DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges receipt of amendments/arguments filed 7/08/26. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 2-20 and 22 are pending, Claims 1 and 21 are canceled, and Claims 2, 12, and 22 are currently amended.
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 2-20 and 22 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.
Particularly, Claims 2 and 12 each contain the limitation “have substantially equal probabilities of occurrence”; however, such limitations are render the claim indefinite. The limitation “have substantially equal probabilities of occurrence” is not defined by the claim; the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree or boundaries of what substantially equal probabilities of occurrence would be, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Paragraph 284 suggests “Some embodiments may include a progressive game that is based on a series of binary choices (e.g., yes or no outcomes). Such choices may take any form. Some examples may include a coin toss, a pass or don't pass betin craps, a dealer or player choice in baccarat..”; however, such disclosure doesn’t provide support for the boundaries or requirements of what substantially equal probabilities of occurrence entails e.g. it is unclear in regards to how much coverage substantially equal probabilities of occurrence entails.
Claims 3-11, 13-20, and 22 inherent the deficiencies of Claims 2 and 12 from which the claims correspondingly depend from and are accordingly rejected for the same reasons noted above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 2-20 and 22 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tara (US 2011/0263320) in view of Parsadaian (US 2005/0218597) in view of Hobert (US 5,490,670), and in further view of Vuong (US 2002/0147042).
Claim 2: Tara discloses an electronic device for a gaming table capable of selectively preventing players from claiming jackpots contributed by other players, the electronic device comprising: a delivery shoe configured to eject playing cards, the delivery shoe including a first smart-card reader configured to read identities and values of each ejected playing card (¶ 179-187, 197, 202-203, 213-214); a discard rack configured to receive discarded playing cards, the discard rack including a second smart-card reader configured to read identities and values of each discarded playing card (¶ 216-218, 221-224); on-table input/output circuitry configured to receive live positional input indicating player and dealer positions around the gaming table (¶ 194-195, 214-218); a memory, storing one or more instructions; and at least one processor, wherein the one or more instructions are executable by the at least one processor to cause the electronic device to: using the delivery shoe, the discard rack and the on-table input/output circuitry to track progress of at least one game based on at least the identities and values of each ejected playing card, the identities and values of each discarded playing card, and the positional input indicating player and dealer positions around the gaming table (see above, ¶ 181-224), monitor, via the input/output circuitry, a total value of a jackpot associated with the at least one game for which the progress is being tracked (¶ 161, 195-196, 225, 257-286, emphasis on ¶ 276-286, Fig. 3), determine, via the at least one processor, whether the total value of the jackpot has reached a first predetermined threshold, after the first predetermined threshold is reached, receive, via the input/output circuitry, a request from a particular player to wager for the jackpot, determine whether a value submission is made by the particular player that is aggregated into the total value of the jackpot prior to receiving the request, and in response to determining that the value submission is not made, determine that the particular player is ineligible for the jackpot (¶ 257-286, emphasis on ¶ 276-286, Fig. 3). Tara teaches wherein an addition is made to the jackpot based on a player’s buy-in for one or more progressive games (see above, ¶ 225, 261-262, 265-266).
Tara teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting each of the one of the one or more progressive games being based on a binary choice that has two possibly valid outcomes, and where only one outcome of the two possibly valid outcomes will occur. Tara at least teaches that various modifications can be applied to the invention (¶ 41) and that the progressive/jackpot can be won based on a predetermined arrangement of cards/outcomes or and various other examples of outcomes can be implemented that are none limiting to the overall effect (¶ 225, 259). Furthermore, an analogous art of Parsadaian teaches one or more progressive games being based on a binary choice that has two possibly valid outcomes, and where only one outcome of the two possibly valid outcomes will occur (Abstract, ¶ 15-21 (illustrates dealing of a hand one card at a time), ¶ 22-28 (the progressive game based on binary choice), ¶ 36 (illustrates embodiment applicable to blackjack), the cited paragraphs describe a progressive game where if a user picks that all dealt cards in a hand are “all red” or “all black” then the use wins the progressive, wherein picking “all red” or “all black” is the user picking a binary choice of each card in the hand since each card dealt is either “red” or “black” which is known in a traditional card deck). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic device of Tara with the one or more progressive games of Parsadaian because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of awarding a player a progressive/jackpot based on an outcome of the game in which at least Tara is intended (see above). Such a modification would provide greater player participation and additional wagering opportunities to the user (Parsadaian - ¶ 5).
Tara in view of Parsadaian teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the two possibly valid outcomes having substantially equal probabilities of occurrence. Tara at least teaches that various modifications can be applied to the invention (¶ 41) and that the progressive/jackpot can be won based on a predetermined arrangement of cards/outcomes or and various other examples of outcomes can be implemented that are none limiting to the overall effect (¶ 225, 259). Furthermore, an analogous art of Hobert teaches outcomes having substantially equal probabilities of occurrence (Col. 8:29-49, Col. 9:4-12, 22-30, emphasis on Col. 9:22-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic device of Tara in view of Parsadain with the substantially equal probability means of Hobert because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of awarding a player a progressive based on outcomes in a game in which at least Tara is intended (see above). Such a modification ensures the possibility of outcomes designed for the game occurring.
Tara in view of Parsadaian in view of Hobert teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting a central server configured to communicate with the remote computer devices of remote players, such that the electronic device to uses the central server to track progress of at least one game based on at least the identities and values of each ejected playing card, the identities and values of each discarded playing card, and the positional input indicating player and dealer positions around the gaming table, and the processor after the first predetermined threshold is reached, receiving, via the central server, a request from a first remote computing device of a particular player to wager for the jackpot. Tara at least teaches that various modifications can be applied to the disclosed invention (¶ 41, 50, 52) and allowing for remote play of games (¶ 249-254, 302). Furthermore, an analogous art of Vuong teaches a central server (network manager/controller ((120) of Fig. 1)) configured to communicate with remote computer devices (118) (¶ 32-33), an electronic device (table manager (element 222 of Fig. 3), ¶ 39) of an intelligent gaming table) that uses the central server to track progress of at least one game (see above, ¶ 37, 72-74), and the central server receives requests from a first remote computing device of particular player to wager and/or participate (provide game play actions) in the game at the intelligent gaming table (see above, ¶ 71-83). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic device of Tara in view of Parsadaian in view of Hobert with the central server means of Vuong because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of allowing remote users to participate in a game in which at least Tara is intended (see above). Such a modification allows for remote players to participate at a live game of chance without disrupting the game’s results or rate of play for players physical present at the same table and increase casino revenue due to the increase in players (Vuong - ¶ 8).
The above, modification results in the electronic device via the processor of Tara in view of Parsadaian additionally using the central server to track progress of at least one game based on at least the identities and values of each ejected playing card, the identities and values of each discarded playing card, and the positional input indicating player and dealer positions around the gaming table (Tara – teaches using the delivery shoe, the discard rack, the on-table input/output circuity to track progress of at least one game based on at least the identities and values of each ejected playing card, the identities and values of each discarded playing card, and the positional input indicating player and dealer positions around the gaming table (see above), wherein the addition of Vuong applied to Tara in view of Parsadaian Hobert results in additional tracking of the at least one game that includes receiving wager and/or game play actions from the remote players via the central server), and the processor after the first predetermined threshold is reached, receiving, via the central server, a request from a first remote computing device of a particular player to wager for the jackpot since the teaching of Vuong applied to Tara in view of Parsadaian in view of Hobert teaches the central server being in communication with remote computing devices of remote players such that the remote players receive aspects of wager and game play from the central server and send wagering and/or game play actions to the gaming table via the central server (Vuong – see above).
Claim 12: Tara discloses a method for selectively preventing players from claiming jackpots contributed by other players in a gaming table, comprising: detecting, via a delivery shoe and a discard rack, each comprising smart-card readers respectively, identities and values of each ejected playing card (¶ 179-187, 197, 202-203, 213-214) and each discarded playing card around the gaming table (¶ 216-218, 221-224); determining, via on-table input/output circuitry, positional input indicating player and dealer positions around the gaming table (¶ 194-195, 214-218); tracking, using the delivery shoe, discard rack and on-table input/output circuitry, progress of at least one game based on at least the identities and values of each ejected playing card, the identities and values of each discarded playing card, and the positional input indicating player and dealer positions around the gaming table (see above, ¶ 181-224), monitoring a total value of a jackpot associated with the at least one game for which the progress is being tracked (¶ 161, 195-196, 225, 257-286, emphasis on ¶ 276-286, Fig. 3), determining, via at least one processor, whether the total value of the jackpot has reached a first predetermined threshold, after the first predetermined threshold is reached, receiving a request from a particular player to wager for the jackpot, determining whether a value submission is made by the particular player that is aggregated into the total value of the jackpot prior to receiving the request, and in response to determining that the value submission is not made, determining, via the at least one processor, that the particular player is ineligible for the jackpot (¶ 257-286, emphasis on ¶ 276-286, Fig. 3). Tara teaches wherein an addition is made to the jackpot/progressive based on a player’s buy-in for one or more progressive games (see above, ¶ 225, 261-262, 265-266).
Tara teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting each of the one of the one or more progressive games being based on a binary choice that has two possibly valid outcomes, and where only one outcome of the two possibly valid outcomes will occur. Tara at least teaches that various modifications can be applied to the invention (¶ 41) and that the progressive/jackpot can be won based on a predetermined arrangement of cards/outcomes or and various other examples of outcomes can be implemented that are none limiting to the overall effect (¶ 225, 259). Furthermore, an analogous art of Parsadaian teaches one or more progressive games being based on a binary choice that has two possibly valid outcomes, and where only one outcome of the two possibly valid outcomes will occur (Abstract, ¶ 15-21 (illustrates dealing of a hand one card at a time), ¶ 22-28 (the progressive game based on binary choice), ¶ 36 (illustrates embodiment applicable to blackjack), the cited paragraphs describe a progressive game where if a user picks that all dealt cards in a hand are “all red” or “all black” then the use wins the progressive, wherein picking “all red” or “all black” is the user picking a binary choice of each card in the hand since each card dealt is either “red” or “black” which is known in a traditional card deck). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic device of Tara with the one or more progressive games of Parsadaian because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of awarding a player a progressive/jackpot based on an outcome of the game in which at least Tara is intended (see above). Such a modification would provide greater player participation and additional wagering opportunities to the user (Parsadaian - ¶ 5).
Tara in view of Parsadaian teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the two possibly valid outcomes having substantially equal probabilities of occurrence. Tara at least teaches that various modifications can be applied to the invention (¶ 41) and that the progressive/jackpot can be won based on a predetermined arrangement of cards/outcomes or and various other examples of outcomes can be implemented that are none limiting to the overall effect (¶ 225, 259). Furthermore, an analogous art of Hobert teaches outcomes having substantially equal probabilities of occurrence (Col. 8:29-49, Col. 9:4-12, 22-30, emphasis on Col. 9:22-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic device of Tara in view of Parsadain with the substantially equal probability means of Hobert because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of awarding a player a progressive based on outcomes in a game in which at least Tara is intended (see above). Such a modification ensures the possibility of outcomes designed for the game occurring.
Tara in view of Parsadaian in view of Hobert teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting after the first predetermined threshold is reached, receiving, via the central server, a request from a first remote computing device of a particular player to wager for the jackpot. Tara at least teaches that various modifications can be applied to the disclosed invention (¶ 41, 50, 52) and allowing for remote play of games (¶ 249-254, 302). Furthermore, an analogous art of Vuong teaches a central server (network manager/controller ((120) of Fig. 1)) configured to communicate with remote computer devices (118) (¶ 32-33), an electronic device (table manager (element 222 of Fig. 3), ¶ 39) of an intelligent gaming table) that uses the central server to track progress of at least one game (see above, ¶ 37, 72-74), and the central server receives requests from a first remote computing device of particular player to wager and/or participate (provide game play actions) in the game at the intelligent gaming table (see above, ¶ 71-83). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic device of Tara in view of Parsadaian in view of Hobert with the central server means of Vuong because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of allowing remote users to participate in a game in which at least Tara is intended (see above). Such a modification allows for remote players to participate at a live game of chance without disrupting the game’s results or rate of play for players physical present at the same table and increase casino revenue due to the increase in players (Vuong - ¶ 8).
The above, modification results in the electronic device via the processor of Tara in view of Parsadaian in view of Hobert after the first predetermined threshold is reached, receiving, via the central server, a request from a first remote computing device of a particular player to wager for the jackpot since Vuong applied to Tara in view of Parsadaian in view of Hobert teaches the central server being in communication with remote computing devices of remote players such that the remote players receive aspects of wager and game play from the central server and send wagering and/or game play actions to the gaming table via the central server (Vuong – see above).
Claims 3 and 13: Tara discloses comprising a plurality of bet sensors disposed at the player positions on the gaming table, each of the bet sensors configured to transmit a signal so as to count of tokens placed on the gaming table for each of the player positions (¶ 192-193).
Claims 4 and 14: Tara discloses wherein the processor is configured to prevent the particular player who is ineligible from the jackpot from making a wager or playing the at least one game (¶ 282, 286, 291-292, 304).
Claims 5 and 15: Tara discloses comprising progressive bet sensors disposed at the player positions, each of the progressive bet sensors configured to transmit a signal to detect progressive bets associated with each of the player positions (¶ 192-193).
Claims 6 and 16: Tara discloses further comprising a table monitor including an imaging device for capturing images of the gaming table to track activity including betting occurring thereon (¶ 212, 302).
Claims 7 and 17: Tara discloses wherein the delivery shoe further comprises a scanner for scanning each ejected playing card as it is dealt from the delivery shoe, so as to identify each ejected playing card (¶ 184-187, 190, 197, 202-203, 213-214).
Claims 8 and 18: Tara discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate an alarm for improper betting (¶ 193-194).
Claims 9 and 19: Tara discloses wherein the processor is configured to allow the ineligible particular player to contribute to the jackpot (¶ 266, 282).
Claims 10 and 20: Tara discloses wherein the processor is configured to allow the ineligible particular player to be eligible for the jackpot after the ineligible player contributes a threshold amount to the jackpot subsequently (¶ 282, 316, 322, emphasis on ¶ 282).
Claim 11: Tara discloses wherein the processor is configured to allow the ineligible particular player to contribute to another jackpot for a subsequent access to the other jackpot (¶ 282).
Claim 22: Tara in view of Parsadaiani in view of Hobert in view of Vuong teaches wherein the one or more progressive games include a progressive game based on a series of binary choices that occur over time (Parsadaian - ¶ 22-28 the series of binary choices correspond to a series of cards dealt one at a time to form a player and/or dealer hand), wherein the at least one processor (Tara – see above with respect to the processor execution of the game, etc, wherein the processed game refers the progressive game of Parsadaian) is configured to: receive a contribution to a progressive pool based on a player buy-in for the progressive game (Tara - ¶ 257-286, emphasis on ¶ 276-286, Fig. 3, Parsadaian - ¶ 22-28); receive a player-provided selection of outcomes for a next set of the series of binary choices that occur with the buy-in (Parsadaian - ¶ 22-28); determine whether actual outcomes of the next set of the series of binary choices match the player-provided selection of the outcomes; and in response to determining that the actual outcomes of the next set of the series of binary choices match the player-provided selection of the outcomes, award at least a portion of the progressive pool to a player that provided the player- provided selection (Parsadaian - ¶ 22-28).
Tara in view of Parsadaian in view of Hobert in view of Vuong teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting receiving a player-provided selection of outcomes for a next set of the series of binary choices that occur after the player buy-in. However, applicant fails to disclose that receiving a player-provided selection of outcomes for a next set of the series of binary choices that occur after the player buy-in solves any stated problem, provides an advantage, or is for any particular purpose. Furthermore, Applicant, additionally, discloses that selection may/can occur with the buy-in (¶ 304). Moreover, it appears that selection occurring after the player buy-in of Tara in view of Parsadain in view of Hobert in view of Vuong, or applicant’s invention, would perform the same function of receiving a player-provided selection of outcomes for a next set of the series of binary choices that occur, regardless of whether or not the selection occurs during or after the player buy-in. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tara in view of Parasdain in view of Hobert in view of Vuong to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 22 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Tara in view of Parasdain in view of Hobert in view of Vuong.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, part.
The 35 U.S.C. 112 Rejection
Paragraph 284 suggests “Some embodiments may include a progressive game that is based on a series of binary choices (e.g., yes or no outcomes). Such choices may take any form. Some examples may include a coin toss, a pass or don't pass bet in craps, a dealer or player choice in baccarat..”; however, such disclosure doesn’t provide support for the boundaries or requirements of what substantially equal probabilities of occurrence entails e.g. it is unclear in regards to how much coverage substantially equal probabilities of occurrence entails.
While applicant suggests that “Applicant respectfully notes that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would recognize that games of chance, such as coin flips, do not possess exactly 50/50 odds, but rather the odds may deviate slightly depending on the physical characteristics of the implement. Coins for example have a slightly positive (e.g., greater-than 50%) probability to land on the same face that was held upwards when the coin was prepared to flip. Baccarat is similarly binary but the odds are not exactly 50/50” such disclosure is supported in the specification. Additionally, such findings would not be prevalent in pass or don’t pass bets nor a dealer or player choice in baccarat. Substantially is not defined in the specification to understand the breath and bounds of substantially equal probabilities of occurrence. The boundaries of what is considered substantially equal is unclear.
At least based on the above, the rejection is clarified and maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection
The rejections of Claims 2-20 and 22 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments/arguments filed 7/8/26.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-20 and 22 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. Particularly, at least the prior art of Hobert (US 5,490,670), and in further view of Vuong (US 2002/0147042) is used to teach the newly added amendments/limitations pertaining to equal probabilities and aspects of a central server.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached 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 TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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.
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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
