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 .
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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the predetermined location” and the limitation(s) “the article” in lines 18-21 of the claim; however, such limitations lack antecedent basis within the claim. For purposes of examination it appears that “the predetermined location” refers to “the gaming table” and every instance of “the article” refers to “the gaming chip”.
Claims 2-18 inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1 from which they depend and are herein rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10-11, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takine (US 2021/0090379).
Claims 1 and 19: Takine discloses a gaming table system configured to read on a gaming table (predetermined location) a gaming chip (article)(83) in which an RFID tag (831) is built (Abstract, ¶ 137, Fig. 14), wherein a betting area including a plurality of betting target areas (41a-e)(divided areas) arranged so as to be close to or contact with each other is arranged on the gaming table (¶ 138-139, Fig. 11), and the gaming table system comprises: a reading unit ((561) of Fig. 12) including a plurality of antennas (511a-511e, 512a-512e) provided at a plurality of locations on the gaming table and configured to read the RFID tag of the gaming chip within a reading range, wherein reading ranges of adjacent antennas of the plurality of antennas (511a-511e, 512a-512e) overlap each other, whereby the reading ranges of the plurality of antennas cover the plurality of betting target areas (Figs. 11-13, ¶ 160-166); an imaging unit (camera 52) configured to take an image of the betting area including the plurality of betting target areas arranged so as to be close to or contact with each other to generate an image including a chip stack (group of articles) consisting of one gaming chip or a plurality of gaming chips placed on the betting area (¶ 46, 207-209); an image recognizing unit (chip recognition device) configured to analyze the image to recognize a position of the chip stack on the gaming table and a type and number of gaming chip constituting the chip stack (¶ 46, 207-209); and a chip judging unit configured to estimate which antenna of the plurality of antennas within the betting area (the predetermined location) on which the gaming chip (the article) is placed the gaming chip (the article) is placed on a region corresponding to the reading range of and also where region within the reading range of the corresponding antenna the gaming chip (the article) is placed on, based on a reading result of the RFID tag by each of the plurality of antennas of the reading unit (Figs. 13-14, ¶ 160-170, 182-184), and associate the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing unit and the reading result of the RFID tag by the reading unit with each other based on an estimating result and a recognizing result of the chip stack by the image recognizing unit (¶ 46, 207-209).
Claim 2: Takine teaches wherein the betting area includes one region or a plurality of regions (target areas) on which the RFID tag of the gaming chip placed are read by the plurality of antennas due to that the reading ranges of the antennas adjacent to each other overlap each other, and the chip judging unit is configured to estimate a region smaller than the reading range of the plurality of antennas as the region on which the gaming chip is placed based on a combination of the reading results of the plurality of antennas (see above, ¶ 160-170, Fig. 13).
Claim 3: Takine teaches wherein the reading unit is configured to repeatedly perform reading using the plurality of antennas, the imaging unit is configured to repeatedly take images to generate sequential images, and the chip judging unit is configured to associate a chip stack recognized by the image recognizing unit and a reading result of the RFID tag by the reading unit based on a reading result and recognizing result at a timing when a chip stack is newly placed on the betting area (Figs. 13-14, ¶ 46, 160-170, 182-184, 195, 202, 207-209, 225).
Claim 5: Takine teaches the system further comprising a possessor identifying unit (management control device in combination with the reading control device) configured to identify a possessor of the gaming chip based on the reading result of the RFID tag of the gaming chip by the reading unit (¶ 137, 141, 154, 167-172), wherein the chip judging unit (management control device) is configured to recognize a plurality of gaming chips identified to be possessed by a same possessor by the possessor identifying unit among a plurality of gaming chips placed in a same estimated region, as one chip stack (one chip stack as best understood as known the plurality of stacked chips belong to the user) (¶ 98, 102 – “This allows the game tokens 83 to be read separately within the same betting target area. This allows, for example, when there are multiple stacks of game tokens 83 in the same betting target, such as when a back bet is made, those stacks can be read by separate reading antennas 7, so that a plurality of stacks of game tokens 83 in the same betting target area can be read separately. For each stack, by recognizing and identifying the player who bet on it, it is possible to manage the main player (sitting player) and the back betting player by linking the user IDs to the information on the bet game tokens or payout game tokens.”).
Claim 6: Takine teaches wherein contents stored in the RFID tag built in the gaming chip includes chip identifying information for uniquely identifying the gaming chip (Fig. 14, ¶ 167-174), and the chip judging unit is configured to associate the chip identifying information of the gaming chip included in the chip stack with the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing unit (see above, ¶ 207-209).
Claim 7: Takine teaches the system further comprising a possessor updating unit configured to rewrite possessor information of a gaming chip paid out by a dealer for a gaming chip which has won a game as a result of a game using the gaming chip over possessor information of the gaming chip which has won the game (¶ 171-178).
Claim 8: Takine teaches wherein the chip stack consisting of the one gaming chip or plurality of gaming chips placed on the betting area is a chip stack bet on a game (see above, ¶ 138-139), and the chip judging unit is configured to associate, for the bet chip stack, the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing unit and the reading result of the RFID tag by the reading unit with each other (see above, ¶ 207-209).
Claim 10: Takine teaches wherein the reading ranges of the plurality of antennas cover the entire betting area on the gaming table (¶ 138-139, 160-166, Figs. 11-13).
Claim 11: Takine teaches that wherein the chip judging unit is configured to judge, when a number of gaming chip whose placed region is estimated based on the reading result of the RFID tag is less than a number of gaming chip which is recognized to be placed within the region by the image recognizing unit, that the chip stack includes an illicit gaming chip of which there is an illicitness in the RFID tag within the region (¶ 207-209, emphasis on ¶ 208).
Claim 16: Takine teaches wherein type identifying information for identifying a type of gaming chip (chip id) is to be stored in the RFID tag built in the gaming chip, the type of gaming chip corresponds to a value (574) of the gaming chip, and the chip judging unit is configured to judge an amount (574) of the chip stack based on the type identifying information (¶ 166-170).
Claim 17: Takine teaches the system further comprising a player identifying unit configured to identify a player playing a game on the gaming table (¶ 37, 103, 173), wherein the chip judging unit is further configured to identify a player corresponding to the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing unit (¶ 166-174).
Claim 20: Takine discloses a gaming table system configured to read on a gaming table (predetermined location) a gaming chip (article)(83) in which an RFID tag (831) is built (Abstract, ¶ 137, Fig. 14), wherein a betting area including a plurality of betting target areas (41a-e)(divided areas) arranged so as to be close to or contact with each other is arranged on the gaming table (¶ 138-139, Fig. 11), and the gaming table system comprises: a reading unit ((561) of Fig. 12) including a plurality of antennas (511a-511e, 512a-512e) provided at a plurality of locations on the gaming table and configured to read the RFID tag of the gaming chip within a reading range (Figs. 11-13, ¶ 160-166); and a chip judging unit configured to estimate a position on which the gaming chip is placed based on a reading result of the RFID tag by each of the plurality of antennas of the reading unit (Figs. 13-14, ¶ 160-170, 182-184), wherein reading ranges of adjacent antennas of the plurality of antennas (511a-511e, 512a-512e) overlap each other, whereby the reading ranges of the plurality of antennas cover the plurality of betting target areas (Figs. 11-13, ¶ 160-166), and the chip judging unit is configured to estimate a region on which the gaming chip is placed with a resolution smaller than the reading range of the plurality of antennas based on a combination of the reading results of the plurality of antennas (see above, ¶ 160-170, Fig. 13).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takine (US 2021/0090379) in view of Shigeta (US 2022/0101688).
Claim 9: Takine teaches the above, in addition to wherein the chip stack consisting of the one gaming chip or plurality of gaming chips placed in the betting area is a chip stack paid by a dealer for a chip stack which has bet on a game and won the game (¶ 140, 172-178, 186-187), but lacks explicitly suggesting the chip judging unit is configured to associate, for the paid chip stack, the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing unit and the reading result of the RFID tag by the reading unit with each other. Takine teaches the chip judging unit is configured to associate a chip stack recognized by the image recognizing unit and the reading result of the RFID tag by the reading unit with each other (see above, ¶ 207-209) and there is a need to detect fraud and track movement of gaming chips on a gaming table from the beginning to the end of the game (¶ 207-209). Furthermore, an analogous art of Shigeta teaches a chip judging unit (controller) configured to associate, for a paid chip stack, the chip stack recognized by the image recognizing unit and the reading result of the RFID tag by the reading unit with each other (Figs. 15-16, ¶ 155). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Takine with the paid chip stack association means of Shigeta because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of tracking movements of gaming tokens during a game in which at least Takine is intended (see above). Such a modification prevents dealer errors within the gaming environment (Shigeta - ¶ 155).
Claim 12: Takine teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the chip judging unit is configured to judge, when a number of gaming chip whose placed region is estimated based on the reading result of the RFID tag is more than a number of gaming chip which is recognized to be placed within the region by the image recognizing unit, that a gaming chip which is in a blind spot of the imaging unit and not recognized by the image recognizing unit is included within the region. Takine at least teaches checking for errors by comparing the reading results of gaming chips to images placed by the image recognizing unit (¶ 207-208) and there is a need to detect fraud and track movement of gaming chips on a gaming table from the beginning to the end of the game (¶ 207-209). Furthermore, an analogous art of Shigeta teaches wherein the chip judging unit is configured to judge, when a number of gaming chip whose placed region is estimated based on the reading result of the RFID tag is more than a number of gaming chip which is recognized to be placed within the region by the image recognizing unit, that a gaming chip which is in a blind spot of the imaging unit and not recognized by the image recognizing unit is included within the region (Figs. 9-10, ¶ 124-127). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Takine with the blind spot means of Shigeta because such a modification would have yielded predicable results, namely, a means of tracking movements of gaming chips on a gaming table in which at least Takine is intended (see above). Such a modification prevents mistakes from being made with the gaming environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
In regards to claim 21, Takine (US 2021/0090379) teaches a gaming table system configured to read on a gaming table a gaming chip in which an RFID tag is built, wherein a betting area including a plurality of betting target areas arranged so as to be close to or contact with each other is arranged on the gaming table, and the gaming table system comprises: a reading unit including a plurality of antennas provided at a plurality of locations on the gaming table and configured to read the RFID tag of the gaming chip within a reading range; and a chip judging unit configured to estimate a position on which the gaming chip is placed based on a reading result of the RFID tag by each of the plurality of antennas of the reading unit, wherein the reading unit is configured to repeatedly perform reading using the plurality of antennas.
Takine fails to anticipate or render obvious the chip judging unit is configured to recognize a plurality of gaming chips whose RFID tags are read by a same antenna at a same timing as one chip stack, and recognize a plurality of gaming chips whose RFID tags are read by a same antenna at a different timing as other chip stack different from the one chip stack.
Claims 4, 13-15, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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