DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
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 limitations are, in claim 20:
a game determining unit
a bet determining unit
a liquidation determining unit
a control unit
In claim 21;
A[n] image analyzing unit
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 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.
Claims 20-36 are under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to a bet determining unit,
Paragraph [0360] recites, “It is possible to determine on which bet target on the game table 4 how many chips are bet, by the measuring device 19, and the measuring device 19 becomes a bet determining unit.” See figure 6. So the bet determining unit is measuring device 19.
In regards to A[n] image analyzing unit,
There is no image analyzing unit in the specification. There is A[n] image analyzing device 12. See figure 1. The image analyzing device 12 is exactly where the measuring device 19 is in figure 6.
In consideration of applicant using a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language, it is not clear what structure is being claimed.
This issue also has 35 USC 101 implications. Without structure, the claims are just an abstract idea of counting chips.
In regards to a game determining unit,
Paragraph [0359] recites, “The win/loss determining device or the game determining unit may be configured to include a camera device 2 that photographs cards on the game table 4 and an image analyzing device 12 that analyzes an image obtained from the camera device 2 to determine win/loss of the game.” It is not clear if the structure of the game determining unit overlaps the image analyzing unit.
In regards to a control unit,
Paragraphs [0017-0025] discuss what a control unit may do, but there is no structure or drawing number associated with it. It is not clear what the structure is.
In regards to a liquidation determining unit,
Paragraph [0361] recites, “In the management system, an actual liquidation amount of chips delivered between the dealer and the player is determined using the measuring device 19 or the dealer chip determining unit to constitute a liquidation determining unit.” From this disclosure of structure, it is unclear what the structure of the liquidation determining unit is because it is mixing the measuring device 19, analyzing device 12, the bet determining unit, and the image analyzing unit.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20-21, 23 and 33-36, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Soltys et al. (US PG pub 2004/0219975).
Soltys et al. shows,
In regards to claim 20,
a game table (figure 1) for playing the game using the chips;
a game determining unit (figure 27, step 824)
a bet determining unit (paragraph [0091]; also see “play tracking” 308, figure 15; also see paragraph [0077], “The playing surface imager 152 can employ other image capture devices, although area CMOS color sensors C.sub.1-C.sub.9 are particular suitable for imaging the chips 38 and cards of the deck 18 on the playing surface 26 of the gaming table 10, such as wager chips 22 and played cards 30-34.”)
a liquidation determining unit : (paragraph [0088], “A table monitoring logic function 302 serves as the central element of the system, receiving data from the various other functions. The table monitoring logic 302 uses the data from the other components to verify game play, check for dealer errors, and provide data for employee and player analysis, as well as for reporting.”)
a control unit (paragraph [0090], “A chip tray monitoring function 306 continually monitors the chips 38 in the chip tray 36. Chip tray monitoring 306 provides a measure of the chip tray contents (i.e., counts and values of all chips 38 in the chip tray) to the table monitoring logic 302.”; also see paragraph [0011] “The system periodically determines the number and value of chips in the chip tray from the image.” When the system determines the value of the chips, that is considered to the type of chip.)
wherein the calculated liquidation amount is a calculated collection amount and the actual liquidation amount is an actual collection amount, the calculated liquidation amount is a calculated payment amount and the actual liquidation amount is an actual payment amount, or the calculated liquidation amount is a calculated collection/payment balance amount and the actual liquidation amount is an actual collection/payment balance amount. (Chip tray monitoring function 306, chip tray increases after a “house” win. Chip tray monitoring function 306, chip tray decreases after a “house” lose.)
In regards to claim 21,
a camera that captures an image of the chips on the game table; and
a[n] image analyzing unit that perform an analysis of the image to determine position, type, and number of the chips, wherein the bet determining unit determines the bet target and the bet amount based on a result of the analysis, and wherein the liquidation determining unit determines the actual liquidation amount based on a result of the analysis. (paragraph [0091]; also see “play tracking” 308, figure 15; also see paragraph [0077], “The playing surface imager 152 can employ other image capture devices, although area CMOS color sensors C.sub.1-C.sub.9 are particular suitable for imaging the chips 38 and cards of the deck 18 on the playing surface 26 of the gaming table 10, such as wager chips 22 and played cards 30-34.” Image capture device is considered to be a camera.)
In regards to claim 23,
wherein the predetermined condition is a condition relating to the difference. (the difference is between the calculate chip amount and the measured chip amount.)
In regards to claim 33 and 34,
a card distributing device (shoe 20) that distributes cards used in the game to the game table,
wherein the control unit performs the first control and the second control on the card distributing device and wherein the control unit performs a control to prohibit distribution of the card from the card distributing device as the second control. (See figure 18 and the STOP command, paragraph [0115].)
In regards to claim 35,
wherein the management control device is configured to change the predetermined condition based on received user input. (See full flow of figure 27. User input is included and can change the input to the discrepancy step)
In regards to claim 36,
comprising a storage device, wherein the management control device is configured to record the difference in the storage device. (figure 29, database 932)
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soltys et al. (US PG pub 2004/0219975) in view of Moore et al. (US PG pub 2018/0357850).
Soltys et al., as applied above, shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying a plurality of RFID antennas that read the RFID tags of the chips on the game table to identify the types of the chips
Moore et al. ‘850 teaches, paragraph [0042], “In accordance with some embodiments, RFID antennas incorporated into a smart table such as table 200A may be placed within an insert under the felt or other covering of the table. Each antenna may have a predetermined range within which it recognizes, determines, identifies or acquires a chip.”
Based on the teaching of Moore et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Soltys et al. invention to specify using RFID technology in order to provide a redundant system to double check the image system.
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soltys et al. (US PG pub 2004/0219975) in view of Pierson et al. (US PG pub 2005/0278542).
Soltys et al., as applied above, shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying a threshold for the difference. (the difference between each game and a single game is the same.)
Pierson et al. teaches a network security and fraud detection system and method. Paragraph [0037] teaches an application at a virtual poker table game. Paragraph [0039], “If the maximum threshold set above is exceeded and the master verify is ON, then the fraud detection and prevention system may restrict access”. Figure 4 teaches receiving reports. When a threshold is reached, the Fraud Detector 92 is triggered.
Based on the teaching of Pierson et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Soltys et al. to add a threshold for the difference or discrepancy in the chip count in order to focus on the big problems instead of the common little problems.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soltys et al. (US PG pub 2004/0219975) in view of Moore et al. (US PG pub 2012/0252564).
Soltys et al., as applied above, shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying that the predetermined condition is that the bet amount is greater than or equal to a fourth threshold value.
Moore et al. teaches, paragraph [0158], “The decision to enable/disable a certain re-characterization, or to enforce various betting limits associated with such bets, can be supported by input from the pit boss (or via a dealer screen with a password). For example, the pit boss would have access to the maximum casino exposure, expected exposure, etc., and override a table lockout to allow additional betting at a particular house edge. In essence, the pit boss may have a real-time decision tool to allow layers of increased volatility in exchange for increased value (house edge). Personalized player monitors may indicate that only limited wagering will be allowed on certain bets, so players must put in their bets quickly or lose out on the opportunity.” The betting limit is a bet amount threshold.
Based on the teaching of Moore et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Soltys et al. to specify that the predetermined condition is that the bet amount is greater than or equal to a fourth threshold value in order to limit casino exposure.
Claims 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soltys et al. (US PG pub 2004/0219975) in view of Moore et al. (US PG pub 2018/0357850).
The system of Soltys et al., as applied above, shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying that the control unit management control device is configured to perform the first control-operation and the second control operation to control the at least one light or the second control on the lighting device and the control unit management control device is configured to turn on, at the lighting device, the at least one light with different colors in the first control operation than in the second control operation a first color associated with the first control or a second color associated with the second control, the first color different from the second color.
Moore et al. teaches, pages 9-10, Table 1, Example Lighting Effect and Corresponding Game Events. Notice the “Error states”, including Chip tray out of balance and invalid chip. Both red lights and green lights are used. The controls and lights provide an easy alert system to problems.
Based on the teaching of Moore et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Soltys et al. to specify that the control unit management control device is configured to perform the first control-operation and the second control operation to control the at least one light or the second control on the lighting device and the control unit management control device is configured to turn on, at the lighting device, the at least one light with different colors in the first control operation than in the second control operation a first color associated with the first control or a second color associated with the second control, the first color different from the second color in order to provide an easy alert system to problems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A CUFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6778. 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.
/MICHAEL A CUFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights