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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 07/21/2026. Presently, claims 22-32 are pending. Applicant is reminded in the future of MPEP 608.01(m) which states in part, “Claims should preferably be arranged in order of scope so that the first claim presented is the least restrictive. All dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable,” (emphasis added). Applicant has amended the specification which is approved for entry.
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.
Claims 24, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0304550 to Kelly.
With regard to claim 24, Kelly discloses A game system for performing a game using a gaming chip, the game system comprising: a table including a display surface configured to display an image (fig. 1A), wherein the display surface is a table upper surface (fig. 1A); a camera configured to take a picture of the gaming chip placed on the table upper surface to generate a picture (0026); a picture recognizing device configured to analyze the picture and thereby recognize a position of the gaming chip placed on the table upper surface as betting contents (0024; 0029); and an image control device configured to display on the display surface an image in accordance with a recognizing result by the picture recognizing device, wherein the image control device is configured to display on the display surface an image of a layout of a betting area, including a plurality of betting targets on which betting for the game is to be performed by placing the gaming chip, at least in a betting stage, wherein the image control device is configured to erase a display of one or more of the betting targets on which the gaming chip has not been bet, after the betting stage ends and the betting contents are fixed (0026-0027; 0030; 0041; 0063; 0080; 0129).
With regard to claim 27, Kelly discloses wherein the one or more of the betting target includes participation in a lottery game, the game system further comprises a lottery executing device configured to execute a lottery when the picture recognizing device recognizes that, as the betting contents, the gaming chip is bet for the participation in the lottery game, and the image control device is configured to display an image of the lottery game (fig. 1A; 0026; 0028; 0112).
With regard to claim 28, Kelly discloses wherein the image control device is configured to display a carry-over amount of the lottery game in the betting stage (fig. 1A; 0026; 0028).
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 22, 23, 25, 26, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0327886 to Mathur.
With regard to claim 22¸Kelly discloses a game system for performing a game using a gaming chip, the game system comprising: a table including a display surface configured to display an image, wherein the display surface is a table upper surface (fig. 1A); a camera configured to take a picture of the gaming chip placed on the table upper surface to generate a picture (0026); a picture recognizing device configured to analyze the picture and thereby recognize a position of the gaming chip placed on the table upper surface (0024; 0029); and an image control device configured to display on the display surface an image in accordance with a recognizing result by the picture recognizing device (0026-0027; 0030; 0041; 0063; 0080; 0129).
Kelly is not explicitly clear about displaying a mark in association with a gaming chip. However, Mathur teaches that the image control device is configured to display a mark indicating that the gaming chip has been detected at the position recognized by the picture recognizing device (fig. 20B; 0099).
With regard to claim 23, Kelly discloses a game system for performing a game using a gaming chip, the game system comprising: a table including a display surface configured to display an image, wherein the display surface is a table upper surface (fig. 1A); a camera configured to take a picture of the gaming chip placed on the table upper surface to generate a picture (0026); a picture recognizing device configured to analyze the picture and thereby recognize a position, type, and number of gaming chips placed on the table upper surface, and recognize a betting amount for each of a plurality of betting targets based on the position, type, and number thereof (0063).
Kelly does not appear to be explicitly clear about displaying a number indicating a betting amount. However, the combination of Kelly and Mathur teaches an image control device configured to display on the display surface an image in accordance with a recognizing result by the picture recognizing device, wherein the image control device is configured to display a number indicating a betting amount recognized by the picture recognizing device near each image-recognized position (Kelly at 0026-0027; 0030; 0041; 0063; 0080; 0129; Mathur at fig. 20B; 0099).
With regard to claim 25, Mathur teaches wherein the image control device is configured to display a mark in accordance with the betting amount recognized by the picture recognizing device at each position recognized by the picture recognizing device (fig. 20B; 0099).
With regard to claim 26, Mathur teaches wherein the image control device is configured to display a mark in accordance with the betting amount recognized by the picture recognizing device at each position recognized by the picture recognizing device (fig. 20b; 0099; 0117).
With regard to claim 29, Kelly discloses the display surface is a screen having light transmissive property, and the image control device is a projector configured to project the image onto the screen from below the table upper surface (0080).
With regard to claim 30, Kelly discloses he image control device is a display device configured to display the image, and the display surface is a display panel of the display device (0101; 0105; 0110).
With regard to claim 31, Kelly discloses the display surface is a screen, and the image control device is a projector configured to project the image onto the screen from above the table upper surface (0080).
With regard to claim 32, Kelly discloses a judging device configured to judge a game result, wherein the image control device is further configured to display on the display surface an image in accordance with a judging result by the judging device (fig. 1 A; 0026; 0028; 0030; 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the teachings of Mathur with the disclosure of Kelly to give quick and adequate information to the player at the table regarding how much their bet was currently standing at.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues with regard to new claim 22 that Mathur does not teach displaying a mark indicating that the gaming chip has been detected. However, Applicant seems to be taking a narrower interpretation of the very broad work “mark.” That is Mathur clearly teaches the amount that is recognized to being bet and as such can be interpreted as a mark.
With regard to claim 23, Applicant argues, “While Mathur does indicate a value of the gaming chips in virtual window 2080, this presented value is inside/near the virtual window 2080 and not actual chip stack 2065,” (Arguments, page 10). It is unclear what Applicant believe is missing. Claim 23 merely claims “a betting amount recognized by the picture recognizing device near each image-recognized position.” Applicant is reminded that this is a 103 rejection and thus the amount of the stack is added to the disclosure of Kelly already there.
With regard to claim 24, Applicant argues that Kelly does not disclose “erasing.” However, Kelly explicitly discloses “In some instances, the gaming system 100 also generates masks 191 for the betting circles (e.g., for betting circles 161 and 162 at any of the player areas) because gaming content (e.g., specific gaming effects) may also be projected at the betting circles during the game state. The gaming system 100 further determines that, based on the game state, gaming content should not be rendered onto the mask 181. In other words, the gaming system 100 does not render the portion of content 131 onto the mask 182.,” (0030); and further, “That is, the token stack may change over time (e.g., the addition or removal of tokens, splitting the stack into smaller sets, etc.), and as a result, the features indicated by the key token data elements to distinguish the token stack may not remain fixed,” (0063). As such, Applicant’s argument is not found to be convincing.
Conclusion
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 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
