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 Request for Continued Examination and receipt of amendments/arguments filed 3/26/26. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 2-20 and 22 are pending, Claims 1 and 21 are canceled, Claims 2, 4, 11-12, and 14 are currently amended, and Claim 22 is newly added.
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 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A method for selectively preventing players from claiming jackpots contributed by other players in a gaming table, the method comprising: detecting identities and values of each ejected playing card and each discarded playing card around the gaming table; determining positional input indicating player and dealer positions around the gaming table; tracking 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; monitoring a total value of a jackpot associated with the at least one game for which the progress is being tracked; determining 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 that the particular player is ineligible for the jackpot; wherein an addition is made to the jackpot based on a player's buy-in for one or more progressive games, each one of the one or more progressive games being based on a binary choice that has two possibly valid outcomes that are substantially equally likely to occur, and where only one outcome of the two possibly valid outcomes will occur.” (Claim 12). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as it pertains to either fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components (sensors, imaging device, scanner) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of a “sensors”, “imaging device”, and/or “scanner”) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea, merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality, and fails to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the method and/or the extent to which a computer performs/implements the method. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claims 13-20 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as it pertains to either fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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 “substantially equally likely to occur”; however, such limitations render the claim indefinite. The limitation “substantially equally likely to occur” is not defined by the claim; the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree or boundaries of what a generally flat bottom would be, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art understand that if a binary choice only has two possible outcomes; therefore, each outcome is equally like to occur.
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).
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); input/output circuitry configured to receive 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: 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 that are substantially equally likely to occur, 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 that are substantially equally likely to occur, 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).
Claim 12: Tara discloses a method for selectively preventing players from claiming jackpots contributed by other players in a gaming table, comprising: detecting 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 positional input indicating player and dealer positions around the gaming table (¶ 194-195, 214-218); tracking 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 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 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 that are substantially equally likely to occur, 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 that are substantially equally likely to occur, 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 method 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).
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 Parsadaian 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 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, 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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 Parsadaian (US 2005/0218597) is used to teach the newly added amendments/limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
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