Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/733,059

GAME SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 04, 2024
Examiner
LIDDLE, JAY TRENT
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Angel Group Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
345 granted / 601 resolved
-12.6% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
640
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
§103
33.9%
-6.1% vs TC avg
§102
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
§112
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 601 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 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 1, 2, 4, 9-11, and 14-21 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 1, Kelly discloses a game system for performing a game using a gaming chip and a playing card, the game system comprising: a table including a table upper surface including a display surface (fig. 1A); a camera configured to take a picture of the gaming chip bet on the table upper surface to generate a picture (0026); a picture recognizing device configured to analyze the picture and thereby recognize betting contents (0024; 0029); a game judging device configured to read contents of the playing card to be dealt on the table upper surface to judge a game result (0041); and an image control device configured to display on the display surface an image of a layout of a betting area including plural betting targets on which betting for the game is to be performed by placing the gaming chip, and display on the display surface an image whose contents change in accordance with the betting content and/or the game result according to the betting content recognized by the picture recognizing device and/or the game result judged by the game judging device (0026-0027; 0030; 0041; 0063; 0080; 0129). With regard to claim 2¸Kelly discloses wherein the image control device is configured to display the layout at least in a betting stage (0030; 0080). With regard to claim 4, Kelly discloses wherein the picture recognizing device is configured to analyze the picture and thereby recognize a position, type, and number of gaming chip, and recognize a betting amount for each betting target as the betting contents based on the position, type, and number thereof (0063). With regard to claim 9¸Kelly discloses wherein the image control device is configured to distinguishably display the betting target on which the gaming chip have been bet and the betting target on which the gaming chip have not been bet, after the betting stage ends and the betting contents is fixed (fig. 1A; 0056; 0063; 0080). With regard to claim 10, Kelly discloses wherein the image control device is configured to erase a display of the betting target on which the gaming chip have not been bet, after the betting stage ends and the betting contents is fixed (0063). With regard to claim 11¸Kelly discloses further comprising a settlement judging device configured to judge settlement based on the betting contents recognized by the picture recognizing device and the game result judged by the game judging device, wherein the image control device is configured to display an image in accordance with the settlement judged by the settlement judging device, in a settlement stage (0056). With regard to claim 14, Kelly discloses wherein 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 15, 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). With regard to claim 16, Kelly discloses wherein 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 17, Kelly discloses wherein the 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 18¸Kelly discloses wherein 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 19, 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 chip placed on the table upper surface (0024; 0029; 0063); 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 (fig. 1A; 0026; 0028; 0030; 0056). With regard to claim 20, Kelly discloses further comprising 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). With regard to claim 21¸Kelly discloses a game system for performing a game using a gaming chip and a playing card, the game system comprising: a table including a table upper surface including a display surface configured to display an image (fig. 1A); a camera configured to take a picture of the gaming chip bet on the table upper surface to generate a picture (0026); a picture recognizing device configured to analyze the picture and thereby recognize betting contents (0024; 0029; 0063); a game judging device configured to read contents of the playing card which is to be dealt on the table upper surface to judge a game result (0024; 0056); and an image control device configured to display on the display surface an image in accordance with the betting contents recognized by the picture recognizing device and the game result judged by the game judging device (0056). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0347893 to Shigeta. With regard to claim 3¸Kelly does not appear to be explicitly clear about a disposal box. However, Shigeta teaches further comprising a disposal sensor configured to detect that the playing card is inserted into a disposal box for disposing the playing card used in the game, wherein the image control device is configured to display the layout for a next game when the disposal sensor detects the playing card (0238). 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 Shigeta with the disclosure of Kelly such it is clear when the game is over by disposing of used cards and thus beginning a new game. Claim 5-8 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 5, 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 6, 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 7, Kelly does not appear to explicitly disclose displaying a number. However, Mathur teaches wherein the image control device is configured to display a number indicating the betting amount recognized by the picture recognizing device near each image-recognized position (fig. 20b; 0099). With regard to claim 8, Kelly does not appear to explicitly disclose displaying a mark as claimed. However, Mathur teaches wherein the image control device is configured to display a mark indicating that the betting amount is highest amount, in association with the betting target including the highest betting amount, for each type of betting target in the game (fig. 20b; 0099; 0117). 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. Claim 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0180691 to Kaneko. With regard to claim 11, while Kelly teaches the elements as discussed above, in a different interpretation (to satisfy the dependent claims), the combination of Kelly and Kaneko teaches further comprising a settlement judging device configured to judge settlement based on the betting contents recognized by the picture recognizing device and the game result judged by the game judging device, wherein the image control device is configured to display an image in accordance with the settlement judged by the settlement judging device, in a settlement stage (Kaneko at figs 5A-7; 0054-0057). With regard to claim 12, Kaneko teaches wherein the settlement judging device is configured to judge whether the gaming chip should be collected or redemption for the gaming chip should be received, for each stack of the gaming chip which has been bet or for each betting target on which the gaming chip has been bet, and the image control device is configured to perform a display indicating a judging result by the settlement judging device, whether it should be collected, in association with the stack of the gaming chip which has been bet or in association with the betting target on which the gaming chip has been bet (figs 5A-7; 0054-0057). With regard to claim 13, Kaneko teaches wherein the settlement judging device is configured to judge a redemption amount for the gaming chip, and the image control device is configured to display the redemption amount in association with the stack of the gaming chip for which the redemption is to be received or in association with the betting target for which the redemption is to be received(figs 5A-7; 0054-0057). 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 Kaneko with the disclosure of Kelly in order to ensure that the player is paid out properly and provide that information in a clear manner to both the dealer as well as the player. Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 04, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594502
CONTENT STREAM PROCESSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589314
RECORDING MEDIUM AND INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE THAT GUIDE USER TO UTILIZE PLURAL FUNCTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585622
METHODS AND SYSTEMS PROVIDING NFT CHARACTERS ON A BLOCKCHAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582913
SYSTEM, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM, METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576335
SELECTIVE GAME LOGIC PROCESSING BY A GAME SERVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
57%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+23.3%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 601 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month