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 .
Status of Claims
In response to the Amendment filed on May 2nd, 2025, claims 1-44 and 49 have been cancelled. Claims 50-55 are newly added. Claims 45-48 and 50-55 are currently 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 45-48 and 50-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 45-48 and 50-55 are drawn to a system (machine).
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
However, under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process.
Let us begin by considering the requirements of each independent claim:
Thus, let us take Claim 45 as exemplary:
45. A game management system for managing casino games played in a play hall, the game management system comprising:
at least one sensor; and
at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
manage a plurality of game tables (mental process: concepts performed in the human mind including observations and evaluations such as observing game tables);
determine a respective win-loss result of each of a plurality of games at each of the game tables (mental process: concepts performed in the human mind including observations and evaluations such as observing the results of games);
based on output of the at least one sensor, for each of the games at each of the game tables, for each of a plurality of player positions of the respective game table, detect and store respective positions, types, and numbers of gaming chips that are respectively placed for the respective player position on a bet area of the game table (mental process: concepts performed in the human mind including observations and evaluations such as observing the positions and chips on a game table);
associate each of the player positions for which respective ones of the gaming chips have been detected with a respective game participant (mental process: concepts performed in the human mind including observations and evaluations such as observing the positions and chips on a game table); and
for each of the game participants:
based on the determined win-loss results and detected respective positions, types, and numbers of gaming chips, determine a respective winning or losing amount (mental process: concepts performed in the human mind including observations and evaluations such as observing the results of games);
ascertain respective purchase information and selling information about the gaming chips at a predetermined time or in a predetermined period (mental process: concepts performed in the human mind including observations and evaluations such as observing a player purchasing or selling chips); and
perform addition or subtraction of (a) the respective purchase information and the selling information and (b) the respective winning or losing amount to ascertain a balance of the gaming chips owned by the respective game participant at a predetermined timing (mental process: concepts performed in the human mind including observations and evaluations such as calculating a total amount of chips).
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, independent claim 45 covers the performance of the limitations in the mind, aside from the reference to a generic computer or computer components (e.g. at least one sensor, at least one processor).
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 45 recites the additional elements of a sensor and a processor. The sensor and processor are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a generic sensor performing generic functions like detecting; a processor performing generic computer functions like receiving, storing, and processing data) and do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply invoking machinery as a tool to perform an existing process in their ordinary capacity (i.e. a sensor for detecting and a processor for processing data). In other words, the claims invoke the sensor and processor merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Furthermore, the use of the sensor may be considered insignificant extra solution activity as it is merely gathering data for use in the abstract idea and does not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. The processor is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic device performing generic computer functions like gathering, processing, and storing data), is generically recited, and does not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, storing the detected respective positions, types, and numbers of gaming chips is insignificant extra solution activity and does not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concept, i.e. significantly more. Independent claim 45 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the sensor and processor are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic devices performing generic functions like gathering, receiving, processing, andstoring data) and simply amount to mere tools to execute the abstract idea or simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The additional elements that were considered insignificant extra solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional. Specifically:
gather[ing] data is well understood, routine, and conventional [MPEP 2106.05(d)]
store[ing] data is well understood, routine, and conventional [MPEP 21060.05(d)]
display[ing] data is well understood, routine, and conventional [MPEP 2106.05(d)]
the combination of these additional elements is also well-known, routine, and conventional: gather[ing] data, store[ing] data, display[ing] data [MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.07(a)]
Using a sensor to detect respective positions, types, and numbers of those of the gaming chips that are respectively placed, by respective ones of at least one game participant, on a bet area of the game table, storing that data, and outputting the data is well-known, routine, and conventional
The combination of additional elements adds nothing that is not already present when considered separately. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims
Claims 46-48 and 50-55 inherit the same abstract idea as claim 45.
Claims 46-48 and 50-55 recite additional determining, recognizing, camera, associating, ascertaining, outputting, and detecting limitations that, under their BRI, fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas and/or are additional elements that are generically recited, and do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and merely using a computer/device as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional, as would flow naturally from the similar recitations discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Soltys et al. (US 7,771,272 B2)- a system for monitoring activities on a gaming table
Grauzer et al. (US 2007/0057469 A1)- gaming table activity sensing
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11:00 AM EST to 7:00 PM EST.
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 on (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.
/ALLEN CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 8/8/2026
Prosecution Insights