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 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-15 recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity and performing a mental process. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-15 recite: a game token management system comprising:
a plurality of game tokens each having a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag storing an individually unique identifier (ID);
a gaming table for playing a game using the plurality of game tokens;
a game token tray for storing a portion of the plurality of game tokens corresponding to a dealer; a
first measurement device configured to measure a position, a type, and number of game tokens on the gaming table based at least in part on the RFID tags of each game token on the gaming table;
a game status determination device configured to determine a start of the game and an end of the game; and
a management control device configured to:
recognize an amount of game tokens for each player position on the gaming table at the start of the game and the end of the game using a measurement result obtained from the first measurement device;
compare the amount of game tokens for each player position at the start of the game and the end of the game; and
determine whether there is an increase or decrease of the amount based on comparing the amount of game tokens for each player position at the start of the game and the end of the game.
The above underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, organizing human activity includes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The claims recite steps for managing a table game by determining token positions, type of token and a number tokens; determining a start and end of a game; recognizing an amount of game token for each player position at the start of the game and at the end of the game; compare the amount of game tokens for each player position at the start of the and the end of the game; and determine whether this is an increase of decrease of the amount. Managing a wagering game is a management of a social activity, which is an abstract idea of organizing human activity.
In addition the claim recite steps of comparing and determine gaming tokens amounts during the table game to ensure the correct amount of money is being exchanged. This is a fundamental economic principle or commercial interaction.
Furthermore, the underlined limitation recite a mental process. The steps of measuring, recognizing comparing and determining are steps that can be in the human mind.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration of whether the claim recites additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
An additional element or combination of additional elements that are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Additional element or combination of additional elements that are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-15 not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-15 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
The additional elements of: game token having RFID tag, gaming token are generic gaming components used to perform the abstract idea. The measurement device, game status determination device, management control device is a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
For the reasons discussed above, the additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 1-15 recite, token each having RFID tag, a gaming table and a game token tray.
Ventura (US 2016/0243433) discloses RFID chip tracking is well known in the art (US 20160243433)
Hill (US 2013/0196777) discloses a gaming table with a chip tray is well known in the art (paragraph 40).
The claims also recite a measurement device, game status determination device, management control device. These elements recite a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Merati (US 2016/0171813) also discloses it is well known in the art to use processor-executable instructions to determine game results in a casino game and make determinations with various detectors (paragraph 24).
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-15 further recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity and a mental process. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements 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 claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception 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 clams merely include limitations that further define the abstract idea and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
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:
“a first measurement device configured to measure a position, a type, and number of game tokens on the gaming table based at least in part on the RFID tags of each game token on the gaming table”
“a game status determination device configured to determine a start of the game and an end of the game” and
“a management control device configured to:
recognize an amount of game tokens for each player position on the gaming table at the start of the game and the end of the game using a measurement result obtained from the first measurement device;
compare the amount of game tokens for each player position at the start of the game and the end of the game; and
determine whether there is an increase or decrease of the amount based on comparing the amount of game tokens for each player position at the start of the game and the end of the game”,
in claim 1;
“a second measuring device configured to measure types and a number of the portion of the plurality of game tokens stored in the game token tray”, in claim 2; and
“an image analyzing device configured to: analyze the images to determine a progress of the game; and determine the start of the game and the end of the game based on the determined progress of the game”, in claim 7.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “a first measurement device configured to measure a position, a type, and number of game tokens on the gaming table based at least in part on the RFID tags of each game token on the gaming table”. Applicant’s specification fails to teach a first measurement device configured to measure a position, a type, and number of game tokens on the gaming table based at least in part on the RFID tags of each game token on the gaming table. The specification discloses a measurement device (19 in Fig. 6). However, the measurement device uses the information acquired by the image analyzing device (paragraphs 137, 151, 153, 157) to analyze and measure the number and the type/color of game tokens. The image analyzing device and the control device acquire the position, type and quantity of the game tokens (paragraphs 93, 100).
The specification also discloses that the total amount of game token in the tray is acquired using RFID and the control device (paragraphs 86, 91, 117). However, there is no description of a measurement device configured to measure a position, a type, and number of game tokens on the gaming table based at least in part on the RFID tags of each game token on the gaming table.
Claims 2-15 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 1 recites, “a game status determination device configured to determine a start of the game and an end of the game” and
“a management control device configured to:
recognize an amount of game tokens for each player position on the gaming table at the start of the game and the end of the game using a measurement result obtained from the first measurement device;
compare the amount of game tokens for each player position at the start of the game and the end of the game; and
determine whether there is an increase or decrease of the amount based on comparing the amount of game tokens for each player position at the start of the game and the end of the game”.
The specification discloses that the card distributing device can detect the start of dealing of cards and the end of dealing (paragraph 114).
The specification also discloses calculating the different between the total amount of the game token in the storing portion (chip tray) obtained using the RFID before starting the collection stage after completion of the game and the total amount of the game tokens in the storing portion obtained using the RFID after completion of the collection, in order to obtain a total RFID-based collection amount (Paragraph 277 and paragraphs 286, 289).
However, there is no description of a game status determination device configured to determine a start of the game and an end of the game. In addition there is no description of a management control device configured to: recognize an amount of game tokens for each player position on the gaming table at the start of the game and the end of the game using a measurement result obtained from the first measurement device; compare the amount of game tokens for each player position at the start of the game and the end of the game; and determine whether there is an increase or decrease of the amount based on comparing the amount of game tokens for each player position at the start of the game and the end of the game”.
Claims 2-15 are rejected by dependency.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation
“a first measurement device configured to measure a position, a type, and number of game tokens on the gaming table based at least in part on the RFID tags of each game token on the gaming table”
“a game status determination device configured to determine a start of the game and an end of the game” and
“a management control device configured to:
recognize an amount of game tokens for each player position on the gaming table at the start of the game and the end of the game using a measurement result obtained from the first measurement device;
compare the amount of game tokens for each player position at the start of the game and the end of the game; and
determine whether there is an increase or decrease of the amount based on comparing the amount of game tokens for each player position at the start of the game and the end of the game”,
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
As indicated above, there is description of a measurement device or any device configured to measure a position , a type and number of game tokens on the game table based at least on the RFID tags. In addition, there is no description of game status determination device configured to determine a start of the game and end of the game, and a management control device configured to recognize an amount of game token for each player position from the first measurement device (using RFID), compare the amount of game tokens at the stat of the game and at the end of the game, and determine whether there is an increase of decrease of the amount.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-15 are rejected by dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iwakiri (US 20070066399) discloses a game toke management system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality of game tokens each having a tag storing an individually unique identifier (ID) (gaming chips 21 in Fig. 2, ID data chip 21; paragraphs 24-25);
a gaming table for playing a game using the plurality of game tokens (27 in Fig. 2);
a game token tray for storing a portion of the plurality of game tokens corresponding to a dealer (25 in Fig. 2); a
first measurement device (computer 11 with readers 16, 19, 15 in Figs. 1-2; paragraphs 28-30) configured to measure a position, a type, and number of game tokens on the gaming table based at least in part on the tags of each game token on the gaming table (chip value, number, and total amounts, paragraphs 47, 50, 56).
Labgold (US 2008/0070658) discloses a management system for a gaming table. Labgold discloses that the management system tracks tokens/chips used in a wagering table (paragraph 33, 40). Labgold discloses that management control device is configured to perform a first comparison between the respective amount at the time of a start of dealing of the player cards (Labgold discloses placing bets at step 302 in Fig. 3 at the start of the game. Labgold also discloses that when the cards are dealt 307 the detector reads chips in the betting area 312; Fig. 3. See also steps 111, 411 in Figs. 1 and 4.) and the respective amount at the time of an end of the dealing of the playing cards (Cards and bet is read at step 318 in Fig. 3. See also steps 118 and 418 in Fig. 1, 4) and determine whether the respective amount has changed and display a result of the determining on the display device (system ensures that the betting amount has not change at any time during game play, paragraphs 29. 34. 46. 48. 56. 60), wherein the dealing of the player cards starts when betting ends for a game (It is interpreted the betting phase begins 401 when the previous game ends), and dealing of the playing cards ends when a result of the game is determined (The gaming phase, which includes any one or a combination of steps 306-316, paragraph 57). This include changes to the playing cards (steps 314 and 315 in Fig. 3; paragraph 57). The game ends at step 316 and result of the game is determined at step 317. Labgold discloses that detection of the chips occurs during any time during the betting and gaming phase and therefore before a result of the game is determined (paragraphs 29, 34, 46, 48, 56, 60). Labgold discloses that the system ensures that the betting amount has not change at any time during game play (paragraphs 29, 34, 46, 48, 56, 60). Therefore, the comparison of the detected betting amount from 312 and 318 is made.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571 270-7625. 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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights