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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11288923. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding pending claim 1, Claim 1 of US 11288923 discloses the claimed table game management system except for a plurality of gaming chips each with an individually identifiable RFID and a player identification system. However, Claim 1 of US 11288923 discloses a chip reader to read RFID tag associated with a bet chip and a payout chip and therefore teaches a plurality of gaming chips gaming chips each with an individually identifiable RFID. Claim 6 of US 11288923, which depends on claim 1 discloses a participant/player identification system. Therefore claims 1 and 6 of US 11288923 discloses pending claim 1. In addition, claims 2-4 are disclosed or would have been obvious over claims 1 and 6 of US 11288923.
Claims 1- 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7 copending Application No. 18/743776 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/743776 but fails to teach a player identification system configured to identify a player as claimed. However, a player identification system configured to identify a player is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/743776 and incorporate a player identification system in order to provide the predictable result of identify the players playing at the table game.
Claims 2-6 are disclosed by Claims 3-7 of copending Application No. 18/743776.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-6 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 winning player" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if “the winning player” refers to a single winning player or the some winning players.
Claims 2-6 are rejected by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Mattice (US 2010/0093428).
Claim 1. Mattice discloses a table game management system, comprising:
a plurality of gaming chips each with an individually identifiable RFID attached thereto (chips 65 comprising RFID component with ID tag 66 in Fig 5c);
a game table for playing games using the plurality of gaming chips (25 in Fig. 5a, 1310 in Fig. 13A);
a chip placement area provided on the game, wherein the chip placement area allows a plurality of players to place betting chips as the plurality of gaming chips (“player space region” in Fig. 5a to track wagering tokens, paragraph 236 or chip placement area 1313 in Fig. 13a, paragraph 824-825, 854), and in which a dealer may pay out payout chips each with an individually identifiable RFID attached for a winning (chips comprising RFID component with ID tag 66 with token ID information, paragraphs 239-343) player from a chip tray (1311 in Fig. 13A);
a chip reader that collectively reads the RFID of each of the plurality of gaming chips placed in the chip placement area (RFID tag reader 24, in Fig. 5a; paragraphs 242, 254, 279, 824);
a controller that determines results of the reading by the chip reader (server, 1a-1b, 4, 5a, paragraphs 234, 280, 306);
a player identification system configured to identify a player playing a game at the gaming table using facial recognition technology or an ID card (paragraphs 86, 91-93);
and a storage device that stores ID information of the RFID of the gaming chip in association with ID information of an owner of the gaming chip (database, paragraphs 105, 121, 330, 337, 837, 1218), wherein the chip reader reads the ID information of the RFID of the payout chip when the payout is made to the winning player of the plurality of players, and the controller is capable of (wagering token tracking system is operable to automatically identify and track token exchanged between the player and another entity/the dealer/house such as winnings; paragraphs 377, 452, 474):
obtaining the ID information of the owner of the gaming chip based on the ID information of the RFID of the gaming chip among the plurality of gaming chips (Each chip has an ID associated with ownership; paragraphs 15, 31, 111, 233-236, 402, 446),
and when a plurality of players place betting chips in the same chip placement area (track game state including bet, paragraph 208; wager placement area to track wager/bets, paragraphs 824-825, 854):
detecting the ID information of the RFID of the last remaining betting chips, which are of some winning players specified by the player identification system among the plurality of players and which remain after the betting chips and the payout chips paid out for them have been transferred out of the chip placement area earlier (Automatically determine the amount and value of wagering token award to the player due to a win; paragraph 377, 452, 474. Therefore, the system detects the remaining betting chip as a winning player and the amount due or payout chips paid to the player. The system tracks the game state and the payout to be made to the player; paragraphs 1212-1213), and the ID information of the RFID of the payout chip based on the reading results of the chip reader, and rewriting, in the storage device, the ID information of the owner associated with the ID information of the RFID of the payout chip to the ID information of the owner associated with the ID information of the RFID of the last remaining betting chips bet by the winning player (Mattice discloses that the token is tracked by associating in a database, ID information of the chip and the owner. This includes when user/patron takes possession or control of the wagering chips; paragraphs 15, 31, 111, 233-236, 402, 446).
Claim 2. Mattice discloses the table game management system according to claim 1, wherein the storage device is a database that stores, for a plurality of gaming chips, the ID information of the gaming chips in association with the ID information of the owner of the gaming chips (Mattice discloses a database to track user and chips; paragraphs 105, 121, 330. The system tracks a plurality of chips; paragraph 377.).
Claim 3. Mattice discloses the table game management system according to claim 1, wherein the storage device is the RFID (RFID storage includes information of owner and previous owners; pargaphrs 258-270).
Claim 5. Mattice discloses the table game management system according to claim 1, wherein a reading area of the chip reader covers the entire chip placement area (RFID reader can cover the entire table and therefore the entire chip placement area; paragraph 855, Fig. 13I.).
Claim 6. Mattice discloses the table game management system according to claim 1, further comprising: a camera that captures the game table to generate images (camera for facial and recognizing behavior, paragraphs 86, 310, 1213-1214); and an image analyzer that recognizes the gaming chips and a dealer hand or a player hand on the game table by analyzing the images, wherein the controller recognizes a movement of the gaming chips and/or the dealer's or player's hands based on recognition results of the image analyzer (chips held in player’s hand, or placed; paragraphs 351, 376, 450, 503).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattice (US 2010/0093428 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Nguyen (US 2007/0094721).
Claim 5. Mattice discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but fails to teach that the controller further determines that there is fraud in the case that a combination of the information of the player identified by the player identification system and the ID information of the gaming chip placed in the chip placement area by the player does not match a combination of the stored ID information of the gaming chip and the ID information of the owner associated with the stored ID information of the gaming chip. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to tracking gaming tokens, Nguyen discloses a system of tracking and authenticating gaming tokens. Nguyen discloses the token comprise authentication data that uniquely identifies person (paragraphs 12, 26-27). The authentication data may be stored in memory included in a token or a server (paragraphs 26). The authentication data is compared with the authentication data obtained from a person at a gaming device or gaming table when the token is in use (paragraphs 9, 13, 42, 59, 69, 96, ). The authentication data can be a player card or biometric data including facial recognition (paragraphs 29, 66, 83, 102). Nguyen also discloses that the system tracks in the database when the ownership of each token is changed (paragraph 58). The system tracks the activity and use of the token, store/log any discrepancies between the information so that token may be investigated, and prevent unauthorized gambling (paragraphs 111, 125, 141). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to before the effective filing date to modify Mattice’s system and determine that there is fraud in the case that a combination of the information of the player identified by the player identification system and the ID information of the gaming chip placed in the chip placement area by the player does not match a combination of the stored ID information of the gaming chip and the ID information of the owner associated with the stored ID information of the gaming chip in order to provide the predictable result of authenticating the user and the token and prevent unauthorized gambling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571 270-7625. 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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715