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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment and Response to Non-Final Office Action (“Response”), filed 7 August 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 19 and 31 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of International Publication No. WO 2019/070622 A1 to Gronau et al. (“Gronau”).
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 19-21 and 28-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0264728 A1 to Shigeta (“Shigeta”) in view of International Publication No. WO 2019/070622 A1 to Gronau et al. (“Gronau”), United States Patent No. 8,433,123 B1 to Csulits et al. (“Csulits”) and United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0074694 A1 to Mateen et al. (“Mateen”).
As per claims 19 and 31, the claimed subject matter that is met by Shigeta includes:
A machine-implemented method of validating, redeeming and reporting casino chips presented for redemption comprising (Shigeta: Abstract):
determining, via a casino chip reader, a first count of a plurality of casino chips belonging to a player and presented for redemption (Shigeta: ¶¶ 0048-0054 “exchange device 1 is provided with a wireless tag reading section 131 that reads a wireless tag 103 of a gaming chip G inserted from the insertion opening 11 and held in a gaming chip holding section 12, and obtains currency information of the gaming chip G… chip counter 133 that counts the number of chips of each type of inserted gaming chip G based on the currency information of the gaming chip G obtained from the wireless tag reading section 131 or the appearance inspection section 132. The chip counter 133 further calculates the total amount of the inserted gaming chips G by adding the individual amounts of the gaming chips G”);
determining a denomination associated with each casino chip of the plurality of casino chips from information output by the casino chip reader, wherein the denomination is determined from a plurality of tags associated with each chip of the plurality of casino chips, and wherein a first tag is not readable (Shigeta: ¶¶ 0048 “the abnormality includes situations in which, for example, the unique ID information of the casino cannot be read, or the expiration date of the chip based on the manufacturing date information of the gaming chip G has been reached, etc., and determines whether or not an abnormality exists based on the criteria for the abnormality set in advance. When the determining section 21 determines there is an abnormality, it is processed as an error, and the contents of the error are displayed on the display 31 provided in the exchange device 1” and 0049-0054 “The appearance inspection section 132 may read the information on the outer surface (e.g., denomination information of cash currency appeared on the surface or the color information of the colored layer 101) to ascertain the type and number of chips for gaming G inserted… The determining section 21 may compare and determine the currency information of the gaming chip G obtained from the wireless tag reading section 131 and the currency information of the gaming chip G obtained from the appearance inspection section 132”);
determining, using a controller, that data has not been determined for each of chip of the plurality of casino chips (Shigeta: ¶¶ 0048-0050);
outputting a second notification based on the data having not been determined for each casino chip of the plurality of casino chips (Shigeta: ¶ 0048 “When the determining section 21 determines there is an abnormality, it is processed as an error, and the contents of the error are displayed on the display 31 provided in the exchange device 1”);
generating a total value of the plurality of casino chips based upon the denominations thereof as determined by the information output by the casino chip reader (Shigeta: ¶ 0052 “total amount of gaming chips G calculated by the chip counter 133 is displayed on an inserted amount display section 32”); and
outputting, from the controller, instructions to cause a cash dispenser to dispense an amount of cash (Shigeta: ¶ 0056 “the exchange device 1 is equipped with a cash currency dispensing section 16 that dispenses cash currency for dispensing from the cash currency storage section 15. The cash currency dispensing section 16 disburses, by means of a pusher or a conveyor, the cash currency C corresponding to the total amount of gaming chips G, which is determined by the determining section 21”).
Shigeta fails to specifically teach 1.) determining, via a second device, a second count of the plurality of casino chips belonging to the player and presented for redemption; outputting, based on a discrepancy between the first count and the second count, a first notification indicating that at least one of the casino chip reader and the second device has failed to identify a casino chip of the plurality of casino chips; RFID tags, 2.) that a denomination has not been determined, 3.) based on the denomination having not been determined, 4.) receiving, via input to the controller by an operator, a denomination for each chip of the plurality of casino chips for which a denomination was not determined; 5.) by the information output by the casino chip reader and as input by the operator; and 6.) cash equal to the total value of the plurality of casino chips. The Examiner provides Gronau to teach and disclose claimed feature 1.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Gronau includes:
determining, via a second device, a second count of the plurality of casino chips belonging to the player and presented for redemption (Gronau: ¶¶ 0002 “The first reading can include a first set of counts and a first set of values. The program can cause the at least one computing device to determine a second reading of the gaming chips based at least in part on a second identification technology. The second reading can include a second set of counts and a second set of values. In response to a variance between the first reading and the second reading, the program can cause the at least one computing device to perform at least one remedial action”, 0022, 0026, 0029, 0041 “A user places the gaming chips in the chip recycler 242, the chip recycler 242 processes the gaming chips, and the chip recycler 242 either automatically outputs gaming chips in other denominations or outputs cash equal to the input value” and 0064-0065);
outputting, based on a discrepancy between the first count and the second count, a first notification indicating that at least one of the casino chip reader and the second device has failed to identify a casino chip of the plurality of casino chips (Gronau: ¶¶ 0002, 0022, 0026, 0029, 0041 and 0064-0065 “determine a second reading of the gaming chips based at least in part on a second identification technology, the second reading comprising a plurality of second counts and a plurality of second values; and in response to a variance between the first reading and the second reading, perform at least one remedial action… wherein the variance between the first reading and the second reading corresponds to a first game and the program further causes the at least one computing device to at least: display a first indicator as the at least one remedial action; and display a second indicator in response to no variance existing in a second game”;
determining a denomination associated with each casino chip of the plurality of casino chips from information output by the casino chip reader, wherein the denomination is determined from a plurality of RFID tags associated with each chip of the plurality of casino chips, and wherein a first RFID tag is not readable (Gronau: ¶¶ 0002, 0022, 0026 “anti-counterfeit system 215 is executed to detect broken, malfunctioning, and counterfeit chips being used identifying discrepancies between two or more counterfeit identification methodologies. As an example, an RFID tag in RFID-enabled gaming chip can break. An RFID identification service will fail to read the broken RFID-enabled gaming chip, but a visual identification of the gaming chip from a video feed can detect the gaming chip. An identification methodology can include determining at least one characteristic of the gaming chip or a person, such as, for example, a count, a denomination, a weight, a color, a pattern, a barcode, a height of a stack of gaming chips, actions of a person, or another characteristic. In the previous example, the visual identification may detect that seven chips were placed on a bet spot, which can be compared to six RFID tags being read by the RFI D identification service to determine a discrepancy exists”, 0029, 0041 and 0064-0065)
Shigeta teaches a system and method of reading gaming chip. Gronau teaches a comparable system and method of reading gaming chip that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Gronau offers the embodiment of determining, via a second device, a second count of the plurality of casino chips belonging to the player and presented for redemption; outputting, based on a discrepancy between the first count and the second count, a first notification indicating that at least one of the casino chip reader and the second device has failed to identify a casino chip of the plurality of casino chips; and RFID tags. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the second reading device and RFID tags as disclosed by Gronau to the tags as taught by Shigeta for the predicted result of improved systems and methods of reading gaming chips. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
While Gronau does speak on determining a denomination and requiring authorization of an operator when a count, denomination or total value of discrepancy exceeds a threshold (Gronau: ¶¶ 0036 and 0043), Shigeta and Gronau fail to specifically teach specific embodiments of 2.) that a denomination has not been determined, 3.) based on the denomination having not been determined, 4.) receiving, via input to the controller by an operator, a denomination for each chip of the plurality of casino chips for which a denomination was not determined; 5.) by the information output by the casino chip reader and as input by the operator; and 6.) cash equal to the total value of the plurality of casino chips. The Examiner provides Csulits to teach and disclose claimed features 2-5.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Csulits includes:
determining, using a controller, that a denomination has not been determined (Csulits: column 101, lines 36-63 “the document processing device includes a temporary holding area for receiving no call bills. According to some such embodiments, no call bills are held in the temporary holding area until an operator calls the denomination of the no call bills in the same, or similar, manner as described herein in connection with FIGS. 9A and 9B”, column 105, lines 25-60 “the controller 150 is configured to flag a no-call denomination currency bill to an operator of the document processing system 100 according to a designated mode of operation, such as, for example, the run-and-present mode or the stop-and-present mode. As described above, according to the run-and-present mode and/or the stop-and-present mode, the document processing system 100 can be configured to display a visually readable image 210a of the flagged no-call denomination document on the interface 200a to indicate to the operator that the controller 150 could not call or determine the denomination of the currency bill”, and column 238, line 53 through column 239, line 10 and Fig. 9A-9B);
outputting a second notification based on the denomination having not been determined (Csulits: column 105, lines 25-60 “the controller 150 is configured to flag a no-call denomination currency bill to an operator of the document processing system 100 according to a designated mode of operation, such as, for example, the run-and-present mode or the stop-and-present mode. As described above, according to the run-and-present mode and/or the stop-and-present mode, the document processing system 100 can be configured to display a visually readable image 210a of the flagged no-call denomination document on the interface 200a to indicate to the operator that the controller 150 could not call or determine the denomination of the currency bill. According to some embodiments, the document processing system 100 can be configured to display the visually readable image 210a to flag the currency bill as satisfying any one or more other flag criteria”);
receiving, via input to the controller by an operator, a denomination …for which a denomination was not determined (Csulits: column 105, line 61 through column 106, line 46 “The operator can then activate one of the plurality of denomination selection elements 230a to cause the controller 150 to associate the distinct denomination of the activated or selected denomination selection element (e.g., $10 denomination selection element 231a') with the visually readable image 210a displayed on the interface 200a and/or the corresponding data file or record”);
generating a total value… based upon the …denominations thereof as determined by the information output … and as input by the operator (Csulits: column 43, lines 22-48 “total deposit amount and/or a value of the plurality of documents is included in the total deposit amount field 303b. The total deposit amount field 303b includes a value, for example, $100.00, as shown, associated with a sum of values associated with each of the documents associated with the deposit transaction to be deposited” and Fig. 3A).
Shigeta and Gronau teach systems and methods of totaling funds. Csulits teaches a comparable system and method of totaling funds that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Csulits offers the embodiment of determining that a denomination has been determined, outputting based on the denomination having not been determined, receiving, via input to the controller by an operator, a denomination … for which a denomination was not determined; generating a total value by the information output by the casino chip reader and as input by the operator. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the specific steps for totaling funds as disclosed by Csulits to the steps for totaling funds as taught by Shigeta and Gronau for the predicted result of improved systems and methods of totaling funds. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
Shigeta, Gronau and Csulits fail to specifically teach 4.) receiving… a denomination for each of chip of the plurality of casino chips; 5.) by the information output by the casino chip reader and as input by the operator; and 6.) cash equal to the total value of the plurality of casino chips. The Examiner provides Mateen to teach and disclose these claimed features.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Mateen includes:
receiving, via input to the controller by an operator, a denomination for each chip of the plurality of casino chips (Mateen: ¶¶ 0109-0111 “system receives cashier input regarding chip quantities in different denominations that were manually counted and received by the cashier” and Fig. 19)
generating a total value… by the information output by the casino chip reader and as input by the operator (Mateen: ¶¶ 0111 “the process continues with operation 1910, in which the data for the number and/or value of received chips is transmitted to the casino system”)
outputting… cash equal to the total value of the plurality of casino chips (Mateen: ¶ 0112 “system may proceed with the transaction (e.g., disbursing funds and tracking transaction data ”)
Shigeta, Gronau and Csulits teach systems and methods of totaling funds. Mateen teaches a comparable system and method of totaling funds that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Mateen offers the embodiment of receiving… a denomination for each of chip of the plurality of casino chips; by the information output by the casino chip reader and as input by the operator; and cash equal to the total value of the plurality of casino chips. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the specific steps for totaling funds as disclosed by Mateen to the steps for totaling funds as taught by Shigeta, Gronau and Csulits for the predicted result of improved systems and methods of totaling funds. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claims 20 and 33, the claimed subject matter that is met by Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits and Mateen includes:
wherein the casino chip reader comprises an RFID reader and wherein determining the denomination of each chip of the plurality of casino chips comprises reading RFID tags associated with the plurality of casino chips (Gronau: ¶ 0026).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits and Mateen are discussed in the rejection of claims 19 and 31, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 21 and 34, the claimed subject matter that is met by Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits and Mateen includes:
wherein the second device comprises an image capture device housed separately from the casino chip reader, and wherein determining the denomination of each chip of the plurality of casino chips comprises capturing an image of the plurality of casino chips (Shigeta: ¶ 0049 and Gronau: ¶¶ 0022, 0026 and 0032-0033).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits and Mateen are discussed in the rejection of claims 19 and 31, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 35, the claimed subject matter that is met by Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits and Mateen includes:
wherein the second count is determined based upon a height of a stack of the plurality of casino chips (Gronau: ¶¶ 0026 and 0032).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits and Mateen are discussed in the rejection of claim 31, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 28 and 32, the claimed subject matter that is met by Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits and Mateen includes:
further comprising creating a transaction record of the plurality of casino chips of each denomination and a value thereof, as confirmed by the operator or changed by the operator (Mateen: ¶¶ 0109-0111).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits and Mateen are discussed in the rejection of claims 19 and 31, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 29, the claimed subject matter that is met by Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits and Mateen includes:
further comprising transmitting the transaction record to an AML server (Mateen: ¶ 0111).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits and Mateen are discussed in the rejection of claim 19, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 30, the claimed subject matter that is met by Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits and Mateen includes:
wherein determining the denomination of each chip of the plurality of casino chips further comprises analyzing at least one of a thickness and a color of each chip of the plurality of casino chips (Gronau: ¶¶ 0026 and 0034).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits and Mateen are discussed in the rejection of claim 19, and are incorporated herein.
Claims 22-24, 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigeta in view of Mateen, Gronau and Csulits as applied in claim 19, and further in view of United States Patent No. 10,614,389 B1 to Clayton et al. (“Clayton”).
As per claim 22, the claimed subject matter that is met by Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits and Mateen includes:
further comprising displaying, via a display, … the denominations and the plurality of casino chips of each denomination that was determined from the information output by the casino chip reader and input by the operator (Shigeta: ¶ 0052 “The total amount of gaming chips G calculated by the chip counter 133 is displayed on an inserted amount display section 32. The inserted amount display section 32 may be integrated with the display 31” and Csulits: Figs. 12A and 12C-12E).
Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits and Mateen fails to specifically teach displaying a graphical indicator of the denominations output by the casino chip reader and input by the operator. The Examiner provides Clayton to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Clayton includes:
a graphical indicator of the denominations and the number of casino chips of each denomination that was determined from the information output by the casino chip reader and input by the operator (Clayton: Fig. 6J-6L and Fig. 10E)
Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits and Mateen teach systems and methods of totaling funds. Clayton teaches a comparable system and method of totaling funds that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Clayton offers the embodiment of a graphical indicator of the denominations output by the casino chip reader and input by the operator. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the graphical indicators as disclosed by Clayton to the systems and methods of totaling funds as taught by Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits and Mateen for the predicted result of improved systems and methods of totaling funds. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claims 23 and 36, the claimed subject matter that is met by Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits, Mateen and Clayton includes:
wherein the display comprises a graphical indicator of all potential casino chip denominations and wherein the plurality of casino chips of a denomination comprises a predetermined symbol when no casino chips of a particular denomination are read by the casino chip reader (Clayton: Fig. 6J-6L and Fig. 10E).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits, Mateen and Clayton are discussed in the rejection of claim 22, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 24 and 38, the claimed subject matter that is met by Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits, Mateen and Clayton includes:
further comprising causing the display to display a warning when the casino chip of the plurality of casino chips is not readable by the casino chip reader (Shigeta: ¶ 0048).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits, Mateen and Clayton are discussed in the rejection of claim 22, and are incorporated herein.
Claims 25-27 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigeta in view of Mateen, Gronau, Csulits and Clayton as applied in claim 22, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0065505 A1 to Rousseau et al. (“Rousseau”).
As per claim 25, the claimed subject matter that is met by Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits, Mateen and Clayton includes:
displaying, via the display, a first graphically displayed button in relation to each graphical indicator of each denomination of casino chip (Clayton: Fig. 6J-6L and Fig. 10E)
Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits, Mateen and Clayton fail to specifically teach wherein a number of casino chips of a first denomination is increased based on the first graphically displayed button being selected. The Examiner provides Rousseau to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Rousseau includes:
wherein a number … is increased based on the first graphically displayed button being selected (Rousseau: ¶ 0163 and Fig. 10)
Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits, Mateen and Clayton teach systems and methods of totaling funds. Rousseau teaches a comparable system and method of totaling funds that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Rousseau offers the embodiment of wherein a number is increased based on the first graphically displayed button being selected. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the specific graphical displayed button as disclosed by Rousseau to the systems and methods of totaling funds as taught by Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits, Mateen and Clayton for the predicted result of improved systems and methods of totaling funds. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claim 26, the claimed subject matter that is met by Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits, Mateen, Clayton and Rousseau includes:
further comprising displaying, via the display, a second graphically displayed button in relation to each graphical indicator of each denomination of casino chip, wherein a second number of casino chips of a second denomination is decreased based on the second graphically displayed button being selected (Rousseau: ¶ 0163 and Fig. 10).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits, Mateen and Clayton are discussed in the rejection of claim 25, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 27, the claimed subject matter that is met by Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits, Mateen, Clayton and Rousseau includes:
wherein the first graphically displayed button displays a first symbol and the second graphically displayed button displays a second symbol (Rousseau: ¶ 0163 and Fig. 10).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits, Mateen and Clayton are discussed in the rejection of claim 25, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 37, the claimed subject matter that is met by Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits, Mateen, Clayton and Rousseau includes:
further comprising receiving, based upon (i) secondary manual validation by the operator as to the plurality of casino chips, a first input from the operator which confirms the plurality of casino chips of each denomination and the value (Shigeta: ¶¶ 0054), or (ii) a second input by the operator comprising at least one of input of a first graphically displayed button or a second graphically displayed button associated with a first graphical indicator of the graphical indicator of all potential casino chip denominations, wherein the second input changes ta number of casino chips associated with a first denomination and which changes the total value of the plurality of casino chips (Clayton: Fig. 10E and Rousseau: ¶ 0163 and Fig. 10).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Shigeta, Gronau, Csulits, Mateen and Clayton are discussed in the rejection of claim 25, and are incorporated herein.
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 Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights