DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: chip determination device, artificial intelligence device, second artificial intelligence device, determination device, in claims 1-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Application No. 19/313,104 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Regarding claim 1, 19/313,104 discloses a recognition system of a chip in a game parlor where a game table is provided (claim 1), comprising:
a game recording device which records a state of chips stacked on the game table as an image using a camera; and (claim 1)
a chip determination device which analyzes the image of the recorded state of the chips to determine a number and a type of the chips bet by a player, (claim 1)
wherein the chip determination device further has a function of storing a characteristic of an image of a predetermined state of the chip and of outputting and displaying the fact of an unclear determination as a determination result when it is determined that the image obtained from the game recording device is the image of the predetermined state at the time of determining. (claims 1)
Remaining claims are similarly rejected. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Pat. Nos. 12,493,828 and 12,254,737 (reference). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Regarding claim 1, Pat. No. 12,493,828 and 12,254,737 disclose a recognition system of a chip in a game parlor where a game table is provided (claim 1), comprising:
a game recording device which records a state of chips stacked on the game table as an image using a camera; and (claim 1)
a chip determination device which analyzes the image of the recorded state of the chips to determine a number and a type of the chips bet by a player, (claim 1)
wherein the chip determination device further has a function of storing a characteristic of an image of a predetermined state of the chip and of outputting and displaying the fact of an unclear determination as a determination result when it is determined that the image obtained from the game recording device is the image of the predetermined state at the time of determining. (claims 1)
Remaining claims are similarly rejected.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-9 of copending Application No. 19,048,593 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US PGPub 20060160608)
Regarding claim 1, Hill discloses the recognition system of a chip in a game parlor where a game table is provided (Hill teaches a system for imaging casino chips on a casino table in order to recognize and classify their denominations and number), comprising:
a game recording device which records a state of chips stacked on the game table as an image using a camera; (¶ 0047 teaches imaging stacks of chips on a casino table.)
and a chip determination device which analyzes the image of the recorded state of the chips to determine a number and a type of the chips bet by a player, (¶ 0109 teaches using a neural network to classify the image of the chips to determine the chip kind. ¶ 0069 teaches tabulating the number of classified chips.)
wherein the chip determination device further has a function of storing a characteristic of an image of a predetermined state of the chip and of outputting the fact of an unclear determination as a determination result when it is determined that the image obtained from the game recording device is the image of the predetermined state at the time of determining. (Hill teaches identifying the probability that a chip is a recognized chip at ¶ 0109. ¶ 0116 teaches determining that the chip is an unknown chip (i.e., a predetermined state) by comparing to stored authorized chip signatures within a stored specified tolerance, “If the signature pattern of the chip matches more than one of the authorized signatures within a specified tolerance, the ABRS-IPPR notifies the parent ABRS system that it is unable to determine the value of a chip in the stack . . . The ABRS can then signal the dealer to manually record the value of the bet.”)
Hill teaches outputting an alert signal to the dealer in response to an unclear determination but does not expressly teach that said alert signal is displayed.
In the context of monitoring the chips for wager tracking Hill teaches outputting a displayed alert signal. (¶ 0040 teaches that in the context of wager tracking an alarm signal to alert the dealer includes an “audible or visual alert in proximity to the game table.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined Hill’s system to signal the dealer of an unclear determination with Hill’s system to signal the dealer of a wager mistake (which explicitly includes a visual alert). The combination constitutes the repeatable and predictable result of simply applying Hill’s visual alert, described in reference to a wager alert, to Hill’s system to signal the dealer of an unclear determination, which is simply silent as to the type of alert. This cannot be considered a non-obvious improvement over the prior art. Using known engineering design, no “fundamental” operating principle of the teachings are changed; they continue to perform the same functions as originally taught prior to being combined.
Regarding claim 2, Hill discloses the recognition system of the chip according to claim 1, wherein:
the chip determination device includes an artificial intelligence device, the artificial intelligence device learns a plurality of images used in a past determination in a case where there is an error in determination in the chip determination device as training data, and (¶ 0124 teaches training the neural network chip classifier by inputting an image of the chip and the correct numbers and denominations of chips, “The training method uses methods well known to the art, such as error back-propagation, to iteratively adjust the parameters of the neural network so as to optimize the rate of correct classification of the chips in the training set.” ¶ 0130 teaches that the training happens on the basis of an error in determination in the chip determination device.)
the chip determination device further has a function of self-determining a determination accuracy on the basis of an image where there is an error in a determination result as a result of the learning, and of outputting and displaying the fact of an unclear determination that there is a doubt in determination as the determination result. (As above in the rejection of claim 1, Hill teaches identifying the probability that a chip is a recognized chip at ¶ 0109. ¶ 0116 teaches determining that the chip is an unknown chip (i.e., a predetermined state) by comparing to authorized chip signatures within a specified tolerance. Also see rejection of claim 1 regarding displaying the doubt in determination.)
Regarding claim 4, Hill discloses the recognition system of the recognition system of the chip according to claim 1, wherein the game recording device assigns an index or a time to an image acquired from the camera, or assigns a tag which specifies a stacking state of the chips such that the record of the game can be analyzed subsequently by the chip determination device. (Hill, ¶ 0040 teaches tracking the game with images of stacked chips and tagging them for subsequent analysis, see steps 206-212.)
Regarding claim 5, Hill discloses the recognition system of the chip according to claim 1, wherein the chip determination device includes a second artificial intelligence device, and the second artificial intelligence device learns a plurality of images used in a past determination in a case where the chip determination device makes a correct determination and information of the chip as training data. (¶ 0124 teaches training the neural network chip classifier by inputting an image of the chip and the correct numbers and denominations of chips, “The training method uses methods well known to the art, such as error back-propagation, to iteratively adjust the parameters of the neural network so as to optimize the rate of correct classification of the chips in the training set,” i.e., this training happens on the basis of both correct and incorrect determinations.)
Regarding claim 7, Hill discloses the recognition system of the recognition system of the chip according to claim 1, wherein the chip determination device determines that it is the image of the predetermined state in a case where a next chip is recognized while a certain number of chips or more in a vertical direction are not recognized, and outputs and displays the fact of the unclear determination as a determination result. (¶ 0114 teaches this situation where in a seven chip vertical stack two chips are unrecognized. See rejection of claim 1 regarding output and display.)
Regarding claim 9, Hill discloses the recognition system which has a plurality of types of determination targets, determines a target for each type to determine a number of the targets for each type (see rejection of claim 1), comprising:
a recording device which records a state of the state as an image using a camera; and (see rejection of claim 1)
a determination device including an artificial intelligence device which analyzes the image of the recorded target to determine the number of the types of the targets, (see rejection of claim 1)
wherein the determination device has learnt a past determination result as training data and has a function of self-determining an accuracy in determination, and a function of self-determining that there is a doubt in a determination result in a case the accuracy is equal to or less than a certain level and of outputting and displaying the fact of an unclear determination as the determination result. (See rejection of claim 1, in particular, Hill’s teaching of identifying the probability that a chip is a recognized chip at ¶ 0109. ¶ 0116 teaches determining that the chip is an unknown chip (i.e., a predetermined state) if the match to authorized chip signatures is below a specified tolerance.)
Claims 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US PGPub 2006/0160608) in view of Bulzacki (US PGPub 2017/0161987).
Regarding claim 3, Hill discloses the recognition system of the chip according to claim 2, wherein the chip determination device further has a function of analyzing an image of the game recording device in a case where the self-determination is unclear, (See rejection of claim 1)
In the field of automated casino chip detection Bulzacki teaches what the above combination does not expressly disclose, namely, determining whether a cause of the unclear determination is a state where the chips stacked on the game table overlap each other or a state where a part of or an entire single chip is hidden by other chips (Bulzacki teaches optical classification of chips on a casino table. ¶ 0012 teaches determining the presence of obstacles, that is determining that an unclear determination is a state of obstruction and ¶ 0061 teaches that this obstruction is caused by the stacks of chips blocking one another, “chips may not be uniformly stacked, chips may be obscuring one another”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined Hill’s casino chip detection system with Bulzacki’s casino chip detection system (which explicitly teaches detecting chips obstructing other). The combination constitutes the repeatable and predictable result of simply applying Bulzacki’s chip obstruction detection to Hill’s casino chip detection system. This cannot be considered a non-obvious improvement over the prior art. Bulzacki does not expressly disclose that said obstruction determination is stored. However, examiner notes that both the concept and advantage of storing data that is already detected by a computer would have been obvious to incorporate with predictable result and without undue experimentation. Official Notice is therefore applied. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of the above combination.
Regarding claim 6, Hill discloses the recognition system of the chip according to claim 1, wherein the chip determination device analyzes an image recorded by a camera different from the camera in a case where a self-determination is unclear to determine the number and the type of the chips bet by the player. (Bulzacki ¶ 0170 teaches that a low image confidence score may be used to activate triggers such as requesting additional images with a moved camera.)
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (US PGPub 2006/0160608) in view of Livingston (US PGPub 2003/0062491)
Regarding claim 8, Hill discloses the recognition system of the chip according to claim 1, including the chip determination determine a number by analyzing an image of a state of the chips and outputting and displaying the fact of an unclear determination as a determination result. (See rejection of claim 1.)
In the field of stacked object counting Livingston teaches what the above combination does not expressly disclose, namely, compares a number of stacked objects determined from a height of the objects and a number determined by analyzing an image of a state of the objects, and in a case where the numbers are different, the object determination device determines that it is the image of the predetermined state (¶ 0012 and 0044 teach comparing the height of a stack of discs with a separately counted number of discs, and the “error checking module compares the results from each of the independent methods of calculating the number of discs 14 in the stack 12, and confirms consistency between the two.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined Hill’s casino chip counting system with Livingston’s disc counting system (which explicitly teaches comparing two methods of stacked object counting). The combination constitutes the repeatable and predictable result of simply applying Livingston’s teaching for redundant stacked object counting here. This cannot be considered a non-obvious improvement over the prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of the above combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Raphael Schwartz whose telephone number is (571)270-3822. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9am-5pm CT.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached on (571) 272-8243. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAPHAEL SCHWARTZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights