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 § 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 is 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 “…identify a main player of each of the plurality of play positions by associating a player ID read from a storage medium provided by a player with a play position designated by a dealer as a play position where the player is located” and “a betting determination device configured to determine on which of the betting target areas of the play positions the one or more gaming chips associated with the player are bet…” which appears unclear as to how the ‘the player’ which appears to be in reference to ‘a player’ that is designated as associated with “a player position” can bet on multiple betting target areas of “the player positions”. In addition, the limitations also identify a main player, and later limitations reference a non-main player. It further appears unclear if claim 1 is intended to reference 3 different types of players or if references to “a player” and “the player” are main or non-main players.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) The claims recite one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-one
Claim 1 recites:
1. A game system for determining betting of gaming chips 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, the game system comprising: a main player identifying device configured to identify a main player of each of the plurality of play positions by associating a player ID read from a storage medium provided by a player with a play position designated by a dealer as a play position where the player is located; a betting determination device configured to determine on which of the betting target areas of the play positions the one or more gaming chips associated with the player are bet, and how much the total amount of the one or more gaming chips is; 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 a main player or a gaming chip of a non-main player; 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.
The limitations identified above by underlining recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
For instance, claim 1 corresponds to managing personal behavior (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity), ush as performing social activity that follows a set of rules for managing betting in a game by multiple players.
Similarly, the above-identified limitations also correspond to the group of mental processes, such as, limitations pertaining to observation, evaluation, and/or judgement processes.
Notably, a human is capable of following a set of rules to manage betting between other humans including determining when gaming chips at a game table having a betting area with multiple better target areas of different types includes bets placed by multiple other humans, and to associate total wager amounts of differentiated bets with those other humans, through observation (a human can see placement on a table), judgement (a human can calculate amounts) and/or evaluation (a human can record what they’ve seen and calculated) using pen/paper and/or pure mental processes.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5, these claims recite additional limitations deemed to be additional process steps of the abstract idea (e.g. additional information recording steps and additional specificity pertaining to the process of observation, i.e. frequency, time, order, etc.)
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-two
The claims recite additional elements including a gaming system having a main player identifying device, a betting determination device, a bettor determination device, and a database are configured to perform the above-identified limitations that ultimately facilitate the abstract idea utilizing generic computing elements.
The claimed additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. Recitation of various “devices” without any specificity as to their explicit improvement to the relevant existing technology fails to impart the requisite practical application.
(Step 2B)
Accordingly, when the claims are considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Accordingly, none of the current claims recite an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is worth to note that the use of “smart gaming tables” to implement various automated gaming activities is generally well-established in the art (see cited art of record). Thus it appears well-understood, routine or conventional activity in the art to utilize “smart gaming tables” as generic computing to generically manage automated gaming activities, especially those pertaining to monitoring where chips are placed or bet by one or more players (see cited art of record). Accordingly, the relevant existing technology is plentiful and thus conventional in the art. As discussed above, the claim lack the improvement or significantly more required under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Therefore, claims 1-5 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, as none of the claims, that recite an abstract idea, incorporate an element, or combination of elements, that provides a technological improvement over said relevant existing (conventional) technology, in order to set forth an abstract idea with the significantly more required.
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 1-5 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 gaming chips 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 (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 main player of each of the plurality of play positions by associating a player ID read from a storage medium provided by a player with a play position designated by a dealer as a play position where the 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 RFID-enabled chips or chips statuses with player identifiers, 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 positions the one or more gaming chips associated with the player are bet, and how much the 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);
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 a main player or a gaming chip of a 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 player the one or more gaming chips is 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 the 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 order in which the one or more gaming chips determined to be bet on the same betting target area are placed (paragraph 0063).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
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
Prosecution Insights