DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed July 31, 2026. The Examiner acknowledges that claim 1 & 3-5 were amended, no claims were canceled, and claims 6-8 were newly added. Therefore, claims 1-8 are currently pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
In regard to the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection, Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the rejection. The rejection has been withdrawn.
In regard to the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
In regard to the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Moore does not disclose “a database configured to store a total amount of betting by the main player in association with the player ID of the main player based on the determination by the betting determination device and the determination by the bettor determination device” because Moore’s disclosures allegedly focus only on chip or stack specific information and fail to disclose a total amount stored in association with the player ID. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, at paragraph 0040, Moore discloses “The RFID antenna may then transmit an indication of the wager amount and associated player (or player position) to a processor (e.g., a processor of the table system), which then stores data associated with the wager” which is interpreted as a total amount bet, i.e. the wager amount, stored in association with the player position at which a player is identified, such as by player ID. Figure 6 also shows an interface that a dealer may view with player IDs associated with player positions, buy-in amounts, and tracking of wagering activity of main and non-main players. In totality, Moore reasonably discloses the limitation as claimed.
Applicant also argues that Moore does not disclose “a bettor determination device configured to determine whether each of the one or more gaming chips determined as being bet on the same betting target area by the betting determination device is a gaming chip of the main player or the gaming chip of the non-main player”. The Examiner must respectfully disagree. Moore is replete with disclosure, as cited in the rejection, that reasonably equates to such a bettor determination device that can distinguish gaming chips in the same betting area as gaming chips of either the main player (e.g. a seated player at the position) or a non-main player (e.g. a back betting player). For example, as shown in the figure 6 dealer interface, the system can reasonably distinguish which game chips belong to which players (see also paragraph 0063). Thus, Moore reasonably discloses the limitation as claimed.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0073855; hereinafter “Moore”).
Moore discloses a gaming system for implementing an RFID-enabled gaming table utilizing RFID-enabled gaming chips that enable both main or primary players and non-main or back betting players to place wagers on shared betting areas (paragraphs 0015-001. The system incorporates one or more databases having a variety of information stored therein such as which RFID-enabled chips are associated with which player identifiers, various chip statuses, and a plethora of other information (paragraphs 0045, 0086). Accordingly,
Claim 1: Moore discloses a game system for determining betting of one or more gaming chips by one or more players at a gaming table having a betting area in which a plurality of betting target areas of different types are arranged at each of a plurality of play positions, wherein the one or more players include a main player and a non-main player (abstract, figure 2, paragraphs 0015, 0036-0045, 0063-0067, wherein Moore discloses a system that utilizes RFID-enabled gaming chips for use by multiple players to place wagers on a gaming table having a bettering in which a plurality of betting target areas of different types are arranged, e.g. shared betting areas for banker or player in a baccarat game as illustrated), the game system comprising:
a main player identifying device configured to identify a play position where the main player is located among the plurality of play positions by associating a player ID read from a storage medium provided by the main player with a play position designated by a dealer as a play position where the main player is located (figure 2 and paragraph 0025 – wherein Moore discloses an smart gaming table, such as the table illustrated in figure 2, and Moore further discloses a variety of database disclosure (as cited above) that explicitly discusses associating play positions with player identifiers, e.g. as illustrated in figure 6 with multiple players associated with player identifiers and play positions, however while Moore does not specifically incorporate reading player identifiers from storage mediums provided by a player at a player position, the player identifier must be obtained in some manner, which Moore appears to defer to the specificity as detailed in Walker of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0016071, which Moore expresses indicates as being “incorporated by reference herein” – Walker discusses a similar smart gaming table using RFID-enabled chips at player positions, where the player positions include a player tracking mechanism 190 which can receive a player tracking card to read a player identifier of a main player, thus as Walker is incorporated by reference, and Moore details the specificity of managing player identifiers at player positions in the one or more databases, Moore discloses “a main player identifying device” that identifies main players at each player position at the table based on reading a player tracking card (storage medium) or similar)
a betting determination device configured to determine on which of the betting target areas of the play position the one or more gaming chips associated with the main player are bet, and how much a total amount of the one or more gaming chips is (figures 4A-4E and paragraphs 0015-0016, 0038-0067, which details the specificity of the Moore gaming system pertaining to the system components being configured to determine on which betting target area of the player position one or more gaming chips associated with the player are bet – e.g. which betting target area between banker or player in figure 4E has a player wager and the total thereof, which is to be recorded and utilized/stored by the gaming system and associated components; see also );
a bettor determination device configured to determine whether each of the one or more gaming chips determined as being bet on the same betting target area by the betting determination device is a gaming chip of the main player or a gaming chip of the non-main player (figures 4A-4E and paragraphs 0015-0016, 0038-0067, which details the specificity of the Moore gaming system pertaining to the system components configured to differentiate RFID-enabled gaming chips belonging to a main player or back betting players, such that as illustrated in figures 4A-4E and discussed in the related description thereof, the Moore system can differentiate and associate different stacks of RFID-enabled gaming chips with different players including the main player at the player position and non-main players such as back bettors utilizing shared betting areas); and
a database configured to store the total amount of betting by the main player in association with the player ID of the main player based on the determination by the betting determination device and the determination by the bettor determination device (i.e. as detailed and cited above, Moore explicitly details utilizing one or more databases that are configured to store recorded data from the game system including amounts bet using RFID-enabled gaming chips by main and non-main players detected by antennas and the like of the RFID-enabled gaming table, recording wager amounts associated with player identifiers and a plethora of other relevant information to facilitate game play with integrity).
Claim 2: Moore discloses that the database is configured to store the total amount of betting by the main player and the player ID of the main player in association with the betting target area in which the main player bet the one or more gaming chips (paragraphs 0031, 0045, 0083, 0086-0091, 0115, 0153, wherein Moore discloses one or more databases are configured to store a plethora of gaming data pertaining to chip placement, movement, wagers, payouts and the like which includes storing total amounts associated with player identifiers and the betting target area upon which the bet was placed).
Claim 3: Moore discloses that the betting determination device is configured to continuously determine, at predetermined time intervals, on which of the betting target areas of the play position associated with the main player the one or more gaming chips are bet, and how much the total amount of the one or more gaming chips is (paragraph 0102, wherein Moore discloses polling frequency pertaining to monitoring for wagering chips being bet can be predetermined time intervals).
Claim 4: Moore discloses that the bettor determination device is configured to determine whether the one or more gaming chips are the gaming chips of the main player or the non-main player based on information regarding a time at which the one or more gaming chips determined to be bet on the same betting target area are placed (paragraph 0063).
Claim 5: Moore discloses that the bettor determination device is configured to determine whether the one or more gaming chips are the gaming chips of a main player or the non-main player based on an order in which the one or more gaming chips determined to be bet on the same betting target area are placed (paragraph 0063).
Claims 6-7: Moore discloses that the gaming system further comprises a camera, in certain embodiments, that can be utilized by the system and thus by the betting determination or bettor determination devices to determine which bet gaming chips are chips of a main player and which are those of non-main player as is Moore’s intended invention of distinguishing multiple distinct wagers at a single bet spot of a gaming table (paragraph 0016).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, as applied to claims 1-7, where applicable, in view of Eager et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0056804, hereinafter “Eager”).
Note: Eager was filed July 30, 2020, with a priority claim to a provisional application filed August 19, 2019, predating the earliest effective filing date of the instant application, and making Eager available prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The Examiner has reviewed the priority documents and positions that the specification and drawings set forth in the provisional application are substantially the same as the specification and drawings as published in the Eager publication, and as such the provisional application fully supports the entirety of the Eager disclosure.
Claim 8: Moore discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for explicitly disclosing that the game system comprises a camera configured to capture the betting area of the gaming, wherein the bettor determination device is configured to determine whether each of the one or more gaming chips is a gaming chip of the main player or a gaming chip of the non-main player by recognizing a hand, an arm, or part of a sleeve of clothing of a player in a captured image from the camera. Eager discloses a game system configured for substantially the same purpose as Moore of distinguishing amongst bets placed which gaming chips are of a main player and which are of a non-main player. Eager discloses that their game system includes a camera and the game system is configured to recognize in an image taken by the camera a body part or clothing part of each of one or more players who has bet a stack of gaming chips on the same betting area, and perform the determination of which of the plurality of stacks is a main player's stack and which of the plurality of stacks is a back-betting player's stack based on results of the recognition of the body part or clothing part (figures 13-15 and paragraphs 0128-0135, wherein Eager discloses interaction between main and back players and the analysis/recognition in the image processing, using body parts as illustrated in figure 15, in order to maintain or link gaming stacks with the main and back players, as such after this interaction of a back player handing off a stack of chips to a main player for placement in a betting area, the gaming system of Eager clearly, based off the image analysis using body parts and the like, performs a determination of which stack is the main player’s stack and which stack is the back player’s stack once placed on the betting area). Given Eager’s game system is disclosed to perform substantially the same concept of Moore, a person skilled in the art would have possessed the common knowledge and routine skill in the art to have implemented features of the Eager game system within Moore, and vice versa. As such a skilled artisan would have found it an obvious matter to have implemented, using the game system of Moore, capturing images using the camera and to use body parts or clothing from images to make a determination which gaming chips below or were placed by which players as an added layer of confirmation. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Moore with the teachings of Eager in order to provide a more robust game system that can implement, for security/confirmation purposes or the like, multiple methods of distinguishing between different stacks of gaming chips bet in a same area and to correlate such to which player(s) made such bets.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MILAP SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30-6PM.
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.
/MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
