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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2 discloses “with chip pusher gaming apparatus” whereas it should be “with the chip pusher gaming apparatus”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-20 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 recites:
A method for operating a chip pusher gaming apparatus, the method comprising:
receiving information indicative of a wager for a round of play at the chip pusher gaming apparatus, wherein the wager is associated with a player account;
initiating the round of play based on the wager, wherein initiating the round of play comprises providing a gaming chip on a platform of the chip pusher gaming apparatus, wherein the platform comprising a plurality of gaming chips, and wherein the chip pusher gaming apparatus comprises a pusher driving the plurality of gaming chips towards a ledge of the platform;
resolving the wager by determining a value of any gaming chips received, during the round of play, in a collection area beneath the ledge; and
updating the player account based on the resolved wager.Claim 7 recites:A gaming system, comprising:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor cause the computing device to at least: 1
identify, by a sensor, a characteristic of a gaming chip received at a chip pusher gaming apparatus,
determine, based on the characteristic, whether the gaming chip is valid to initiate a round of play;
when the gaming chip is determined to be valid, initiate the round of play at the chip pusher gaming apparatus, wherein the instructions to initiate the round of play comprises providing the gaming chip on a platform of the chip pusher gaming apparatus, wherein the platform comprising a plurality of gaming chips, and wherein the chip pusher gaming apparatus comprises a pusher driving the plurality of gaming chips towards a ledge of the platform;
determine a value of any gaming chips received, during the round of play, in a collection area beneath the ledge; and
update a player account based on the value.Claim 14 recites:A chip pusher gaming apparatus, comprising:
a platform holding a plurality of gaming chips;
a pusher driving the plurality of gaming chips towards a ledge, wherein the pusher moves between a first position and a second position on the platform;
a sensor to identify a characteristic of a first gaming chip, and a value associated with the first gaming chip;
a path to receive the first gaming chip and provide the first gaming chip on the platform; and
a collection area to collect any gaming chips driven off the ledge by the pusher.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)” and/or “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) and/or “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite mental
process because it can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s analysis, the claimed invention can be
interpreted as being directed towards mental processes because it can be carried out by hand without aid of a computer or computer components. For example: determine a value of any gaming chips received, during the round of play, in a collection area beneath the ledge” can be interpreted as an individual watching a pusher game and visually determining the value of a gaming chip that in a collection area beneath a ledge.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping." (Emphasis added)
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation regarding the claimed invention being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner believes the invention describe managing interactions between people and machine (ie: a gaming machine) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: providing a gaming chip onto a platform and determining if the gaming chip is pushed off the platform and falls into a collection area.)
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claims 1, 7, and 14 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: cabinet, display device, and processor.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application that simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Verstraeten, US 20230061253 discloses that pusher amusement machines are well known and include conventional arrangements that use coins, tokens or chips that are introduced to a playfield, and which are paid out to a player as well embodiments that include other prizes (paragraph 3);
Crompton, US 20040036224 discloses that coin pusher amusement machines are well known (paragraph 2).
Rodden et al., US 20020098880 discloses that a well known mechanical game machine of the `coin pusher` kind has a pusher which moves backwards and forwards at the rear part of a flat horizontal playing bed within a windowed enclosure (paragraph 2);
Kim, US 20180190078 discloses that sensors for detecting the insertion of coins/tokens are well known (paragraph 66).
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; the additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 2-6, 8-13, 15-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
In addition, with regards to dependent claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (ie: at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity because each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and performing repetitive calculation in Flook, Bancorp.
Therefore, the dependent claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kido, US 20190206195 (Kido)Regarding Claim 1. Kido discloses a method for operating a chip pusher gaming apparatus, the method comprising:
receiving information indicative of a wager for a round of play at the chip pusher gaming apparatus (Fig 8, elem 805; para 106), wherein the wager is associated with a player account (para 7, 31, 40. Wagers can be derived from a player’s account such as through the use of bank cards linked to a player account.);
initiating the round of play based on the wager, wherein initiating the round of play comprises providing a gaming chip on a platform of the chip pusher gaming apparatus, wherein the platform comprising a plurality of gaming chips, and wherein the chip pusher gaming apparatus comprises a pusher driving the plurality of gaming chips towards a ledge of the platform (Fig 5, 6A-6B; Abstract, para 7, 32, 44, 49, 107);
resolving the wager by determining a value of any gaming chips received, during the round of play, in a collection area beneath the ledge (Fig 8, elem 815, 820; para 108-109); and
updating the player account based on the resolved wager (Fig 8, elem 825; para 111).
Regarding Claim 4.
Kido discloses the method of claim 1, wherein initiating the round of play comprises automatically transferring the gaming chip from a storage area associated with the gaming apparatus to the platform (Fig 5, elem 525; Abstract, para 42, 107. The token launching mechanism is interpreted as a storage area associated with the gaming apparatus to the platform from which a gaming chip is launched.).
Regarding Claim 5.
Kido discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising: automatically transferring via a conveyor at least one gaming chip in the collection area to the storage area (Fig 5, elem 250, 520; para 32, 44. The pusher mechanism is interpreted as a conveyor for pushing a gaming chip into a collection area).
Regarding Claim 6.
Kido discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the storage area and the collection area are housed within a cabinet associated with chip pusher gaming apparatus (Fig 4-5).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido, US 20190206195 (Kido) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nelson et al., US 20240412588 (Nelson)
Regarding Claim 2. Kido discloses the method of claim 1, but failed to disclose further comprising: providing, at least during the round of play, a real-time video stream of the chip pusher gaming apparatus on a user interface associated with a remote computing device through which the wager may be placed.
However, Nelson discloses of a gaming system (Abstract) that discloses providing, at least during the round of play, a real-time video stream of the chip pusher gaming apparatus on a user interface associated with a remote computing device through which the wager may be placed (para 69, 77) because it can allow remote users to stream gaming from a remote location (Abstract, para 64)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Nelson’s teachings with Kido because it can allow remote users to stream gaming from a remote location as taught by Nelson.
Regarding Claim 3. Kido and Nelson disclose the method of claim 2, Nelson further disclosing wherein the remote computing device is at least one of a mobile computing device and a player station (para 39).
Claims 7-8, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido, US 20190206195 (Kido) in view of Lawson et al., US 20190197832 (Lawson)
Regarding Claim 7. Kido discloses a gaming system, comprising:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor cause the computing device to at least:
initiate the round of play at the chip pusher gaming apparatus, wherein the instructions to initiate the round of play comprises providing the gaming chip on a platform of the chip pusher gaming apparatus, wherein the platform comprising a plurality of gaming chips, and wherein the chip pusher gaming apparatus comprises a pusher driving the plurality of gaming chips towards a ledge of the platform (Fig 5, 6A-6B; Abstract, para 7, 32, 44, 49, 107);
determine a value of any gaming chips received, during the round of play, in a collection area beneath the ledge (Fig 8, elem 815, 820; para 108-109); and
update a player account based on the value (Fig 8, elem 825; para 111).
Kido failed disclose: identify, by a sensor, a characteristic of a gaming chip received at a chip pusher gaming apparatus, determine, based on the characteristic, whether the gaming chip is valid to initiate a round of play; when the gaming chip is determined to be valid, initiate game play.
However, Lawson discloses that when it comes to depositing a coin or token for initiating play of game, a sensor is used for detecting that a coin or token is valid before initiating game play (para 22).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Lawson’s teachings with Kido because it would allow Kido’s invention to determine that a valid token had been inserted before initiating the pusher game of Kido as taught by Lawson.
Regarding Claim 8. Kido and Lawson disclose the gaming system of claim 7, Kido further disclosing wherein the characteristic is at least one of: a physical characteristic, a visual characteristic, an electronic characteristic, and a value associated with the gaming chip (para 22. Since the value of the coin inserted is added as credits for game play, this is interpreted as the characteristic being that of the value associated with the gaming chip.).
Regarding Claim 13. Kido and Lawson disclose the gaming system of claim 7, Kido further disclosing wherein when the characteristic indicates that the gaming chip is not valid, transfer the gaming chip to a chip storage area (para 22. When a token is rejected, this is interpreted as the token being released into a chip storage area for the player to retrieve back.).
Regarding Claim 14. Kido discloses a chip pusher gaming apparatus, comprising:
a platform holding a plurality of gaming chips (Fig 5);
a pusher driving the plurality of gaming chips towards a ledge, wherein the pusher moves between a first position and a second position on the platform (Fig 5,6A-6B);
a path to receive the first gaming chip and provide the first gaming chip on the platform Fig 5, 6A-6B; Abstract, para 7, 32, 44, 49, 107); and
a collection area to collect any gaming chips driven off the ledge by the pusher (Fig 6B, elem 520; para 44).
Kido failed to disclose a sensor to identify a characteristic of a first gaming chip, and a value associated with the first gaming chip.
However, Lawson discloses that when it comes to depositing a coin or token for initiating play of game, a sensor is used for detecting that a coin or token is valid before initiating game play as well as crediting the player with the coin or token based on its value (para 22).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Lawson’s teachings with Kido because it would allow Kido’s invention to determine that a valid token had been inserted before initiating the pusher game of Kido as taught by Lawson.
Regarding Claim 15. Kido and Lawson disclose the chip pusher apparatus of claim 14, Kido and Lawson further comprising a gaming chip slot for manually receiving the first gaming chip (Kido: Fig 2, elem 220) and positioning the first gaming chip to be identified by the sensor (Lawson: para 22).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido, US 20190206195 (Kido) and Lawson et al., US 20190197832 (Lawson) as applied to Claim 14, and in further view of Shepherd et al., US 20230067075 (Shepherd)
Regarding Claim 16. Kido and Lawson disclose the chip pusher apparatus of claim 14, Kido further disclosing further comprising a computing device configured to at least:
initiate the round of play by transferring the first gaming chip from a storage area to the path (Fig 6B, elem 525; Fig 8, elem 810; para 106-107);
resolving the wager by determining a value of any gaming chips received in the collection area during the round of play, in a collection area beneath the ledge (Fig 8, elem 815, 820; para 108-109); and
updating the player account based on the resolved wager (Fig 8, elem 825; para 111).
Kido and Lawson failed to disclose: receive, from a remote computing device, a wager to initiate a round of play, wherein the wager is associated with a player account.
However, Shepherd discloses that when it comes to playing games, such as coin-pusher games (para 17) wagers from a player’s account can be made remotely for initiating game play (para 42).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Shepherd’s teachings with Kido and Lawson because it would allow for remote wagering as taught by Shepherd.
Regarding Claim 17.
Kido and Lawson and Shepherd disclose the chip pusher apparatus of claim 16, Kido further disclose a conveyor returning at least one gaming chip in the collection area to the storage area (Fig 5, elem 250, 520; para 32, 44.).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido, US 20190206195 (Kido) and Lawson et al., US 20190197832 (Lawson) and Shepherd et al., US 20230067075 (Shepherd) as applied to Claim 16, and in further view of Nelson et al., US 20240412588 (Nelson)
Regarding Claim 18.
Kido and Lawson and Shepherd disclose the chip pusher apparatus of claim 16, but failed to disclose wherein the computing device is further configured to provide, at least during the round of play, a real-time video stream of the platform on a user interface associated with the remote computing device.
However, Nelson discloses of a gaming system (Abstract) that discloses provide, at least during the round of play, a real-time video stream of the platform on a user interface associated with the remote computing device (para 69, 77) because it can allow remote users to stream gaming from a remote location (Abstract, para 64)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Nelson’s teachings with Kido and Lawson and Shepherd because it can allow remote users to stream gaming from a remote location as taught by Nelson.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido, US 20190206195 (Kido) and Lawson et al., US 20190197832 (Lawson) and as applied to Claim 14, and in further view of Harris et al., US 20230282068 (Harris)
Regarding Claim 19. Kido and Lawson disclose the chip pusher apparatus of claim 14, Kido further disclosing wherein the platform, the pusher, the sensor, the path, and the collection area are housed within a cabinet (Fig 4-5).
While Kido discloses of a tilt sensor (para 26), Kido failed to disclose wherein the tilt detection sensor is configured trigger an alarm and a prevent a round of play when the cabinet is tilted.
However, Harris discloses that when it comes to tilt sensors detecting a gaming machine being shaken or tilted, the gaming machine is locked down and prevented from being played (para 101).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Harris’ teachings with Kido because it would prevent possible cheating and tilting of Kido’s inventio as taught by Harris.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12, and 20 have no prior art rejection but are currently rejected under USC § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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, 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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights