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 1-17 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 1-17 recite an abstract idea of organizing of human activity, performing a mental process. 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 1-12 recite: An inspection system for game tokens, wherein each game token has a first ID recorded on a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag and a second ID which is denoted by laser irradiation and is different from the first ID, the inspection system comprising:
a database configured to store a combination of the first ID and the second ID of each respective game token;
a Radio Frequency (RF) reader configured to read the first ID of each respective token;
a camera configured to capture each game token and produce an image of the game token; and
an inspection device configured to:
analyze, via a machine learning model, the image to obtain information based on a portion of a game token captured in the image, the portion irradiated by laser light;
decode the information to determine the second ID; and
determine whether a combination for the game token is stored in the database, the combination based on the first ID of the game token read by the RF reader and the second ID of the game token determined by the inspection device; and
an output device configured to output a result of the determination as to whether the game token is genuine or counterfeit.
Claims 13-15 recite: an inspection system for game tokens, wherein each game token has a first ID recorded on a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag and a second ID which is denoted by laser irradiation and is different from the first ID, the inspection system comprising:
a database configured to store a combination of the first ID and the second ID of each respective game token;
a camera configured to capture each game token and produce an image of the game token; and
an inspection device configured to:
analyze, via a machine learning model, the image to obtain information based on a portion of a game token captured in the image, the portion irradiated by laser light;
decode the information to determine the second ID;
access based on the second ID determined by inspection device, the database to determine whether a combination for the game token is stored in the database; and
an output device configured to output a result of the determination as to whether the game token is genuine or counterfeit.
Claims 16-17 recite: a method of inspection of a game token, the method comprising:
capturing, by a camera, an image of the game token, the game token includes a first ID recorded on a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag of the game token and a second ID which is denoted by laser irradiation and is different from the first ID;
analyzing, by an inspection device and via a machine learning model the image to obtain information based on a portion of the game token captured in the image, the portion irradiated by laser light;
decoding, by the inspection device the information to determine the second ID;
accessing, by an inspection device, a database to determine whether a combination of the first ID and the second ID of the game token is stored, the
database configured to store a combination of a first ID and a second ID for each of a plurality of game tokens: and
inspecting, based on accessing the database, the game token based on the second ID determined by the inspection device; and
outputting a result of the determination as to whether the game token is genuine or counterfeit.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of performing a mental process. A person can mentally analyze an image to obtain information, decode the information to determine a second ID; determine/inspect whether a combination for the game token is stored in a database and output the result of the determination. In addition, the claim limitations of determining or inspecting the ID of a game token and outputting the result of the determination is a management of a game. A management of a game is a social activity, which is an organization of human activity.
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 1-17 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 1-17 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: a RF reader to read the first ID, a camera to capture and produce an image amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional elements of, a database, inspection device (including a machine learning model), and output device are directed to a generic computer used to perform the abstract idea. The database and inspection device generally ties the abstract idea to an electronic environment.
For the reasons discussed above, 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 1-17 recite the additional limitation of a database to store information. Storing information in a database or memory and retrieving the information is well known, routine and conventional. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
The additional element of a radio frequency reader and a camera to read information RFID information from a token and capture information from a game token denoted with invisible ink is well known, routine and conventional. Merrell (US 2016/0240035) discloses that it is well known for gaming chips to be encrypted using bar codes, ultraviolet codes, printed micro dots, reactive ink, infrared taggants with the chip or ink, RFID chips, etc. (paragraph 39).
The use of an inspection device (computer) using machine learning model to analyze the image is well known in the art. Sawney (US 2014/0270494) discloses that it is well known and conventional to analyze images using machine learning algorithms (pargaphrs 3-4, 13).
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 9/22/25 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims as a whole do not recite a method of organizing human activity, a mental process or any abstract idea. Applicant argues that the human mind cannot read RFID information for RFID tags because it cannot output or receive radio frequency waves in order to read information from the RFID tag. Applicant argues that the a human mind is not capable of image processing via machine learning model and not capable of irradiating via laser light to decode the second ID. The physical components involved are not generic. In addition, capturing encoded information of a first ID record on RFID tags and a second ID denoted by laser, and using machine learning model to analyze information is not a method of organizing human activity.
However the
However, the claims recite an abstract idea of performing a mental process. A person can mentally analyze an image to obtain information, decode the information to determine a second ID; determine/inspect whether a combination for the game token is stored in a database and output the result of the determination. In addition, the claim limitations of determining or inspecting the ID of a game token and outputting the result of the determination is a management of a game. A management of a game is a social activity, which is an organization of human activity.
The additional element of a RF reader to read the first ID, a camera to capture and produce an image amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements of, a database, an inspection device (including a machine learning model) and output device are directed to a generic computer used to perform the abstract idea. The database and inspection device generally ties the abstract idea to an electronic environment.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The claims improve the functioning of a computer by improving systems for detecting counterfeit game tokens. The claims enable determination of authenticity based on image obtained by a camera of an ID irradiated by laser and an ID recorded on a RFID tag. However, the additional element of a RF reader to read the first ID, a camera to capture and produce an image amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements of, a database and inspection device (including a machine learning model) is directed to a generic computer used to perform the abstract idea. The database, inspection device and output device generally ties the abstract idea to an electronic environment. The additional elements considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
35 USC 112
The rejection under 35 USC 112 is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
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 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