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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulzacki (US 2017/0161987 A1) in view of Tran (US 2005/0272501 A1).
1. Bulzacki discloses a system comprising: a game table having a chip tray and a plurality of placement areas arranged vertically and horizontally for placement of chips, [0028], [0035], [0045], (Figs. 1-3);
a plurality of client hardware devices, each including one or more imaging components (cameras) positioned on or proximate to the gaming table to capture images of chip stacks in the betting areas, [0035]–[0040], [0055]–[0065];
the cameras are configured to capture images from diagonally/offset angles (substantially horizontal with a small offset angle relative to the table surface) to view the sidewalls of stacked chips, with multiple cameras providing complementary/overlapping fields of view of the same chip stacks, [0058]–[0062], [0070]–[0075];
use of depth sensors in combination with the cameras to generate 3D models, detect obstructions, and handle blind spots/occlusions by aggregating multiple frames over time, [0070]–[0080], [0085]–[0090];
image analysis (bounding-box detection for chip stacks and individual chips, feature extraction via histograms/waveforms, Fourier transforms, and matching against reference libraries) to determine, for each chip stack: position, number of chips, and type/value of the chips using machine learning, neural networks, and trained classifiers, [0095]–[0145].
a game monitoring server (management control device) that processes the multi-camera image data, [0045], [0120]–[0130]).
Bulzacki does not expressly disclose the precise use of first and second cameras both configured to capture from diagonally above in combination with explicit triangulation across significantly divergent angles to determine chip stack geometry and number.
Tran teaches a primary (first) overhead camera and one or more supplemental (second) cameras positioned at significantly different angles to capture the same chip stacks from complementary directions, [0063]–[0064], [0083]–[0088], (Claims 1, 4, 11). It uses triangulation between the views to determine position, center of mass, thickness, diameter, and number of chips, along with image processing (difference imaging, clustering, template matching, color analysis) to determine number and type/value of chips while handling occlusions, [0092]–[0107], [0134]–[0140], [0154], (Claims 18, 32–33). It would have been obvious to combine the multi-angle, depth-aware, machine-learning-based chip stack analysis of Bulzacki with the explicit primary + supplemental camera triangulation and geometric feature extraction of Tran to achieve more robust determination of position, number, and type of chips despite blind spots. The combination yields predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding “deep learning techniques,” Bulzacki’s machine learning and neural networks would obviously be upgraded to deep learning (CNNs) by the effective filing date for superior performance on occluded stacked chips.
2. Bulzacki and Tran discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein Bulzacki teaches determining chip stacks across multiple images from different cameras/views that correspond to the same betting position, [0070]–[0075], [0095]–[0105]. Tran further teaches correlating the same chip stacks across primary and supplemental camera views using triangulation to determine the number of chips, [0064], [0093], [0106]–[0107], (Claim 18).
3. Bulzacki and Tran discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of placement areas includes at least a player area and a banker area provided vertically for each of a plurality of player positions provided horizontally, Bulzacki [0028], [0035], (Figs. 1–3).
4. Bulzacki and Tran discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of placement areas include placement areas adjacent to each other by being separated by a single line, Bulzacki [0028], [0035], (Figs. 1–3).
5-7. Bulzacki and Tran discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the first camera or the second camera is installed on a pole on the game table, such that a top of the topmost chip in the chip stack can be captured or such that each of the first camera and the second camera are configured to capture a top surface of the topmost chip in the chip stack. Bulzacki teaches cameras positioned on or proximate to the table (including elevated/offset mounting) to capture tops and sides of stacks, [0058]-[0062]. Tran teaches overhead primary camera explicitly configured to capture the top of chip stacks, [0083], [0092]. One of ordinary skill would obviously mount one or both cameras on a pole or elevated structure to achieve clear top-surface and angled views.
8. Bulzacki and Tran discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the management control device is configured to identify a predetermined portion of a chip in the first image and the second image, Bulzacki [0105]–[0125].
9. Bulzacki and Tran discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the management control device is configured to determine an amount of the chip stack based on the determination of the position where the chip stack is placed, the number of chips included in the chip stack, and the type of chips included in the chip stack, Bulzacki [0120]–[0130], [0145]).
10-12. Bulzacki and Tran discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the first camera, the second camera, or a third camera that is different from the first camera and the second camera, is configured to capture one or more chips housed in the chip tray of the game table, wherein the management control device is configured to recognize a total amount of chips housed in the chip tray and determine whether an increase or decrease in the total amount of chips in the chip tray after a collection and redemption of a set of chips in a game corresponds to one or more amounts to be collected and redeemed and is configured to determine an amount to be collected and an amount to be redeemed based on the position, type, and number of chip stacks placed by a player and a game result. Bulzacki teaches monitoring the dealer’s chip tray (or equivalent chip holding areas) with imaging components and performing balance/reconciliation analysis against bets and game outcomes, [0035], [0045], [0120]–[0130]. Tran further supports monitoring chip areas and payouts, [0154]. The combination renders obvious the full tray reconciliation functionality, including post-game comparison to player bets and win/loss results.
13-14. Bulzacki and Tran discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the first camera or the second camera is configured to acquire video images including a plurality of images, wherein the management control device is configured to, based on fraud, record the video images with an index or time to enable identification of a scene of the fraud Bulzacki [0055], [0070], [0120]–[0130].
15-18. Bulzacki and Tran discloses a system comprising: a game table having a chip tray and a plurality of placement areas arranged vertically and horizontally for placement of chips; a first camera configured to capture to capture a plurality of chip stacks placed in the same position a or in adjacent positions from diagonally above to generate a first image, the plurality of chip stacks including a chip stack including one or more chips; a second camera, different from the first camera, configured to capture the chip stack from diagonally above to generate a second image of the chip stack positioned on the game table, wherein the first camera and the second camera are configured to capture images of the same chip stack from different directions; and a management control device configured to use deep learning techniques to perform image analysis for the first image and the second image, and based on the image analysis: if a portion of a first chip included in the chip stack is not visible due to a blind spot in either of the first image or the second image, determine, based on the first image and the second image: a position where the chip stack is located, a number of chips included in the chip stack, and a type of chips included in the chip stack as similarity discussed above.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,142,112, claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 798362, claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 475,733, claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,957,156.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all sets of claims are directed to similar system for automated monitoring and management of gaming chips on a game table comprising: a game table having a chip tray and a plurality of placement areas arranged vertically and horizontally for placement of chips; a first camera configured to generate a first image of a chip stack comprising one or more chips positioned on the game table, the first camera configured to capture the chip stack from diagonally above to generate the first image; a second camera, different from the first camera, configured to generate a second image of the chip stack positioned on the game table, the second camera configured to capture the chip stack from diagonally above to generate the second image; and a management control device configured to use deep learning techniques to perform image analysis for the first image and the second image to determine, for the same chip stack included in the first image and the second image: a position where the chip stack is located, a number of chips included in the chip stack, and a type of chips included in the chip stack,
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached USPTO form PTO-892.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights