Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to Application No. 19/045,221 filed on 02/04/2025.
3. Claims 25 and 26 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-24 are cancelled.
4. This application is a continuation U.S. application No. 17/283,672 filed on 04/08/2021 now US Pat. No. 11,450,173 See MPEP 201.07. In accordance with MPEP 609.02 A.2 and MPEP 2001.06 (b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP 2001.06 (b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Patent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP 609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Patent Application is relevant in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. IDSs are considered.
6. Drawings filed on 02/04/2025 are noted.
Double Patenting
7. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970);and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 of US application no. 19/045,221 recites:
A chip tray system for gaming chips used at a gaming table, wherein the gaming chip has a built-in-radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag for identifying a value of the gaming chip, the chip tray system comprising:
A tray configured to store one or more gaming chips;
One or more RFID readers configured to read, using at least one RFID antenna, one or more RFID tags of the one or more gaming chips stored in the tray to obtain a reading result; and
A display configured to display the reading result to a dealer to show a quantity and/or a total value of gaming chips in the chip tray.
Claim 1 of US Pat. No. 11,450,173 recites:
A dual-chip tray system for use at a gaming table, the dual-chip tray system comprising:
A lower tray configured to store a first set of one or more gaming chips that each have a built-in-radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag;
An upper tray configured to be staked on the lower tray and store a second set of one or more gaming chips that each have a built-in RFID tag; and
One or more RFIG readers configured to read, using at least one RFID antenna, one or more RFID tags of the first set of one or more gaming chips stored in the lower tray and one or more RFID tags of the second set of one or more gaming chips stored in the upper tray.
The difference between claim 1 of application no. 19/045,221 and claim 1 of US Pat No. 11,450,173 is the limitation of: a dual-chip tray, a lower tray, and an upper tray.
Claims 25-26 of application no. 19/037,697 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Pat. No.11,450,173. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to those in possession of the invention to observe all the features claimed in instant claims 25-26 are being disclosed by claims 1-20 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,450,173. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that by omitting the limitations of: ”a dual-chip tray, a lower tray, and an upper tray” is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PIERRE E ELISCA whose telephone number is (571) 272-6706. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday; 6:30AM- 5:30PM. Hoteler.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Hu Kang can be reached on 571 270 1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PIERRE E ELISCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
