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 Objections
Claims 7, 16, and 20 objected to because of the following informalities: With regard to claims 7 and 16, Applicant uses the abbreviations AML. While this is explained in the specification, Applicant should introduce non-common abbreviations within the claim. With regard to claims 20 Applicant does not have subject verb agreement in the phrase “the edge server are”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 1, there are two “a first image feed” (one in the first limitation one in the second). First it is unclear if these are the same or different. Second it is unclear how a first camera and a second camera can each take the exact same first image when physically the cameras cannot be in the same place. It is believed that it should be “a second image feed” on the second one, because in the third limitation it mentions “the first and second image feeds” and there is no antecedent basis for “second image feeds” presently. Similarly, there is no antecedent basis for “the edge service. It is believed that maybe Applicant manes “the edge server?” But that is not what is presently claimed. Finally in the last limitation of claim 1 it states, “increase accuracy and updated.” In the last limitation of the claim there is no antecedent basis for “the updated machine learning model.”
With regard to claim 8 it is unclear if “an updated machine learning model” is related to “the updated machine learning model” of claim 1 or if it is different. Additionally, it is unclear which updated machine learning model “the updated machine learning model” relates to at the end of the claim.
With regard to claim 10 it is unclear if “a machine learning model on each of an edge server and a cloud server” is the same machine learning model or different? This is further compounded by there only being “a machine learning model” in the first limitation, but then “the machine learning model executing on the edge server” and “the machine learning model on the cloud server” sounding like it might be two machine learning models? Although still unclear if the are the same or different. Further in the last limitation it states, “providing the updates” however, there is no antecedent basis for “the updates” as previously it is “update the machine learning model,” which is not the same as “updates.”
Claim 17 suffers a similar problem as claim 1 in that the grammar is claimed poorly and thus is confusing in the phrase, “the machine learning model of the cloud server is trained to increase accuracy and updated.” Further it states, “the updated machine learning model” but there is no antecedent basis for this.
With regard to claim 20, all of the limitations in claim 20 are already found in independent claim 17. As such it is unclear if these are to be duplicated? Somehow a edge server within a gaming environment is then again within the gaming environment, and thus it is unclear what this would actually mean.
Claims are treated as best understood with the prior art rejection below.
All dependent claims are rejected as depending from a previously rejected claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0013617 to Arbogast.
With regard to claim 1, Arbogast discloses a game play tracking system comprising a first camera system position proximate to a table game and configured to generate a first image feed (fig. 1; 0024); a second camera system position proximate to the table game and configured to generate a first image feed (fig. 1; 0024); an edge server in communication with the first and second camera systems, wherein the edge service received the first and second image feeds, wherein a local machine learning model executed on the edge server performs object detection on the first and second image feeds to generate an output (0032-0033; 0046; 0071). Arbogast lists the edge server as an alternate to the cloud server. However, in order to increase accuracy, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to duplicate the process at both a local machine as well as a cloud machine. Thus, when combining the two one would achieve a cloud server in communication with the edge server, wherein the cloud server comprises a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model of the cloud server is trained to increase accuracy and updated wherein the update machine learning model is provided to the edge server (0046).
With regard to claim 3, Arbogast discloses wherein object detection identifies any of a gaming chip, a playing card, currency, and a die (0032-0033; 0071).
With regard to claim 4, Arbogast discloses wherein the table game and the edge server are positioned within a gaming environment (0037; 0046).
With regard to claim 5, Arbogast discloses wherein the cloud server is positioned outside the gaming environment (0046 this is understood in the term “cloud server” as well as the fact that defines between the two).
With regard to claim 6, Arbogast discloses wherein the local machine learning model identifies an amount of a bet placed at the table game based on a value and quantity of chips placed in a bet position (0032-0033; 0072).
With regard to claim 7, Arbogast discloses wherein the amount of the bet is used for any of player ratings, game utilization analytics, marketing purposes, and AML purposes (0061-0066).
With regard to claim 8, Arbogast discloses wherein the local machine learning model of the edge server and the machine learning model of the cloud server are initially deployed based on generic training data, wherein the accuracy of the machine learning model of the cloud server is subsequently increased based on additional training to generate an updated machine learning model, and wherein the local machine learning model is replaced with the updated machine learning model (0049-0050).
With regard to claim 9, Arbogast discloses wherein at least one of the first camera system and the second camera system are a component of a gaming environment security surveillance camera system (0026 wherein it discusses a tracking system which is synonymous with surveillance).
Claims 10-13 are mirrored claims to claims 4, 5, and 8 respectively and rejected in like manner.
With regard to claim 14, Arbogast discloses providing training data to the machine learning model on the cloud server to update the machine learning model on the cloud server comprises providing images of actual chips from the gaming environment as training data (0072).
Claims 15 and 16 are mirrored claims to claims 6 and 7 and are rejected in like manner.
Claims 17-19 are mirrored claims to claims 1, 6, 7, and are rejected in like manner (noting that claim 17 includes limitations from claims 4 and 5 and thus those citations are also applicable).
Claim 20 is a mirrored claims to claims 4 and 5 and thus is rejected as noted above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbogast as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0175805 to Nagata.
With regard to claim 2, Arbogast does not appear to be explicitly clear about the cameras being part of the sign. However, Nagata teaches such (fig. 4; 0049).
It would have been obvious to make the cameras a part of the sign as taught by Nagata within Arbogast simply so that less support systems are used thus reducing the cost of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715