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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 19-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emori et al, JP Paten 2012234389, in view of Miller et al, US Pub. 2007/0194931.
Emori et al disclose a system and method for reading data from multiple chips each having an RFID tag comprising: a gaming machine 10 equipped with a betting table 11 and a chip tray 20, that the betting table 11 has a plurality of betting areas 12 set thereon, and that an antenna 38 for communicating with the chip 2 (RFID tag 3) is installed on the back side of each betting area 12 (paragraphs [0025]-[0026]), that an antenna 38 is also installed on the back side of the chip tray 20 (paragraph [0026]), and that the control unit 31 of the server 30 performs betting area reading processing for all betting areas 12 (paragraph [0061]); the gaming table (betting table 11) on which one or more betting areas are laid out, a plurality of reading antennas (antennas 38) that are installed corresponding to each of a plurality of small areas that make up the betting area and that read RFID tags (RFID tags 3) embedded in gaming tokens (chips 2) placed in each of the plurality of small areas; a management control device (server 30) that, when the RFID tag is read by the reading antenna, identifies the location where the gaming token whose RFID tag has been read is placed, according to the small area that the reading antenna corresponds to; a chip tray (chip tray 20) provided on the gaming table; a chip tray reading antenna (antenna 38) for reading the RFID tag embedded in the gaming token stored in the chip tray.
Regarding claims 1, 19, 20, Emori et al fail to disclose a read restriction antenna to restrict reading of radio frequency tags from other sub areas not corresponding to the antenna embedded in the corresponding area.
Miller et al disclose an RFID sensor system for lateral discrimination comprising: (paragraphs [0040]-[0086], Figures 1, 4-5, 16-19) describes an RFID sensor system that can restrict the reading of chips placed in other bet areas using a jamming coil 44.
It would have been easy for a person skilled in the art to configure the teachings of Emori et al to include a read restriction antenna (jamming coil) to limit the reading range. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by Emori et al.
Regarding claim 21, wherein the plurality of sub-areas of the area are of substantially the same shape (Fig. ½ of Emori et al).
Regarding claim 22, wherein the area is a betting area for each sitting position, and the plurality of sub-areas of the area are betting target areas (sitting positions around the table 10, Fig. ½).
Regarding claim 23, further comprising: a database in which information of the RFID tag and related information are stored in association with each other; and a management control device configured to update the database based on a relationship between the information of the RFID tag read by the reading antenna and the sub-area where the RFID tag was read (the server 30 serves as a database for managing the relationship each antenna and sub-area, to manage the operation of the gambling table in conjunction with the unit 30, Emori et al).
Regarding claim 24, wherein the information of the RFID tag includes chip identification information of the game token, wherein the related information includes user identification information of a user in possession of the game token, and the management control device is configured to update the database so that the chip identification information of the game token, which is paid out to a user who wins the game, is associated with user identification information of the user who won the game (the control unit 30 manages and identifies each tag and to associate the tag with appropriate sub-area, Emori et al).
Regarding claim 25, Emori et al as modified by Miller et al fail to disclose, wherein the management control device is configured to update the database so that, when the chip identification information of the game token to be paid out is read in the sub-area, the chip identification information of the game token to be paid out is associated with user identification information of a user associated with the game token bet in the sub-area. However, having a paid out option is based on the type game in order to pay each player their winning. With respect to managing each player information, so as identifying the yours players and to keep a tab on who frequent the gaming location, such limitation is common in the art in order to effectively manage the location is to better serve the patrons. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 26, wherein the information of the RFID tag includes information for determining authenticity of the game token, wherein the information for determining authenticity is read by the reading antenna when reading the RFID tag, and wherein the game table reading system is configured to refer to the database to determine whether the information for determining authenticity read by the reading antenna matches the information of the RFID tag stored in the database, and output a warning when the information for determining authenticity read by the reading antenna does not match the information of the RFID tag stored in the database (the control unit 30 manages and identifies each tag and to associate the tag with appropriate sub-area and comparing the tag information with the data base, Emori et al).
Regarding claims 27-31, further comprising a shielding member configured to shape an electromagnetic field generated by the reading antenna so that the electromagnetic field weakens outside the sub-area corresponding to the reading antenna (see paragraph [0015] of Miller et al). With respect to the type of shielding element or the position of the shielding element, such limitations is a matter of choice or determined by basic experimentation in order to effectively control the tags reading. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by Emori et al as modified by Miller et al.
Regarding claim 32, the game table comprises a plurality of the read-restriction antennas corresponding to the one sub-area to shape the electromagnetic field generated by a plurality of reading antennas each corresponding to a plurality of other sub-areas adjacent to the one sub-area (see Fig. ½ of Emori et al).
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 and 19-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,150 (hereinafter ‘150 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claimed invention recites similar limitations of the ‘150 Patent. For instance, in claim 1 of the current application and in the ‘150 Patent, the applicant claims:
Application No. 18/940,514
Patent No. 12,183,150
A game table reading system, comprising: a game table on which at least one area is laid out, the area having a plurality of sub-areas; a plurality of reading antennas, each reading antenna installed in and corresponding to a respective sub-area of the plurality of sub-areas of the area, and configured to read a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag embedded in a game token placed in the respective sub-area; and a read-restriction antenna installed in and corresponding to at least one sub-area of the plurality of sub-areas of the area and configured to restrict, readings by the reading antenna so that the reading antenna does not read any RFID tags embedded in any game tokens in sub-areas other than the sub-area corresponding to the reading antenna; and a management control device configured to, when the RFID tag embedded in the game token placed in the sub-area corresponding to the reading antenna is read by the reading antenna, identify a position of the game token as being to the sub-area corresponding to which the reading antenna.
A game table reading system, comprising: a game table on which one or more areas are laid out, each area of the one or more areas: is associated with a different player position of one or more player positions, is defined by a visible perimeter on the game table, and includes a plurality of sub-areas arranged in a stack of rows, wherein at least one row of the stack of rows includes multiple sub-areas; a plurality of reading antennas installed corresponding to each of the one or more areas, and, for each area of the plurality of areas, the plurality of reading antennas are configured to read radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags embedded in game tokens placed in each of the plurality of sub-areas of the area; a read-restriction antenna configured to restrict, for a reading antenna of the plurality of reading antennas of an area of the one or more areas, readings by the reading antenna so that the reading antenna does not read the RFID tags of the game tokens in sub-areas other than the sub-area corresponding to the reading antenna; and a management control device configured to, when the RFID tag is read by the reading antenna, identify a position where the game token whose RFID tag is read is placed according to the sub-area to which the reading antenna corresponds.
Thus, in respect to above discussions, it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time the invention was made to use the teaching of claims 1-18 of the ‘150 Patent as a general teaching for a game table reading system, to perform the same function as claimed in the present invention. The instant claims obviously encompass the claimed invention of the ‘150 Patent. The extent that the instant claims are broaden and therefore generic to claimed invention of ‘150 Patent [species], In re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a co-pending application.
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection is a judicially established doctrine based upon public policy and is primarily intended to prevent prolongation of the patent term by prohibiting claims in a second patent not patentably distinct from the claims in a first paten. IN re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. & 1.321(b) would overcome an actual or provisional rejection on this ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 C>FR> &1.78(d).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 19-32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Remarks:
In view of the applicant’s amendment filed 10/10/25, the statutory double patenting rejection has been withdrawn. Amended claim 1 and new claims 19-32 are rejected as set forth above. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Michael G Lee can be reached on 571-272-2398. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876