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 Objections
Claims 2, 5-8, 12-14, 16, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2, “the emission from the light sources” should read “an emission from the light sources”.
Claim 5, line 3, “a chip counting tray” should read “the chip counting tray”.
Claim 6, line 3, “the threshold” should read “a threshold”.
Claim 7, line 4, “the casino” should read “a casino”.
Claim 8, line 4, “the chip counting tray” should read “a chip counting tray”.
Claim 8, line 11, “the tray” should read “the chip counting tray”.
Claim 12, line 2, “a chip counting tray” should read “the chip counting tray”.
Claim 13, line 2, “the threshold” should read “a threshold”.
Claim 14, line 3, “the casino” should read “a casino”.
Claim 16, line 3, “the chip counting tray” should read “a chip counting tray”.
Claim 16, line 8, “the tray” should read “the chip counting tray”.
Claim 18, line 4, “a chip counting tray” should read “the chip counting tray”.
Claim 19, line 3, “the threshold” should read “a threshold”.
Claim 20, line 4, “the casino” should read “a casino”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, 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 Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 8 and 16, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
A system for an automated casino flow processing based on chip movement-related data, comprising: a processor of a casino flow management server node connected over a blockchain network to at least one chip counting tray; and a memory on which are stored machine-readable instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: acquire chip count data from the chip counting tray; associate each counted chip with a blockchain digital asset comprising a casino token; record the digital asset on a blockchain ledger along with a current location indicator reflecting a casino table and the chip counting tray where the counted chip is located; detect a movement of the counted chip in and out of the tray and update the location indicator on the blockchain ledger; continue to monitor the chip count data from the chip counting tray and record the chip count data on the blockchain; and provide current chip count data to a mobile blockchain node associated with a managing entity.
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 8 and 16) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., computer, processor, generic tray with counter, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping;
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Accounting (e.g., “chip count data, tracking chip count data, recording chip count data, providing chip count data to managing entity, etc.”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. These limitations are interpreted as at least Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
D. Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., “acquiring chip count data, detect a movement of the counted chip in and out of the tray, continue to monitor chip count data, etc.”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Mental Processes. These limitations are interpreted as at least Mental Processes insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to steps/concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claims further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Mental Processes and/or Fundamental Economic Principles. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Mental Processes and/or Fundamental Economic Principles to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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 1-20 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, 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 claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “computer, processor, generic tray with counter”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, in order to be eligible the claims would require structure that is beyond generic. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of generic tray with counter are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement counting of chips in a casino as referenced by Michiyasu Hikita (US 4646767 A; hereinafter Hikita). Hikita discloses that a conventional counter with a hopper is used to count coins in a casino (col 1 lines 5-11). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
In regards to the use of blockchain technology, the additional limitations link the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use, in this case, a blockchain environment or system. The recitation of generic blockchain technology does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception because the blockchain is merely used as a technological environment in which the abstract idea is implemented, without requiring a particular technological improvement to the blockchain itself. Thus, the addition of the blockchain limitations amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment [R-10.2019].
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 20070184898 A1; hereinafter Miller) in view of JACKSON et al. (US 20230205849 A1; hereinafter Jackson) in view of Ramos et al. (US 20210097484 A1; hereinafter Ramos).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 16, Miller discloses a system for an automated casino flow processing based on chip movement-related data, comprising: a processor of a casino flow management server node (processor being used with computing device; ¶35) at least one chip counting tray (tray to count; ¶14); and a memory on which are stored machine-readable instructions that when executed by the processor (inherent to a computer; ¶35), cause the processor to: acquire chip count data from the chip counting tray (count chips from tray; ¶34); detect a movement of the counted chip in and out of the tray (number of coins are counted in real time as they move; ¶34); continue to monitor the chip count data from the chip counting tray (this is done is real time and more coins can come or go and it will be updated in real time; ¶34).
Miller fully discloses the tray counting the chips and keeping track of the chips, but Miller does not explicitly disclose implementing the chip count data through a Blockchain network, such as connecting over a blockchain network to at least one chip counting tray; associate each counted chip with a blockchain digital asset comprising a casino token; record the digital asset on a blockchain ledger along with a current location indicator reflecting a casino table and the chip counting tray where the counted chip is located; update the location indicator on the blockchain ledger when chips are moved; record the chip count data on the blockchain when updates happen; and provide current chip count data to a mobile blockchain node associated with a managing entity.
However, Jackson teaches connecting over a blockchain network (server connected to blockchain network to track assets; ¶46 and ¶52); associate each counted chip with a blockchain digital asset comprising a casino token (physical assets with RFID can be stored in the blockchain by converting them to NFTs and this includes counted chips with RFIDs; ¶14); record the digital asset on a blockchain ledger along with a current location indicator reflecting a casino table and the chip counting tray where the counted chip is located (the data of the digital asset in the blockchain includes location data; ¶30); update the location indicator on the blockchain ledger when chips are moved (by design it tracks the assets in abstract); record the chip count data on the blockchain when updates happen (again, by design this is supposed to track the asset over time because it has the history of modifications to the asset saved in the blockchain and any new modifications will be there; ¶30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller to implement the teachings of Jackson because by keeping track of currency inside a blockchain you create an immutable transaction history that allows you to fully track each of the counted chips. These records can’t be changed and there will be a visible record of every transaction made.
In regards to providing current chip count data to a mobile blockchain node associated with a managing entity, this is just providing data to the blockchain, regardless of where this data comes from, it will have the same result. In this case the data is directed to current chip data, which is inventory data. Ramos teaches providing inventory data to a mobile blockchain node associated with a managing entity (using mobile application software in connection to the blockchain in ¶17 and provide current count of inventory to user responsible for stocking the storage location; ¶41).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller to implement the teachings of Ramos because by keeping track of inventory, any managing entity will know whether there needs to be a refill or redistribution of chips throughout the casino.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Miller discloses wherein the chip counting tray comprises a plurality of light sources (plurality of lights; ¶40 and ¶47) and at least one panel of photo-transistor pairs configured to detect the emission from the light sources (diode detector 33 can be implemented using photo transistors and detection of light is how they are designed; ¶46).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, Miller does not disclose wherein the machine-readable instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to continually monitor the chip count data recorded on the blockchain to compare the chip count data against a threshold set for a chip counting tray located on the casino table.
However, again this is just providing data to the blockchain, regardless of where this data comes from, it will have the same result. In this case the data is directed to current chip data, which is inventory data. In this scenario applicant is using inventory data in the form of chip count data from a counting tray on the casino table, but data used in a blockchain can come from any source. Ramos teaches wherein the machine-readable instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to continually monitor the inventory data recorded on the blockchain to compare the inventory data against a threshold set (the system monitors the count of inventory and waits until a threshold number is received in order to have sufficient accurate data; ¶33).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller to implement the teachings of Ramos because by keeping track of inventory, any managing entity will know whether there needs to be a refill or redistribution of chips throughout the casino.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Miller does not disclose wherein the machine-readable instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to, responsive to the chip count data recorded on the blockchain exceeding or falling below the threshold, dispatch an alert notification to the mobile blockchain node associated with the managing indicating that chips need to be added to or moved out of the chip counting tray.
However, again this is just providing data to the blockchain, regardless of where this data comes from, it will have the same result. In this case the data is directed to current chip data, which is inventory data. In this scenario applicant is using inventory data in the form of chip count data from a counting tray on the casino table, but data used in a blockchain can come from any source. Ramos teaches wherein the machine-readable instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to, responsive to the inventory data recorded on the blockchain exceeding or falling below the threshold, dispatch an alert notification to the mobile blockchain node associated with the managing entity (an alert is sent when inventory falls below a threshold quantity; ¶41).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller to implement the teachings of Ramos because by keeping track of inventory, any managing entity will know whether there needs to be a refill or redistribution of chips throughout the casino.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Jackson in view of Ramos as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Bodenmiller (US 20240346482 A1; hereinafter Bodenmiller).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Miller does not disclose wherein the machine-readable instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to mint an NFT for each of the counted chips and record the NFT on a blockchain digital wallet associated with the chip counting tray.
However, Bodenmiller teaches wherein the machine-readable instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to mint an NFT for each of the counted chips (generating NFTs for each of the assets that have RFIDs, which will include chips with RFIDs; ¶17 and ¶30) and record the NFT on a blockchain digital wallet associated with the chip counting tray (wallet address for NFT; ¶15).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller to implement the teachings of Jackson because an NFT provides a unique digital representation and record for an individual physical asset, which will help us to keep track of each asset (in this case, counted chips) inside of the blockchain network.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Jackson in view of Ramos as applied to claims 1, 8, and 16 above, and further in view of YANTIS et al. (US 20220058636 A1; hereinafter Yantis).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17, Miller does not disclose wherein the machine-readable instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to transfer the casino token to a digital wallet of a player who won the chip associated with the casino token.
However, Yantis focuses on a tokenization platform that turns real items into tradable digital tokens, which supports casino-style gaming. Yantis teaches wherein the machine-readable instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to transfer the casino token to a digital wallet of a player who won the chip associated with the casino token (player winning allows it to transfer token to their digital wallet; ¶948).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller to implement the teachings of Jackson because by keeping track of currency inside a blockchain you create an immutable transaction history that allows you to fully track each of the counted chips or chips won by players. These records can’t be changed and there will be a visible record of every transaction made.
Claims 7, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Jackson in view of Ramos as applied to claims 1, 8, and 16 above, and further in view of Xin SHI (US 20200327485 A1; hereinafter Shi).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Miller does not disclose wherein the machine-readable instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to provide the chip count data to a machine-learning module configured to generate predictive chip allocation parameters for a plurality of chip counting trays throughout the casino.
However, this is just providing data to the machine learning module, regardless of where this data comes from, it will have the same result. In this case the data is directed to current chip data, which is inventory data. In this scenario applicant is using inventory data in the form of chip count data from a counting tray on the casino table, but data used in a machine learning module can come from any source. Shi teaches wherein the machine-readable instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to provide the inventory data to a machine-learning module (machine learning model used with data to optimize inventory; ¶1 and ¶57) configured to generate predictive chip allocation parameters (optimizing allocation parameters; abstract and ¶31).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller to implement the teachings of Shi because it will allow a location to know when they are short on stock and anticipate how many units they will need in the future and where. This prevents inventory shortages (in this case chips) and also reduces excess in inventory.
Regarding claim 15, Miller does not disclose further comprising generating staff assignment parameters based on the predictive chip allocation parameters.
However, this is just providing data to the machine learning module, regardless of where this data comes from, it will have the same result. In this case the data is directed to current chip data, which is inventory data. In this scenario applicant is using inventory data in the form of chip count data from a counting tray on the casino table, but data used in a machine learning module can come from any source. Shi teaches further comprising generating staff assignment parameters based on the predictive inventory allocation parameters (employees having an assigned process in ¶60 and this is based on allocated parameters because this optimization to allocate the products in ¶31 will make one of ordinary skill in the art understand that employees have different assigned processes in response to the allocation of products).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller to implement the teachings of Shi because it will allow a location to know when they are short on stock and anticipate how many units they will need in the future and where, which also allows them to send their staff to the location they need them in. This prevents inventory shortages (in this case chips), reduces excess in inventory, and sends staff to the right locations they need to be at.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8am-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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/JOSE ANGELES/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights