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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 04/24/2025.
The Examiner acknowledges the preliminary amendment filed on 04/24/2025 in which amendments were submitted.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 01/17/2025 are noted.
Claims 2-21 are pending.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 2-21 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html).
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a table game in claims 2-20 and a system in claim 21. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention (STEP 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The limitations of each independent claim recites limitations which can be practically performed in the human mind through mental processes (for example, observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion)(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). They also recite a series of steps that are certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including following rules or instructions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human dealer or pit boss can observe which seat a player is nearest and open a player session for that seat. In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The limitations of the independent and dependent claims include the following abstract ideas below in italicized claim language:
Independent Claim 2 and its dependent claims 3-20 recites “2. (New) A table game, comprising:
a plurality of antennas (additional element) distributed around a table at a plurality of locations, respectively, such that a first antenna (additional element) in the plurality of antennas coincides with a first table position and a second antenna (additional element) in the plurality of antennas coincides with a second table position; and
at least one logic device (additional element) communicatively coupled with the first antenna and the second antenna, wherein the at least one logic device creates and manages a first player session for a first player at the first table position based on a first mobile device of the first player being closer to the first antenna as compared to the second antenna, and wherein the at least one logic device creates and manages a second player session for a second player at the second table position based on a second mobile device of the second player being closer to the second antenna as compared to the first antenna (abstract idea: mental process – including observation, judgment, and evaluation; certain methods of organizing human activity including managing interactions between people and administering a player’s account),
wherein the first player session is maintained as long as the first mobile device remains within a predetermined proximity of the first antenna (abstract idea: mental process – including observation, judgment, and evaluation – a person can observe whether the player is still at the seat and keep the session open),
wherein the predetermined proximity is determined based on a strength of a signal between the first mobile device and the first antenna (abstract idea: mental process – including observation, judgment, and evaluation),
wherein the strength of the signal is determined by the at least one logic device and is compared to a strength threshold such that the first player session is maintained as long as the strength of the signal is greater than or equal to the strength threshold (abstract idea: mental process – comparing a value to a threshold and a reaching a judgment),
wherein the strength threshold is determined based on a walk-away detection threshold (abstract idea: mental process – including evaluation) received from a management server (additional element),
wherein the strength threshold corresponds to a percentage of an initial signal strength measured between the first mobile device and the first antenna when the first player session is created (abstract idea: mental process – including observation, judgment, and evaluation),
wherein the strength of the signal is measured continuously and compared to the strength threshold periodically (abstract idea: mental process – including repeating an observation and comparison at intervals),
wherein the strength of the signal is measured periodically and compared to the strength threshold periodically (abstract idea: mental process – including repeating an observation and comparison at intervals),
wherein the strength of the signal is determined (abstract idea: mental process – including evaluation ) by the first mobile device (additional element),
wherein information exchanged between a table management system server and the first mobile device as part of creating the first player session passes through the at least one logic device (additional element),
wherein information exchanged between the table management system server and the second mobile device as part of creating the second player session passes through the at least one logic device (additional element),
wherein information exchanged between a table management system server and the first mobile device as part of creating the first player session bypasses the at least one logic device (additional element),
wherein the first mobile device receives information describing the first table position based on an interaction with the first antenna and then transmits the information describing the first table position (abstract idea: mental process – including observation, judgment, and evaluation) to the table management system server (additional element),
wherein the at least one logic device comprises a single logic device (additional element),
wherein the single logic device is physically positioned on the table (additional element),
wherein the single logic device is positioned remote from the table, the first antenna, and the second antenna (additional element),
wherein the single logic device comprises a first port and a second port, wherein the first antenna communicates with the single logic device via the first port, and wherein the second antenna communicates with the single logic device via the second port (additional element),
wherein the at least one logic device comprises a plurality of logic devices (additional element), and
wherein the first antenna comprises a first beacon that transmits a first identifier to the first mobile device, wherein the first identifier is used to create the first player session, wherein the second antenna comprises a second beacon that transmits a second identifier to the second mobile device, and wherein the second identifier is used to create the second player session (additional element).
Independent Claim 21 recites the following: “21. (New) A system, comprising:
a plurality of antennas distributed around an asset of a casino at a plurality of locations, respectively, such that a first antenna in the plurality of antennas coincides with a first position relative to the asset and a second antenna in the plurality of antennas coincides with a second position relative to the asset; and at least one logic device communicatively coupled with the first antenna and the second antenna (additional elements),
wherein the at least one logic device creates and manages a first player session for a first player at the first position based on a first mobile device of the first player being closer to the first antenna as compared to the second antenna (abstract idea: mental process – including observation, judgment, and evaluation; certain methods of organizing human activity including managing interactions between people and administering a player’s account), and
wherein the at least one logic device creates and manages a second player session for a second player at the second position based on a second mobile device of the second player being closer to the second antenna as compared to the first antenna (abstract idea: mental process – including observation, judgment, and evaluation; certain methods of organizing human activity including managing interactions between people and administering a player’s account).”
The steps/limitations identified above are akin to certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, which falls within the groupings of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a));
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda Memo);
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(b);
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and
an additional element applies or uses 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)).
Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are a table game, a plurality of antennas distributed around a table at a plurality of locations, a first antenna, a second antenna, at least one logic device, a first mobile device, a second mobile device, management server and management system server. The logic device, mobile devices, and management servers are recited at a high level of generality as generic tools that perform, or transport the results of the abstract idea. The claims contain no technical detail defining how the logic device determines relative proximity or how the comparison is executed. They recite the result to be achieved rather than a particular way of achieving it. This amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a generic computer environment, i.e. a field of us. MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). The antennas are recited only as the source or receiver of signal. The claims do not recite any particular antenna configuration or any particular way of processing that data to achieve a technical improvement. They are recited to perform insignificant extra-solution data gathering, which but for the generic recitation of the hardware is practically capable of being performed by a human (i.e. observing a seat a player occupies). MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Accordingly, the claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements are indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) by the following considerations:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a));
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda Memo);
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(b);
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and
an additional element applies or uses 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)).
The examiner also evaluates whether the additional elements add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (MPEP 2106.05(d)), which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present.
Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)); generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)); or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo)).
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified under Prong 2, are recited at a high level of generality and perform insignificant extra-solution data gathering, routing, and display/output. The specification further demonstrates that they are recited for their well-understood, routine and conventional functionality. In paragraphs [0018], [0035], [0039], it describes the antenna and logic device arrangement with a typical USB connection between them as the way the existing card-in system already works in electronic gaming machines, the mobile device only has having a processor 322, a memory device 324, and a communication module 326 using previously mentioned wireless protocols, and describes the table management system server 212 as comprising “many of the components identified in fig. 1, such as at least one microprocessor and memory device holding executable instructions,” operating analogously to the game server 126. The above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For at least the above reasons, the claims are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process, certain methods of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
AIA Notice
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 2-5, 8-13, 15-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0113772 A1 to Burrill et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0165232 A1 to Nelson et al.
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited claim 21, (New) Burrill discloses a table game (figs. 1-2 depicts a table game) comprising:
a plurality of antennas distributed around a table at a plurality of locations, respectively, such that a first antenna in the plurality of antennas coincides with a first table position and a second antenna in the plurality of antennas coincides with a second table position (¶¶ [0084]-[0085] discloses each player station or position at the table game may include a respective RFID reader which includes an antenna to detect the presence of a player's card and determine a unique identifier for the detected card. A directional RFID reader could detect that player, and associate him/her to that particular player station. Additionally, in a specific embodiment where the RFID reader is configured as a directional RFID reader, a determination of when a player enters and leaves a seat area may be tracked); and
at least one logic device communicatively coupled with the first antenna and the second antenna, wherein the at least one logic device creates and manages a first player session for a first player at the first table position …, and wherein the at least one logic device creates and manages a second player session for a second player at the second table position …. (fig. 8, ¶¶ [0048]-[0049] discloses intelligent gaming table system 800; intelligent gaming table system 800 includes (e.g., within gaming table housing 810) a master table controller (MTC) 801, and a plurality of player station systems (e.g., 812a-e) which, for example, may be connected to the MTC 801 via at least one switch or hub 808; … ¶¶ [0054], [0058]-[0063] discloses player tracking and managing of various types of information such as automated starting, pausing, and/or editing player tracking sessions at table games; figs. 5A, steps 502-504, ¶¶ [0047] discloses a player occupying a specific seat or player station position may be automatically and passively detected; fig. 7, PPD 700, ¶¶ [0326]-[0330] discloses the PPD may correspond to a player’s PDA, cell phone, and/or handheld computing device and a smart card 650 communicating with a wireless reader over Bluetooth).
Burrill discloses a player with a station by the station reader detecting the player’s card (¶¶ [0047], [0054]-[0063]). However, it does not explicitly disclose create the player session “based on a first mobile device of the first player being closer to the first antenna as compared to the second antenna … and based on a second mobile device of the second player being closer to the second antenna as compared to the first antenna.”
In a related invention, Nelson discloses create the player session “based on a first mobile device of the first player being closer to the first antenna as compared to the second antenna … and based on a second mobile device of the second player being closer to the second antenna as compared to the first antenna (fig. 1A, ¶¶ [0008] discloses the gaming system determines the strength of the wireless signal received from the portable electronic device, and initiates a session with the nearby gaming device … ¶¶ [0024]-[0025] discloses a player of an EGM is a person 20 typically sitting in front of the EGM 10d and the player's portable electronic device 17 is the one that should be wirelessly connected with the EGM 10d as opposed to the portable device 16 belonging to a person, who is not engaged in a game play session, sitting at a bar near the EGM or walking near the EGM, such as patrons 22, 25 shown in FIG. 1A. As the person 20 sitting directly in front of the EGM 10d is closer to the EGM 10d and has a portable device 17 with a stronger signal than the device 16 of the patrons 22, 25 not walking in the aisle, the EGM 10d can use this logic to infer that the portable device 17 with the stronger signal belongs to the player and that the portable device 17 is the one that should be wirelessly connected to the EGM 10d; see also ¶¶ [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the player’s phone detected at the player stations and assigning each player’s session to the station who’s antenna receives that device’s signal more strongly as taught by Nelson in order to further enhance the player tracking system of Burrill to correctly identify each player in their seat/station without using staff. The combination yields the predictable result of per-seat session creation based on proximity.
Regarding Claim 3, (New) Burrill in view of Nelson discloses the table game of claim 2, wherein the first player session is maintained as long as the first mobile device remains within a predetermined proximity of the first antenna (Burrill, ¶¶ [0085], [0092] discloses gaming table system 200 may be operable to automatically and passively detect (502) the presence of Player A, for example, by detecting an RFID signal transmitted from Player A's player tracking card. Thus, in at least one implementation, such player detection may be performed … a determination of when a player enters and leaves a seat area may be tracked … no detection of player at assigned player station .. and no detection of player's player tracking device within predetermined range; ¶¶ [0137]-[0139] discloses a variety of different events may be used to trigger the suspension of a player tracking session … no detection of player at assigned player station …. no detection of player's player tracking device within predetermined range).
Regarding Claim 4, (New) Burrill in view of Nelson discloses the table game of claim 3, wherein the predetermined proximity is determined based on a strength of a signal between the first mobile device and the first antenna (Nelson, fig. 3, steps 112, 114, ¶¶ [0024], [0031] discloses the signal strength from the wireless signal data is monitored, and a wireless communication link between the gaming device and the portable electronic device is initiated after the signal strength exceeds a predetermined threshold level … the wireless connection between the portable electronic device and the EGM can be terminated when the system determines that the signal strength has fallen below a predetermined threshold level. A weakening signal strength can indicate that the portable electronic device is moving away (along with the patron) from the EGM, and that the patron has finished his or her game play session on the EGM).
Regarding Claim 5, (New) Burrill in view of Nelson discloses the table game of claim 4, wherein the strength of the signal is determined by the at least one logic device and is compared to a strength threshold such that the first player session is maintained as long as the strength of the signal is greater than or equal to the strength threshold (Nelson, ¶¶ [0010], [0024] discloses the signal strength from the wireless signal data is monitored, and a wireless communication link between the gaming device and the portable electronic device is initiated after the signal strength exceeds a predetermined threshold level).
Regarding Claim 8, (New) Burrill in view of Nelson discloses the table game of claim 5, wherein the strength of the signal is measured continuously and compared to the strength threshold periodically (Nelson, ¶¶ [0011], [0031]-[0032] discloses continuous monitoring during the session to determine signal strength).
Regarding Claim 9, (New) Burrill in view of Nelson discloses the table game of claim 5, wherein the strength of the signal is measured periodically and compared to the strength threshold periodically (Nelson, ¶¶ [0011], [0031]-[0032] discloses continuous monitoring during the session to determine signal strength).
Regarding Claim 10, (New) Burrill in view of Nelson discloses the table game of claim 4, wherein the strength of the signal is determined by the first mobile device (Nelson, ¶¶ [0008] discloses the gaming system can be configured to establish or end active communication sessions with the portable electronic devices, depending on the strength of the wireless signal received from the portable electronic device).
Regarding Claim 11, (New) Burrill in view of Nelson discloses the table game of claim 2, wherein information exchanged between a table management system server and the first mobile device as part of creating the first player session passes through the at least one logic device (Burrill, fig. 8, ¶¶ [0011], [0048]-[0053] discloses each station’ RFID reader communicates the card identifier to a player tracking or rating system and the stations 812a-3 connect through hub 808 and MTC 801 to the table’s network)(Information exchanged between the backend system and the station therefore passes through the table level logic device).
Regarding Claim 12, (New) Burrill in view of Nelson discloses the table game of claim 11, wherein information exchanged between the table management system server and the second mobile device as part of creating the second player session passes through the at least one logic device Burrill, fig. 8, ¶¶ [0011], [0048]-[0053] discloses each station’ RFID reader communicates the card identifier to a player tracking or rating system and the stations 812a-3 connect through hub 808 and MTC 801 to the table’s network)(Information exchanged between the backend system and the station therefore passes through the table level logic device).
Regarding Claim 13, (New) Burrill in view of Nelson discloses the table game of claim 2, wherein information exchanged between a table management system server and the first mobile device as part of creating the first player session bypasses the at least one logic device (Nelson, ¶¶ [0009] discloses detection information indicating a presence of a portable electronic device in a gaming environment is received via the network interface. The detection information includes wireless signal data transmitted from the portable electronic device).
Regarding Claim 15, (New) Burrill in view of Nelson discloses the table game of claim 2, wherein the at least one logic device comprises a single logic device (Burrill, fig. 8 discloses single master table controller 801 is located within gaming table housing 810).
Regarding Claim 16, (New) Burrill in view of Nelson discloses the table game of claim 15, wherein the single logic device is physically positioned on the table (Burrill, fig. 8 discloses single master table controller 801 is located within gaming table housing 810).
Regarding Claim 17, (New) Burrill in view of Nelson discloses the table game of claim 15, wherein the single logic device is positioned remote from the table, the first antenna, and the second antenna (Burrill, figs. 4 and 8 depicts the remote controller in the table and the network connections).
Regarding Claim 18, (New) Burrill in view of Nelson discloses the table game of claim 15, wherein the single logic device comprises a first port and a second port, wherein the first antenna communicates with the single logic device via the first port, and wherein the second antenna communicates with the single logic device via the second port (Burrill, fig. 8, ¶¶ [0048]-[0053] discloses connecting the plurality of player station systems 812a-e to the controller switch or hub 808).
Regarding Claim 19, (New) Burrill in view of Nelson discloses the table game of claim 2, wherein the at least one logic device comprises a plurality of logic devices (Burrill, fig. 8, ¶¶ [0048]-[0053] discloses each separate RFID reader at each player station is operable to communicate its detection together with MTC 801)(This constitutes a plurality of device).
Claims 6-7, 14, and 20 are not rejected over the prior art. However, the claims are not allowable because they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons cited above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights