DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed June 18, 2026. The Examiner acknowledges that claims 1, 17, & 19 were amended, claims 14 & 15 were canceled, and no new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-13 & 16-20 are currently pending.
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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 depends from canceled claim 14. For examination purposes, claim 16 is interpreted as being dependent from claim 1 as the subject matter of canceled claim 14 is amended into claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 & 16-20 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.
Claims 1, 17, & 19 recite determining a second wager from a second player for a second wagering game…via a computing device associated with the second layer, wherein the computing device comprises an electronic gaming machine (EGM)…” and thereafter recite “provide a slot wagering game to the second player” in which it appears unclear if the slot wagering game is the second wagering game, or if the EGM is presenting two distinct games including “a secondary game” and “a slot wagering game”. The specification appears to support the second wagering game at the EGM can be a slot wagering game in which the data collected from live table games are used as a source for determining random symbols on reels, or the like. Thus it appears the specification is consistent with an interpretation that the second wagering game is the slot wagering game being provided to the second player from which wagers are received. The following rejection is based on this interpretation as best understood in light of the specification, however, Applicant’s attention to the claim language is required to obviate the clarity issue.
Claim 12 also appears indefinite as it attempts to redefine the computing device, which as amended claims 1, 17, & 19 recite “comprises an electronic gaming device (EGM) in a second casino environment”. Claim 12 recites “the computing device comprises a mobile computing device associated with the second player in communication with a game server via a network”, which appears indefinite based on the amended language to the independent claim from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 13 also appears indefinite as it attempts to redefine the computing device, which as amended claims 1, 17, & 19 recite “comprises an electronic gaming device (EGM) in a second casino environment”. Claim 13 recites “the computing device comprises an electronic table game (ETG) in another casino environment different from the first casino environment” , which appears indefinite based on the amended language to the independent claim from which claim 13 depends.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 12, 13, & 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0094234; hereinafter “Chun’234” in view of Chun et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0043318; hereinafter “Chun’318”).
Claims 1, 17, & 19: Chun’234 discloses a system comprising: a processor circuit; and a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit (figure 1 and paragraphs 0045-0049, wherein Chun’234 discloses a system 10 includes a processing device 12, data storage 14, and communication means to conduct a live table game and remote wagering games utilizing data collected at the live table game), cause the processor circuit to:
determine a first wager from a first player for a first wagering game at physical table game in a first casino environment, the physical table game comprising a physical game object (paragraphs 0006-0007, 0028-0029, 0033-0034, wherein Chun’234 discloses live table games such as baccarat, blackjack, roulette, craps, etc. are played on physical gaming tables with physical game objects, where players place wagers and their outcomes are determined by respective game rules, the live table games being interpreted as positioned in a “first casino environment”);
determine a second wager from a second player for a second wagering game different from the first wagering game via a computing device associated with the second player, wherein the computing device comprises an electronic gaming machine (EGM) in a second casino environment (paragraphs 0006-0007, 0028-0042, wherein Chun’234 discloses one or more remote wagering games are available to second players operating electronic gaming machines, e.g. slot machines, interpreted to be “in a second casino environment” as remote from the live table games, the second players being enabled through the Chun’234 system to place wagers on second wagering games that differ from the first wagering game, such as second different games in which the outcomes are based on data collected during the first wagering game);
capture, by a video capture device of the physical table game, gameplay video of gameplay of the first wagering game (paragraphs 0034, 0041-0048, wherein Chun’234 discloses capturing, by some video capture device, live broadcast of gameplay at the first wagering game to be transmitted to the EGM for simultaneous display with the second wagering game);
transmit the gameplay video to the EGM for display on a display device of the EGM in near real-time, wherein the gameplay video is visible to the second player at the same time as the second wagering game (paragraphs 0034, 0041-0048, wherein Chun’234 discloses capturing, by some video capture device, live broadcast of gameplay at the first wagering game to be transmitted to the EGM for simultaneous display with the second wagering game, where Chun’234 indicates the multimedia feed is live, thus interpreted as at or near real-time);
detect, by a sensor device at the physical table game, a parameter value associated with the physical game object (paragraphs 0032-0033, wherein Chun’234 discloses various sensor devices or means to collect a parameter value associated with a physical game object used in the live table game);
determine a first game result for the first wagering game (abstract, paragraphs 0006-0007, 0013, wherein Chun’234 discloses during play of the live table game, any wagers in the first wagering game are resolved according to the game’s respective game rules for players playing live at the table);
based on the parameter value, determine a second game result for the second wagering game (paragraphs 0029-0049, wherein as discussed above, Chun’234 discloses that based on the data collected from the live table game, such as a dealt card or the like, a second game result for the second wagering game is determined and any wagers placed in the second wagering game are resolved accordingly); and
in response to the second game result being a winning game result, provide a game award to the second player (paragraphs 0029-0049, wherein as discussed above, Chun’234 discloses that based on the data collected from the live table game, such as a dealt card or the like, a second game result for the second wagering game is determined and any wagers placed in the second wagering game are resolved accordingly).
Chun’234 however does not explicitly disclose the second wagering game being provided at the EGM is specifically a slot wagering game.
Regardless of the deficiency, Chun himself, in a later-dated patent application of Chun’318, teaches EGMs supporting table games in with the EGMs offer slot-style wagering games that use reel symbols with reel-stop positions that represent physical table game objects. Chun’318 goes further into designing a self-contained physical table game EGM hybrid in which physical objects can be manipulated and detected via sensors to be used as the source of reel-stop positions for play of a slot-style wagering game (paragraphs 0031-0040). Accordingly, Chun’318 discloses that physical game objects can be utilized during play of a physical table game, e.g. rolling of dice, or dealing of cards, and parameters of the physical objects are detected. The detected parameters are then used a source for stopping a set of spinning reels in a slot machine wagering game. A skilled artisan, such as Chun himself, would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide the Chun’234 gaming system a disparate type of second wagering game being played at the EGMs in which parameter values of physical game objects in the first wagering game are utilized to stop game symbols on a slot machine wagering game. Chun’234 discloses the desire to have “different” games as the second wagering games at the EGMs that differ from the first wagering game and are only based on detected parameters from physical objects utilized in the first wagering game and have their own set of differing criteria for resolving wagers (Chun’234, paragraph 0036).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Chun’234 gaming system so that the remote wagering games or second wagering games being played by second players at the EGMs are implemented as slot wagering games that use detected parameter values of physical game objects from live table games (i.e. the first wagering game) as taught by Chun’318 to drive the slot wagering game outcomes while simultaneously displaying a live feed from the table game on the EGM thereby providing additional wagering formats that leverage the same live table game data and offer disparate types of second wagering games versus merely being confined to second wagering games that may only differ slightly from the first wagering game (e.g. different pay tables or rules; see Chun’234 at paragraphs 0037, 0041, 0043).
Regarding claim 17, all of the above applies, wherein the Chun’234 and Chun’318 combination discloses the gaming system is interpreted as a ‘gaming device’ having a table game play area, such as on the physical table of the first wagering game, a sensor device (Chun’234, paragraph 0032), and the processor/memory hardware to carry out the functionality as detailed above.
Regarding claim 19, all of the above applies, wherein the Chun’234 and Chun’318 combination clearly discloses a method comprising the functionality as detailed above and facilitated by the processor/memory hardware.
Claims 2 & 20: Chun’234 discloses that the physical game object comprises a playing card, and wherein the parameter value comprises a card value for the playing card (paragraphs 0028-0032).
Claim 3: Chun’234 discloses that the sensor device is part of a playing card shoe that, in response to drawing the playing card from the shoe, determines the card value for the playing card (paragraph 0032, wherein Chun’234 discloses electronic scanning, recognition, and detecting devices as known in the art to read cards including a “card shoe”).
Claims 4 & 18: Chun’234 discloses that the sensor device is part of a card shuffler device that, in response to shuffling a deck of playing cards, determines the card value for the playing card (paragraph 0032, wherein Chun’234 discloses electronic scanning, recognition, and detecting devices as known in the art to read cards including a card shuffler).
Claims 5 & 21: Chun’234 discloses that the physical game object comprises a roulette ball, and wherein the parameter value comprises a rest position of the roulette ball in a physical roulette wheel of the physical table game (paragraph 0032).
Claims 6 & 22: Chun’234 discloses that the physical game object comprises a die, and wherein the parameter value comprises an upward facing face of the die (paragraphs 0028-0032, wherein Chun’234 discloses ascertaining the results of a dice game, which are interpreted as being evaluated based on upward faces of dice).
Claim 8: Chun’234 discloses that the sensor device comprises an image capture device, and wherein the parameter value is derived from an image of the physical game captured by the image capture device (paragraphs 0028-0032).
Claims 12 & 13: Chun’234 discloses the player’s EGM could alternatively be a mobile device in communication with a game server via a network (paragraph 0029). Regarding claim 13, the EGM of the Chun’234 and Chun’318 combination is reasonably interpreted as an ETG in another casino, as the EGM of Chun’318 comprises table game aspects and is interpreted as residing in the second or another casino environment.
Claims 7, 9-11, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun’234 & Chun’318, as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 12, 13, & 17-22, where applicable, in view of Hill (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0087371).
Claim 7: The combination of Chun’234 & Chun’318 discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for explicitly disclosing that the physical game object comprises a betting chip and wherein the parameter value comprises a monetary value of the betting chip. Regardless of the deficiency, in an analogous gaming system in which gaming data is collected from play of a live table game for use during play of remote wagering games offered on EGMs, Hill discloses that the physical game object comprises a betting chip, and wherein the parameter value comprises a monetary value of the betting chip (paragraphs 0087, 0093, 0099, wherein Hill discloses the physical game object can comprise gaming or betting chips, such as RFIF enabled or similar chips enabling remote players to obtain amounts wagered by live players, such as when a remote player is backbetting a live player, the amounts wagered as parameter values are interpreted the basis of the backbetting remote player’s wager, and thus in at least one interpretation, a parameter value that has an effect on the second game outcome, such as the amount of a win or loss). It would have required mere routine skill in the art to have modified the Chun’234/Chun’318 combination to incorporate detection of amounts of physical gaming chips being wagered by live players at the live table games and such data being provided to the remote wagering game players, such as to influence a game outcome at the remote wagering game. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Chun’234 and Chun’318 with the teachings from Hill’s analogous gaming system for the purpose of having more data collected from the live table games to incorporate into or influence game outcomes of the second or remote wagering games occurring at the EGMs.
Claims 9-11: The combination of Chun’234 & Chun’318 discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for explicitly disclosing that the sensor device comprises a proximity sensor, and wherein the parameter value is derived from a detected proximity of the physical game object to the proximity sensor, or that the sensor device comprises radio frequency (RF) device, wherein the parameter value is derived from an RF signal received from the physical game object, or that the physical game object comprises an RFID tag, wherein the RF device comprises an RFID transceiver. Regardless of the deficiency, in an analogous gaming system in which gaming data is collected from play of a live table game for use during play of remote wagering games offered on EGMs, Hill discloses that the sensor device comprises a proximity sensor, such as RF device, wherein the parameter value is derived from a detected proximity of the physical game object to the proximity sensor or RF device, the physical object being an RFID tag, such as one embedded within a RFD-enabled gaming chip, as is commonplace in the art (paragraphs 0087, 0088, 0092, wherein Hill discloses RFID gaming chips as conventional technology, commonplace in the art, utilizing RFID tags embedded in gaming chips that are detected when proximate an RF device such as an antenna or RF transceiver, to read a signal thereon to derive a parameter value pertaining to the chip). It would have required mere routine skill in the art to have modified the Chun’234/Chun’318 combination to incorporate that the sensor device comprises a proximity sensor, such as RF device, wherein the parameter value is derived from a detected proximity of the physical game object to the proximity sensor or RF device, the physical object being an RFID tag, such as one embedded within a RFD-enabled gaming chip as such hardware and capabilities of physical objects and sensor devices is taught by Hill as data collected or obtained at live table games for use in or during remote wagering games. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Chun’234 and Chun’318 with the teachings from Hill’s analogous gaming system for the purpose of having more data collected from the live table games to incorporate into or influence game outcomes of the second or remote wagering games occurring at the EGMs.
Claim 16: The combination of Chun’234 & Chun’318 discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for explicitly disclosing that video of the gameplay is pre-recorded before the second wager is received. Regardless of the deficiency, in an analogous gaming system in which gaming data is collected from play of a live table game for use during play of remote wagering games offered on EGMs, Hill also discloses video capturing to be transmitted to remote game players at their respective EGMs or computing devices, and in at least one arrangement, the video is captured and then stored for later use, as such it is pre-recorded before the second wager is received (paragraph 0087). It would have required mere routine skill in the art to have modified the Chun’234/Chun’318 combination to record and store live table gaming video and associated data collected for parameter values to use all of such information for future remote wagering games at the EGMs, such as in situations where there are no current live table games operating and players desire to engage in remote wagering. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Chun’234 and Chun’318 with the teachings from Hill’s analogous gaming system in order to provide a more flexible gaming system allowing remote wagering even during times when no live table games are being played, requiring the use of pre-recorded physical table game video and physical object parameter values.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, in light of the amendments to at least claims 1, 17, & 19, with respect to previously presented 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
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 MILAP SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30-6PM.
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, KANG HU can be reached at 571-270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights