DETAILED ACTION
Co-Pending Application
The Examiner notes that application 18/777,054 is co-pending with the current application. Both application share common inventors, assignee, and very similar disclosures. The current application shares many overlapping recited claim features with 18/777,054. Based on recited claim differences, a provisional double patenting rejection has not been made in either co-pending application. Applicant is advised that if the claims are amended to align the claims of the co-pending applications, then a double patenting rejection will be reconsidered.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
2019 PEG Analysis
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a statutory category (e.g., a process, machine, etc.)
Claims 1-13 are directed to an apparatus.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea. The following specific limitations in the claims under examination recite an abstract idea:
Control an operation of a roulette game (e.g., claim 1)
Designating a game result to a preset rule (e.g., claim 1)
Converting betting data into betting points (e.g., see claims 1 and 4-8)
The above listed identified limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Mental Processes: concepts preformed in the human mind (including on observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions or relationships of interaction between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The claims are primarily directed to rules for playing a game, wherein the game rules align with a method of organizing human activity.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Overall, the following additional claim limitations appear to merely implement the abstract idea, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, or generally link the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use, as outlined below:
Displaying game information (e.g., see at least claims 1-3, and 9-13, insignificant extra-solution activity);
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to claims 1-13 the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The above listed additional claim limitations display and process game data in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way. Further, the computer hardware of claim 1 (e.g., a processor, user interface, and display screen) are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
In order to satisfy the Berkheimer factual determination of conventional elements in the art, U.S. Patent No. 7,819,742 to Chamberlain is cited for disclosing the conventional features of slot machines including processors (e.g., see at least column 11, lines 14-16) and displays (e.g., see column 7, lines 12-25). Therefore, claims 1-13 are not patent eligible under 101.
Claims 14-19 are patent eligible based on recitation of a physical roulette wheel, an image recognition unit, and an image synthesis processing unit that are used to synthesis game data on real game images.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0094493 to Kido (Figs. 6 and 8 shown below for convenience) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0304055 to Jones.
PNG
media_image1.png
712
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1309
848
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 1, Kido discloses bet display system for roulette, comprising a game processing unit (e.g., see at least Fig. 10 that shows a main control CPU 80), a game result generating unit (e.g., see Fig. 13, Step S11, “Perform Game Result Transmission Processing; see also Fig. 10, Win Determination Unit 84), a betting interface, and a game status display screen (e.g., see Figs. 6 and 8 that show game status display screen), the game processing unit connected to the game result generating unit (e.g., see at least Fig. 10, Main Control CPU 80 is in communication with Win Determination Unit 84), the betting interface (e.g., see at least Fig. 3 that shows a betting interface), and the game status display screen, and the game processing unit being configured to perform the following steps: controlling an operation of a roulette game by generating one of a plurality of game results through the game result generating unit and displaying a roulette image through the game status display screen (e.g., see at least Fig. 13 for diagram of controlling game operation); obtaining a betting data generated by a player betting on a plurality of betting areas within a betting time through the betting interface (e.g., see at least paragraph 75 that discusses recording betting and result history), and each of the plurality of betting areas corresponding to at least one of the plurality of game results (e.g., see betting area in Fig. 3 that allows a user to see all the betting result options); and displaying a plurality of bars on the game status display screen (e.g., see Figs. 6 and 8 that shows different bars associated with game data), the plurality of bars showing a plurality of substantial winning result points of the plurality of game results at different lengths, wherein after equivalently converting the betting data into the plurality of substantial winning result points, the game processing unit is configured to perform a numerical range classification on numerical values of the substantial winning result points of the plurality of game results, so that the substantial winning result points of the plurality of game results are arranged from small to large numerical values and classified to belong to a plurality of range groups Pi, wherein i is one of 1, 2, . . . , N, and N is greater than or equal to 3, and the substantial winning result point belonging to the range group PN is shown by the bar with the longest length (e.g., see at least paragraph 82 for discussion of different numerical range classifications for game data; see also Figs. 6 and 8 that show at least three different ranges, 54-57);
[claim 2] wherein the plurality of bars are composed of a plurality of patterns respectively, and a number of the plurality of patterns of each of the plurality of bars corresponds to the range groups Pi, i=1, 2, . . . , N (see also Figs. 6 and 8 that show at least three different ranges and patterns, 54-57);
[claim 3] wherein the plurality of patterns are selected from a group consisting of squares (e.g., see Figs. 6 and 8 that show shapes that are generally squares), coin symbols, and ancient Chinese coins with a square hole in a center;
[claim 4] wherein group intervals D of the range groups Pi, i=1, 2, . . . , N are equal, a maximum value of the substantial winning result points is M, the group intervals D of the range groups Pi, i=1, 2, . . . , N are M/N, a numerical value of the substantial winning result points of the range groups Pi, i=1, 2, . . . , N is greater than D*(i-1), and less than or equal to D*i (e.g., see at least paragraph 82 for discussion of different numerical range classifications for game data; see also Figs. 6 and 8 that show different ranges);
[claim 5] wherein group intervals D of the range groups Pi, i=1, 2, . . . , N are respectively determined by predetermined settings, and the group intervals D are different e.g., see at least paragraph 82 for discussion of different numerical range classifications for game data; see also Figs. 6 and 8 that show different ranges);
[claim 6] wherein the group interval D of the range group PN is the largest (e.g., see at least paragraph 82 for discussion of different numerical range classifications for game data);
[claim 7] wherein the group intervals D from the range group P1 to the range group PN is gradually increased (e.g., see at least paragraph 82 for discussion of different numerical range classifications for game data; see also Figs. 6 and 8 that show different ranges);
[claim 8] wherein numerical values of the substantial winning result points belonging to the same range group are indicated by the corresponding bars with different shades of colors (e.g., see at least paragraph 82 for discussion of different numerical range classifications for game data; see also Figs. 6 and 8 that show different ranges; see also Figs. 6 and 8 that show different ranges; see also description of colors and shade in paragraph 83);
[claim 9] wherein the plurality of bar corresponding to the range group Pi, i=1, 2, . . . , N have colors with different shades (e.g., see at least paragraph 82 for discussion of different numerical range classifications for game data; see also Figs. 6 and 8 that show different ranges; see also Figs. 6 and 8 that show different ranges; see also description of colors and shade in paragraph 83);
[claim 10] wherein the roulette image displays the game results arranged in a ring, and the roulette image displays the plurality of bars at positions adjacent to the game results (e.g., see at least Fig. 6 for display of results in a ring on the roulette wheel); and
[claim 12] wherein the plurality of bars are located on an inner side of the plurality of game results (e.g., see Fig. 6 that shows bars are located on an inner side of the game results).
With regard to claim 1, Kido fails to disclose converting substantial betting points that reflect the number of wagers on a given result number for a play of a roulette game. Kido discloses converting a substantial winning result points based on historical results, not current wagering activity.
In the same field of endeavor, Jones (Fig. 4 shown below for convenience) teaches highlighting betting activity on the various roulette segments/results of the roulette wheel (e.g, see at least paragraph 36 for discussion of highlighting bet activity on the roulette wheel; see also Fig. 4 for betting activity highlights 451). With respect to claim 11, the bars show arrows pointing toward the corresponding game result (e.g., see Fig. 4 and paragraph 36).
PNG
media_image3.png
1324
901
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Kido with the betting activity highlights as taught by Jones in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. In this case, displaying alternative data (current betting activity vs historical results activity) is merely a choice for the operator to provide the user more information to make informed betting decisions. Additionally, the use of an arrow as a pointer is a design choice to emphasize the results associated with the data.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido in view of James as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Design Patent No. D1,039,548 S to Atkinson.
With regard to claim 13, Kido fails to disclose the plurality of bars are located on an outer side of the plurality of game results. Both Kido and Jones show bars that are inside the game results.
In the same field of endeavor, Atkinson teaches locating a highlighting bar outside the game results (e.g., in the sole image, see the dashed arrow outside the “0” game result sector on the roulette wheel).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Kido with outside highlight bar as taught by Atkinson in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. In this case, displaying alternative highlight bar positions (outside vs inside the game result sector) is merely a design choice for the operator to provide the user more information to make informed betting decisions.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido in view of James as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0241577 to Burgstaller.
With regard to claim 14, Kido discloses a physical roulette wheel with image synthesis, but fails to expressly disclose the use of an image recognition unit. With regard to claims 14 and 15, Kido discloses real-time image processing (e.g., see at least paragraphs 35-37).
In the same field of endeavor, Burgstaller teaches locating a roulette game with an image recognition unit (e.g., see Fig. 18, shown below, that shows camera 71 over roulette wheel; see also paragraphs 33-35 for discussion of video camera 71 and corresponding image).
PNG
media_image4.png
1356
881
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Kido with an image recognition unit as taught by Burgstaller in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. In this case, using a video camera to obtain roulette image information is an economical and effective manner to gather game information.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido in view of Jones and Burgstaller as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0078620 to Loomes.
With regard to claims 17 and 19, Kido discloses all of the recited features but is silent regarding displaying odds inside or outside the game results.
In the same field of endeavor, Loomes teaches a roulette game odds outside of the game results (e.g., see Fig. 12, shown below, that shows odds outside the game results).
PNG
media_image5.png
483
330
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Kido with odds data displayed as taught by Loomes in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. In this case, displaying betting odds provides the user with additional information to increase betting confidence.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido in view of Jones and Burgstaller as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0346885 to Fulton.
With regard to claims 17 and 18, Kido discloses all of the recited features but is silent regarding displaying odds inside or outside the game results.
In the same field of endeavor, Fulton teaches a roulette game odds inside of the game results (e.g., see Fig. 6B, shown below, that shows odds 630 inside the game results).
PNG
media_image6.png
426
344
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Kido with odds data displayed as taught by Fulton in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. In this case, displaying betting odds provides the user with additional information to increase betting confidence.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 10,454,964 to Deori discusses systems and methods for data visualization including color coding bars (e.g., see at least Fig. 4)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0051102 to Atkinson discusses a roulette game with hot and cold numbers (e.g., see at least Fig. 9)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0132875 to Freedman discusses a roulette game with a list of active bets (e.g., see at least Fig. 3)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0071353 to Muchnicki discusses a roulette game with displaying different types of game data (e.g., see at least Fig. 13c and 15)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0029741 to Kuhn discusses a virtual roulette game with adjusted roulette indicia based on bets (e.g., see at least Fig. 12)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0176548 to Nakamura discuses a roulette game with user identifying indicia on the roulette wheel (e.g., see at least paragraph 570)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30AM-5:00PM).
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.
/James S. McClellan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715