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 .
Election/Restrictions
The requirement for election between species as detailed in the Office Action mailed November 10, 2025 is hereby withdrawn. All pending claims 1-20 are examined herein. Accordingly, any claim status identifiers of (Withdrawn) can be corrected in any subsequently filed claim listing.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 17, & 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the independent claims, at the limitation beginning with “detect” or “detecting”, the phrase “with physical game object” should be “with the physical game object”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 a grouping of abstract without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, recite limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites:
1. 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, 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; 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; detect, by a sensor device at the physical table game, a parameter value associated with physical game object; determine a first game result for the first wagering game; based on the detected parameter value, determine a second game result for the second wagering game; and in response to the second game result being a winning game result, provide a game award to the second player.
The limitations of claim 1 are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite steps and/or instructions directed to a fundamental economic transaction (e.g. a wagering game) and/or social interactions between people. Moreover, the claims recite a mental process because they recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that is capable of being performed in the human mind. That is, humans are capable of performing the fundamental economic transaction through social interactions between people utilizing one or more conventional elements and one or more mental processes. That is, a first human can play a physical game having a physical object (e.g. a card game played on a table) involving a first wager and determinations of parameter values associated with physical object (e.g. a rank/suit of a card), while a second human can place a second wager on a second game different from the first game, such that the parameter value associated with the physical object are the basis for an outcome of the second game and second wager. For example, a second human wagering upon whether the first human will win the first game based on cards received during the first game and associated game rules. Thus the totality of the underlined limitations of claim 1 amount to functions capable of being performed by humans following a set of rules by utilizing mental processes and a conventional deck of cards.
Notably, independent claims 17 & 19 recite substantially the same functionality pertaining to the process underlined in claim 1 above. Accordingly, claim 1 is discussed herein with the same reasoning pertaining to independent claims 17 & 19.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: a system, a processing circuit, memory storing computer-readable instructions, a computing device, a sensor device, and the like are found to recite mere conventional or generic computing elements that are used to invoke 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, the claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited additional elements detailed above are when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements are not found to amount to an inventive concept. For instance, Hill (US PgPub 2015/0087371) discloses a conventional gaming system that includes a physical table, a physical game object, a processor, a memory with computer-readable instructions to facilitate processes, a computing device, a sensor device, and other generically recited means to be known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts as it pertains to implementing a process to one substantially equally claimed by the present claims (see Hill, figures 1-2, and paragraphs 0083-0366). For at least these reasons, the additional elements are similar to the case in Alice v. CLS, where they are not found to recite an inventive concept but invoke 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, the claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, are not found to amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Regarding dependent claims 2-16, 18, & 20, the limitations of the dependent claims have been analyzed and were found to additional recite limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoke 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 instance, claims 2-11, 18, & 20 recite elements pertaining to the physical object and sensor device that are deemed conventional and commonplace in the art (see Hill cited above), claims 12-13 recite elements pertaining to the computing device that are equally generic or conventional in the art (see Hill cited above), and claims 14-16 pertain to additional physical elements related to a capturing video via a camera, which again is similarly well established in the gaming arts (see Hill cited above). The totality of the various physical elements are essentially commonplace pertaining to the type of system that well-established in the art to implement functionality as similarly claimed in the present claims, as evidenced by at least Hill, which pre-dates Applicant’s earliest effective filing date by over 10 years, during which type similar systems to Hill were also invented demonstrating additional conventionality to these physical elements as merely a tool to implement the abstract idea..
For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more, such as an actual technical improvement to a technical problem or improvement to the functioning of the computing elements that are currently used as a generic tool to implement the abstract idea.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hill (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0087371).
Claim 1: Hill discloses a system comprising:
a processor circuit (figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0083-0096; and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions (figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0083-0096) that, when executed by the processor circuit, 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 0083-0366, while notably the citation is a lot of subject matter, the Examiner respectfully positions that the totality of the disclosure in these paragraphs is very pertinent to the subject as set forth in the present claims, accordingly, herein citations may refer to this large passage of the disclosure, however the Examiner will summarize the specificity detailed therein, as best possible, to correlate what Hill discloses as it relates to the limitation, nonetheless, Applicant is respectfully requested to review the entirety of these paragraphs – Hill details that live casino games occur in casinos utilizing intelligent tables having a variety of means to obtain game data, thus the system determines a first wager from a first player for a first wagering game at a physical table in a first casino environment, the physical table game comprising a physical game object, has occurred, such as in various games in which a specific player’s game objects, such as cards, are the game data being relayed to a second remote player);
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 (paragraphs 0083-0366, wherein Hill discloses a remote or second player places a second wager through a computing device – see paragraph 0107, Hill further discloses the second player is playing a game independent or different from the first wagering game – see paragraph 0083);
detect, by a sensor device at the physical table game, a parameter value associated with the physical game object (0083-0366, wherein Hill discloses a variety of sensor devices and means to determine real world game data from a plurality of different physical game objects at the physical game tables – see paragraphs 0011-0017, 0087-0090);
determine a first game result for the first wagering game (paragraphs 0077-0091, 0112, wherein Hill discloses their system can determine a first game result of the first wagering game at the physical game table);
based on the detected parameter value, determine a second game result for the second wagering game (paragraphs 0083-0366, wherein Hill discloses that detected parameter values or real-world / real-time gaming data pertaining to play happening at a live casino table game is utilized to determine a second game result for the second wagering game, as readily ascertained throughout a reading of Hill); and
in response to the second game result being a winning game result, provide a game award to the second player (paragraphs 0083-0366, wherein Hill discloses paying out wagers made by the remote or second player if a winning game result in the second game is achieved).
Claims 2-4: Hill discloses that the physical game object comprises a playing card, and wherein the parameter value comprises a card value for the playing card (paragraphs 0071-0090, wherein Hill discloses the physical game objects are playing and the parameter values are card values or ranks/suits). Hill further 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 (paragraphs 0071-0090, wherein Hill discloses a card shuffler and/or card shoe can scan or read cards during a shuffle or as cards are distributed). Hill also 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 (paragraphs 0071-0090, as discussed above, Hill discloses that the sensor device can be a card shuffler that determines card values while shuffling the cards, such as to create pre-scanned decks of cards and the like).
Claim 5: Hill 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 (paragraphs 0070, 0071, 0077, 0090, wherein Hill discloses that in embodiments in which the underlying game being played at the physical game table is roulette, game data pertaining to physical objects for the game of roulette are detected by one or more sensors, such as which pocket of a roulette wheel a roulette ball lands).
Claim 6: Hill discloses that the physical game object comprises a die, and wherein the parameter value comprises an upward facing face of the die (paragraphs 0070, 0071, 0077, 0090, wherein Hill discloses that in embodiments in which the underlying game being played at the physical game table is craps, game data pertaining to physical objects for the game of craps are detected by one or more sensors, such as values on the face-up side of dice).
Claim 7: 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).
Claim 8: Hill discloses that the sensor device comprises an image capture device, and wherein the parameter value is derived from an image of the physical game object captured by the image capture device (see above with respect to claims 2-4, wherein Hill discloses utilizing a camera to image cards in the card shuffler and/or shoe, thereby deriving parameter or card values from images of the physical cards).
Claims 9-11: Hill discloses that the sensor device comprises a proximity sensor, such as RF device, and 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).
Claims 12 & 13: Hill discloses that the computing device comprises a mobile computing device associated with the second player in communication with a game server via a network (figure 2 and paragraph 0107, where computing devices can be mobile). Regarding claim 13, a remote or second player can operate their mobile device from another casino environment different from the first casino environment to participate in the Hill system and said mobile device can be interpreted as “an electronic table game” where no specificity pertaining to any specifics thereof is set for the in the claims.
Claims 14-16: Hill discloses capturing, by a video capture device, video of gameplay of the first wagering game and transmitting the video to the computing device for display by the computing device (paragraphs 0083-0366, wherein Hill is replete with discussion pertaining to a CCTV integration to enable sensory data such as actual video of the physical table game and real world participating players to be transmitted to remote or second players at their computing devices). Hill discloses the video of gameplay is captured and transmitted in near-real time (paragraph 0087). Hill also discloses recorded and stored video for use in implementations where the remote players are playing games utilizing pre-recorded real-world gaming data (paragraph 0087), thus such video is recorded before the second wager is received.
Claims 17-18: See discussion of claims 1-16 as detailed above, furthermore Hill discloses a gaming device includes a table game play area, the sensor device, the processing circuit and the memory to facilitate the processes detailed above (figures 1-2 and paragraph 0405).
Claims 19-20: See discussion of claims 1-16 as detailed above, where Hill discloses the method performed by a processing circuit pertaining to the processes detailed above (figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0405).
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) – A plethora of similar systems to Hill exist in the prior art, Applicant is respectfully requested to review the entirety of the references cited.
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