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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/724,203, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. All of Applicant’s claims include, inter alia, limitations in regard to “one or more calibration markers”, which were not disclosed in the ‘203 application. The effective filing date for the Applicant’s instant claims, therefore, is 1/6/25.
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 1, 4-8, 11-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPUB US 20220314109 A1 by Eurlings et al (“Eurlings”), in view of PGPUB US 20230237868 A1 by Lyons et al (“Lyons”), further in view of MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
In regard to Claim 1, Eurlings teaches a gaming device comprising:
- an imager configured for detecting objects within a playing area and for detecting calibration signals in a calibration zone outside the playing area,
(see, e.g., F7b, 713);
- a calibration element configured for providing a substantially transparent region for environmental light to reach the imager in the calibration zone […];
(see, e.g., F7b, 710-712 and p113-115);
- the gaming device being configured for performing calibration […]
(see, e.g., F143);
Furthermore, while Eurlings teaches the gaming device performing calibration it may not necessarily teach doing so by employing one or more calibration markers placed on the gaming table, however, in an analogous reference Lyons teaches this feature (see, e.g., p67 and 77);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the features taught by Lyons to the device otherwise taught by Eurlings, by adding calibration images of dice to the table itself, in order to more precisely calibrate the imager.
Furthermore, to the extent that the otherwise cited prior art may fail to specifically teach wherein the calibration images are incorporated into the table itself, however, making those images integral to the table would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
In regard to Claims 4-6, Lyons teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p67 and 77.
In regard to Claims 7-8, Eurlings teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F7b, 710-712.
In regard to Claims 11-13, Eurlings teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F8 and text regarding same.
In regard to Claim 15, see rejection of Claim 1.
In regard to Claim 16, see rejection of Claim 11.
In regard to Claim 17, see rejection of Claim 1.
In regard to Claim 18, see rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 2-3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eurlings, in view of Lyons, further in view of MPEP 2144.04(V)(B), further in view of MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
In regard to Claim 2, Eurlings teaches employing transparent layers but it may not teach wherein the transparency is at least 50%, however, such a feature would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, and especially given the lack of criticality disclosed in Applicant’s PGPUB at, e.g., p15. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
In regard to Claim 3, Eurlings teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p115.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eurlings, in view of Lyons, further in view of MPEP 2144.04(V)(B), further in view of MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
In regard to Claim 9, Eurlings teaches these features (see, e.g., F7b, 710-712 and p113-115) with the possible exception of the layers being “detachable”, however, such a feature would have been obvious as it would have allowed for, e.g., new markers to be placed, and especially given the lack of criticality disclosed in Applicant’s PGPUB in regard to this feature. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eurlings, in view of Lyons, further in view of MPEP 2144.04(V)(B), further in view of MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
In regard to Claim 10, Eurlings teaches these features (see, e.g., F7b, 710-712 and p113-115) with the possible exception of the calibration element being “permanently fixed, however, such a feature would have been obvious as it would have allowed for the markers not to move into the playing area, and especially given the lack of criticality disclosed in Applicant’s PGPUB in regard to this feature. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eurlings, in view of Lyons, further in view of MPEP 2144.04(V)(B), further in view of MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
In regard to Claim 14, Eurlings teaches these features (see, e.g., F7b, 710-712 and p113-115) with the possible exception of the layers being separable, however, such a feature would have been obvious as it would have allowed for, e.g., new markers to be placed, and especially given the lack of criticality disclosed in Applicant’s PGPUB in regard to this feature. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights