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 02/07/2025.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 02/07/2025 are noted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“chip determination device” in claims 1-8;
“artificial intelligence device” in claims 2 and 9;
“second artificial intelligence device” in claim 5;
“determination device” in claim 9; and
any other claimed “device” in conjunction with functional language that may have been inadvertently omitted from the list above.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 9 recites “a certain number” and “a certain level”. The term “certain” is a term of degree for which neither the claims nor the specification supply a standard. Clarification and correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “a state of the state” and “the recorded target”. A state of the state is incoherent. The recorded target lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, “chip determination device,” “artificial intelligence device,” “second artificial intelligence device,” and “determination device” in claims 1-9. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. For the computer implemented functions – analyzing the image to determine the number and type of chips, self-determining accuracy, and determining the cause of an unclear determination – the corresponding structure must be a general purpose computer plus the algorithm that performs the function. The function of “determining whether a cause of the unclear determination is a state where the chips…overlap each other or a state where a part of or an entire single chip is hidden” is described only by its result. The specification, at para. [0046], only states that the device “may include an artificial intelligence device which performs an image recognition by a deep learning technology for example.” The specification does not disclose how the image is analyzed to arrive at the number and type of chips.
Therefore, claims 1 -9 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above under Section 112(b), the specification does not provide adequate structure to perform the claim limitations for the artificial intelligence device, chip determination device of “determining whether a cause of the unclear determination is a state where the chips…overlap each other or a state where a part of or an entire single chip is hidden,” and how the image is analyzed to arrive at the number and type of chips. The specification does not demonstrate that the Applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Double Patenting
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. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 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); 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) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,254,737 in view of U.S. Patent 6,532,297 B1 to Lindquist. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences are limited to the addition of features that are variants of the patented subject matter. The differences in the claims as shown below utilize obvious variants in terms and limitations. However these differences do not amount to a patentably difference because they are both referencing substantially the same subject matter. For at least these reasons, the claims are not found to be patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application: 19/048,593
U.S. Patent 12,254,737
Similarities and Differences
1. A recognition system of a chip in a game parlor where a game table is provided, comprising:
a game recording device which records a state of chips stacked on the game table as an image using a camera; and
a chip determination device which analyzes the image of the recorded state of the chips to determine a number and a type of the chips bet by a player,
wherein the chip determination device further has a function of storing a characteristic of an image of a predetermined state of the chip and of outputting and displaying the fact of an unclear determination as a determination result when it is determined that the image obtained from the game recording device is the image of the predetermined state at the time of determining.
1. A recognition system of a chip in a game parlor where a game table is provided, the recognition system comprising:
a game recording device configured to record a state of chips stacked on the game table as an image captured by a camera diagonally from above the game table, wherein the game recording device is configured to assign a tag to the image, the tag specifying the state of the chips;
and a chip determination device configured to use an artificial intelligence to analyze the image of the state of the chips to make a determination of a number and a type of the chips bet by a player based at least in part on the tag,
wherein the chip determination device further has a function of self-determining an accuracy of the determination of the number and the type of the chips,
wherein the chip determination device is further configured to, if the accuracy is equal to or less than a threshold level, display an indicator of an unclear determination as a determination result of the function.
Both claims recite a chip recognition system at a game table, using a camera to record stacked chips, determine the number and type of chips bet by a player and provide an unclear/uncertain determination record.
The difference is that current claim 1 requires chip determination device to store a characteristic of an image of a predetermined state and to output/display an unclear determination when the acquired image is determined to be that predetermined-state image. Linquist teaches chip recognition and storing a classification scheme containing characteristics such chip geometry, pattern, and size and comparing a captured image of stacked chips against those stored characteristics, and assigning an undefined result when the image does not confirm to the to the stored classification characteristics. (Col. 3:60-Col.4:55, Col. 6:40-65). It would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention defined by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12, 254,737 to include the storing and classification characteristics as disclosed by Linquist as such a combination applies known image-classification techniques to the same problem – avoiding an incorrect chip-number and type determination when an image cannot reliably be classified.
2. The recognition system of the chip according to claim 1, wherein the chip determination device includes an artificial intelligence device, the artificial intelligence device learns a plurality of images used in a past determination in a case where there is an error in determination in the chip determination device as training data, and
the chip determination device further has a function of self-determining a determination accuracy on the basis of an image where there is an error in a determination result as a result of the learning, and of outputting and displaying the fact of an unclear determination that there is a doubt in determination as the determination result.
2. The recognition system of the chip according to claim 1, wherein: the chip determination device includes an artificial intelligence device, the artificial intelligence device configured to learn a plurality of images as training data, each image of the plurality of images used in a past determination in a case where there is an error in determination by the chip determination device.
Both sets of claims recite substantially the same subject matter concerning determining uncertainty/accuracy of chip recognition.
3. The recognition system of the chip according to claim 2,
wherein the chip determination device further has a function of analyzing an image of the game recording device in a case where the self-determination is unclear,
determining whether a cause of the unclear determination is a state where the chips stacked on the game table overlap each other or a state where a part of or an entire single chip is hidden by other chips, and stores the cause.
3. The recognition system of the chip according to claim 2,
wherein: the chip determination device further has a function of analyzing the image of the game recording device in a case where the self-determination is unclear,
determining whether a cause of the unclear determination is the state in which the chips stacked on the game table overlap each other or a part of or an entire single chip is hidden by other chips, and the chip determination device is further configured to store the cause.
Both sets of claims recite substantially the same subject matter concerning analyzing image of game chips and cause of unclear determination.
4. The recognition system of the chip according to claim 1, wherein the game recording device assigns an index or a time to an image acquired from the camera, or assigns a tag which specifies a stacking state of the chips such that the record of the game can be analyzed subsequently by the chip determination device.
4. The recognition system of the chip according to claim 1, wherein the game recording device is configured to assign an index or a time to the image acquired from the camera, such that the image can be analyzed subsequently by the chip determination device based at least in part on the index or the time.
Both sets of claims recite substantially the same subject matter concerning assigning an index or time to an image.
5. The recognition system of the chip according to claim 1,
wherein the chip determination device includes a second artificial intelligence device, and the second artificial intelligence device learns a plurality of images used in a past determination in a case where the chip determination device makes a correct determination and information of the chip as training data.
5. The recognition system of the chip according to claim 1, wherein the chip determination device includes a second artificial intelligence device, and the second artificial intelligence device is configured to learn a plurality of images as training data, each image of the plurality of images used in a past determination in a case where the chip determination device made a correct determination of the chip.
Both sets of claims recite substantially the same subject matter concerning using a second AI device for chip analysis.
6. The recognition system of the chip according to claim 1, wherein the chip determination device analyzes an image recorded by a camera different from the camera in a case where a self-determination is unclear to determine the number and the type of the chips bet by the player.
6. The recognition system of the chip according to claim 1, wherein the chip determination device is configured to analyze an image recorded by another camera that is different from the camera in a case where a self-determination by the chip determination device, and based on the image of the camera, is unclear to determine the number and the type of the chips bet by the player.
Both sets of claims recite substantially the same subject matter concerning analyzing an image from another camera different from the first camera.
7. The recognition system of the chip according to claim 1, wherein the chip determination device determines that it is the image of the predetermined state in a case where a next chip is recognized while a certain number of chips or more in a vertical direction are not recognized, and outputs and displays the fact of the unclear determination as a determination result.
7. The recognition system of the chip according to claim 1, wherein the chip determination device is configured to, based on analysis of the image, in a case where a chip of the chips is recognized while a threshold number or more of other chips of the chips, in a vertical direction with respect to the chip that is recognized, are not recognized, output or display an indicator of the unclear determination as the determination result.
Both sets of claims recite substantially the same subject matter concerning the condition in which a chip is recognized.
8. The recognition system of the chip according to claim 1, wherein the chip determination device compares a number of chips determined from a height of the chips and a number determined by analyzing an image of a state of the chips, and in a case where the numbers are different, the chip determination device determines that it is the image of the predetermined state, and outputs and displays the fact of an unclear determination as a determination result.
8. The recognition system of the chip according to claim 1, wherein the chip determination device is configured to: compare a number of chips determined from a height of the chips and a number determined by analyzing the image, and in a case where the numbers are different: determine that the image includes the state of the chips, and output and display the indicator of the unclear determination as the determination result.
Both sets of claims recite substantially the same subject matter concerning comparing a chip count determined from a chip height with a chip count determined from image analysis.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,254,737. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim 9 anticipate the more generic or broader claim now pending (instant Claim 9). That is, the rationale of In re Goodman applies here in that once Applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, Applicant is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent. Patented Claim 9 recites substantive limitations of current claim 9: camera-based recording device, an AI determination device determining the number of targets by type, learning from past determination results, self-determining accuracy, determining doubt when accuracy is at or below a threshold, and outputting/displaying an unclear determination. Patent Claim 9 additionally limits the system to an image captured diagonally from above a game table and requires a tag identifying target state with the determination based at least partly on the tag. Those additional limitations renders patented claim 9 a narrower embodiment within the broader scope of current claim 9.
Instant Application: 19/048,593
U.S. Patent 12,254,737
Similarities and Differences
9. A recognition system which has a plurality of types of determination targets, determines a target for each type to determine a number of the targets for each type, comprising:
a recording device which records a state of the state as an image using a camera; and
a determination device including an artificial intelligence device which analyzes the image of the recorded target to determine the number of the types of the targets,
wherein the determination device has learnt a past determination result as training data and has a function of self-determining an accuracy in determination, and a function of self-determining that there is a doubt in a determination result in a case the accuracy is equal to or less than a certain level and of outputting and displaying the fact of an unclear determination as the determination result.
9. A recognition system comprising:
a recording device configured to record, using a camera,
a state of an image captured by a camera diagonally from above a game table, the image including a target, wherein the recording device is configured to assign a tag to the image, the tag specifying the state of the target; and
a determination device including an artificial intelligence device configured to analyze the image to determine, for each determination target type of a plurality of determination target types, a number of determination targets having the target type, based at least in part on the tag,
wherein the determination device has learnt a past determination result as training data and has: a function of self-determining an accuracy in a determination of the artificial intelligence device based on analyzing the image, and a function of: self-determining that there is a doubt in the determination based on the accuracy less than or equal to a threshold level, and
outputting and displaying an indicator of an unclear determination as a determination result of the artificial intelligence device.
Both claim a recognition system with multiple determination target types. Both use a camera based recording device, an AI determination device to determine a number of targets or each type, both learn from past determination results, both self-determine accuracy, and both determine doubt when accuracy is at/below a threshold and output/display an unclear result.
The difference lies in the fact that patented claim 9 is a narrower embodiment falling within the broader scope of current claim 9.
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
