048-0070, wherein the image processing device using a machine learning model detects the stack from within the image detecting a position through a coordinate system of the table, a type by the value and color of the chip, and the number of chips in the stack);
recognize a body of the player playing the game on the gaming table by performing image recognition using AI technology to the image imaged by the second camera (see Shigeta, Figs. 1-6, 0016, 0064-0077, wherein a body part of the player is recognized by an image captured by the cameras of the gaming table system);
correlate the recognized chip and the player whose body is recognized with each other, based on the position of the recognized chip and the body of the recognized player identify a player ID of the player seated at the gaming table (see Shigeta, Fig. 1-6, 0064-0077, wherein the correlation is between the body of the player recognized by the angle with the location of the stack of chips);
acquire a reference image of the player seated at the gaming table (see Shigeta, Fig. 4-6, 0069-0070, 0092-0093, wherein the recognizing the body part is based upon an acquired image of the player stored and captured in advance in association with the information identifying the player);
determine a combination of the player ID of the player identified and the reference image of the player acquired (see Shigeta, 0092-0093, 0095-0096, wherein the user ID from the player identification system is associated with each player in the recognition system);
identify the player ID of the player shown in the image imaged by the second camera based on a plurality of combinations determined for a plurality of players seated at the gaming table (see Shigeta, 0064-0077, 0092-0096), and
correlate the identified player ID and the player shown in the image imaged by the second camera with each other (see Shigeta, 0064-0077, 0092-0096),; and
identify the player ID of the player operating the chip, based on a correlation between the player and the player ID and a correlation between the player and the chip (see Shigeta, 0064-0077, 0092-0096); and
a storage device configured to store the player ID identified and the type and number of chips recognized so as to be in association with each other, or record the player ID identified by and a total amount based on the type and number of chipssee Shigeta, 1-6, 0048-0077, 0090-0097).
Regarding claim 2, Shigeta discloses the gaming table system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify the player ID by reading the player ID of the player from a membership card of the player seated at the gaming table (see Shigeta, 0097).
Regarding claim 3, Shigeta discloses the gaming table system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify the player ID of the player seated at the gaming table by performing image recognition using AI technology on an image imaging the player seated at the gaming table (see Shigeta, Fig. 1-6, 0016, 0064-0077, wherein the cameras 10 perform image recognition of the main player is a player in a seated position at the gaming table).
Regarding claim 4, Shigeta discloses the gaming table system according to claim 3, wherein thesee Shigeta, Fig. 1-6, 0068-0077, 0090-0097).
Regarding claim 5, Shigeta discloses the gaming table system according to claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to use another image imaged by the second camera before or after the image to identify the player ID of the player in the other image, when the one or more processors cannot identify the player ID of the player seated at the gaming table by the image recognition (see Shigeta, 0068-0077, 0082-0097, wherein the processing system takes images at regular intervals to determine to identity of the player which indicates an image before or after the image to identify the player seated;).
Regarding claim 6, Shigeta discloses the gaming table system according to claim 1, further comprising: a database configured to store a player ID of a registered player and a reference image so as to be in association with each other, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine the combination of the player ID and the reference image by referring to the database using the player ID identified (see Shigeta, Fig. 6-11, 0068-0077, 0082-0097).
Regarding claim 7, Shigeta discloses the gaming table system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to acquire the reference image of the player by imaging the player whose player ID is identified (see Shigeta, Fig. 6-11, 0090-0097, wherein system may image the player whose player ID is identified using the learned face images of the pre-registered players using a stored in the player database).
Regarding claim 8, Shigeta discloses the gaming table system according to claim 7, wherein the(see Shigeta, Fig. 4-11, 0068-0077, 0090-0097, wherein the player designated dealer occurs when a dealer provides a player ID at a play position in which the recognition system provides a partial image of the designated player), and combine, for the player, the player ID identified with the reference image of the player acquired (see Shigeta, Fig. 4-11, 0068-0077; 0082-0097, wherein the player ID is associated in the acquired image in the member database ).
Regarding claim 9, Shigeta discloses the gaming table system according to claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: acquire, as the reference image of the player, the image of the player to which correlating is not performed with respect to the image obtained by imaging the player whose player ID is identified and combine, for the player, the player ID identified (see Shigeta, 0090-0097, wherein the membership captures an image of the face of the player and acquires reference images for a plurality of pre-registered players)).
Regarding claim 10, Shigeta discloses the gaming table system according to claim 1, further comprising: a database configured to store a player ID of a registered player and a reference image so as to be in association with each other, wherein :the one or more processors are further configured to identify the player ID of the player by reading a player ID of the player from a membership card of the player for a new registration when the player whose player ID and reference image are not stored in the database seats at the gaming table, the one or more processors are further configured to acquire the reference image of the player by imaging the player whose player ID is identified (see Shigeta, 0090-0097), the database is configured to store the player ID of the newly registered player identified and the reference image of the player acquired so as to be in association with each other (see Shigeta, 0090-0097, wherein the camera captures the face of the player in a pre-registered player database that associates player and game information with the player ID), and the one or more processors are further configured to determine the combination by referring to the database for the player seated at any gaming table in the casino after the player is registered in the database (see Shigeta, 0090-0097).
Regarding claim 11, Shigeta discloses the gaming table system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: acquire a plurality of reference images for the same player, and combine the plurality of reference images with the same player ID (see Shigeta, Fig. 4-11, 0074-0090, wherein the plurality of captured images obtained in a time series is a plurality of reference images to combine for the same player ID to identify the body part or player that placed the bet).
Regarding claim 13, Shigeta discloses the gaming table system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to exclude a combination of a player away from the gaming table from the combination used for correlating (see 0070-0074, wherein the system uses an angle of the direction of the arms to identify the arm of the main player seated and the back-betting player that is standing based upon the higher angle drawn by the information processing device which excludes the combination of the player seated at the table being used for correlating the standing player).
Regarding claim 14, Shigeta discloses the gaming table system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify a player who would be in the casino, make the combination of the identified player a candidate, and correlate the identified player ID and the player shown in the image imaged by the second camera with each other (see Shigeta, Fig. 6-11, 0068-0077).
Regarding claim 15, Shigeta discloses the gaming table system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify the player ID of the player shown in the image imaged by the second camera based also on combinations determined for a plurality of players seated at other gaming table within the casino (see Figs. 6-11, 0077-0082, wherein the combination of the stack and the associated player at the gaming table is identified by the distance placed between each other at the gaming table).
Regarding claim 16, Shigeta discloses the gaming table system according to claim 1, further comprising: a database configured to store a player ID of a registered player and a reference image so as to be in association with each other (see Shigeta, Fig. 4-11, 0090-0097), wherein the one or more processors are further configured to refer to the database to identify the reference image of the player in the image imaged by the second camera (see Shigeta, Fig. 6-11, 0090-0097).
Regarding claim 17, Shigeta discloses the gaming table system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, in a case where the one or more processors cannot correlate the identified player ID and the player shown in the image imaged by the second camera, use another image imaged by the second camera before or after the image to correlate the player shown in the other image and the identified player ID with each other (see Shigeta, Figs. 4-11, 0074-0090, wherein the time series uses a plurality of images to correlate using additional/other images to correlate an image to identify the bet/player and the player ID).
Regarding claim 19, Shigeta discloses the gaming table system according to claim 16, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to; recognize the position of chip from an image generated by imaging the chip on the gaming table (see Shigeta, Figs. 1-6, 0048-0078); and recognize the type and number of chips from an image generated by imaging the chip on the gaming table system (see Shigeta, Fig. 1-6, 0048-0078).
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.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigeta as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Delaney et al. (US 2012/0208622 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Shigeta discloses the gaming table system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: recognize the position, type, and number of chips (see Shigeta, Fig. 1-6, 0048-0078), recognize the position of the player playing the game on the gaming table based on the image, and correlate the player and the chip with each other based on the position of the recognized player and the position of the recognized chip (see Shigeta, Fig. 1-6, 0048-0078). However, Shigeta is silent with respect to recognize the position, type, and number of chips by reading the RFID tag embedded in the chip.
Delaney teaches a chip recognition device that uses a camera or RFID identification embedded in the chip (see Delaney, Fig 4, 0030). One would have been motivated to use known techniques to similar devices to yield predictable results for recognizing chips by one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application to recognize the position, type, and number of chips by reading the RFID tag embedded in the chip.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights