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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rouillard (US 2016/0001170).
Claim 1: Rouillard teaches a game-table computer device configured to manage proceeding of a card game that uses a game table provided with a reading device (230) configured to read card information on cards dealt into a play area (¶ 38), the computer device comprising: a storage unit configured to store rule information on the card game (¶ 21); and a detection control unit (¶ 24, central processor 240) configured to detect an error about dealing of the cards based on a result of comparison between the card information and the rule information and record or output the detected error (¶ 24, 38-39).
Claim 2: Rouillard teaches a game-table computer device configured to manage proceeding of a card game that uses a game table provided with a reading device (¶ 38, table sensors (230)) and a notification device (¶ 25 – “indicators 360 such as LEDs 365 and a speaker 370), the reading device being configured to read card information on cards dealt into a play area (¶ 38), the computer device comprising: a storage unit configured to store rule information on the card game (¶ 21); and a first notification control unit (¶ 24, central processor 240) configured to detect an error about dealing of the cards based on a result of comparison between the card information and the rule information and cause the notification device to provide notification of a status of occurrence of the error (¶ 24, 38-39).
Claim 3: Rouillard teaches, wherein the card information includes a face or back (rank), a position, and a type (suit) of each of the cards (¶ 31, 37-39).
Claim 5: Rouillard teaches wherein a plurality of card placement areas are provided for placing the cards, and the notification device is provided corresponding to each of the card placement areas (¶ 25, 36).
Claim 6: Rouillard teaches a game-table computer device configured to manage proceeding of a card game that uses a game table provided with a reading device (¶ 38, table sensors (230)) and a notification device (¶ 25 – “indicators 360 such as LEDs 365 and a speaker 370), the reading device being configured to read card information on cards dealt into a play area (¶ 38), the computer device comprising: a storage unit configured to store rule information on the card game (¶ 21); and a second notification control unit configured to generate navigation information for navigating a dealer through the proceeding of the card game based on a result of comparison between the card information and the rule information and cause the notification device to provide notification of the navigation information (¶ 24, 38-39).
Claim 7: Rouillard teaches, wherein the notification device includes a light emission unit and/or a sound notification unit provided in the play area (¶ 25, 36), and the second notification control unit switches the light emission unit between different light emitting patterns and/or the sound notification unit between different sound patterns for different kinds of the navigating (¶ 38).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouillard (US 2016/0001170) in view of Akitani (JP 2021007488 A)(please refer to JP2021007488A English Translation found at https://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=JP&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=2021007488&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=ja&TRGLANG=en and attached as a PDF herein).
Claim 4: Rouillard teaches the above, in addition to wherein the notification device includes a light emission unit and/or a sound notification unit provided in the play area (¶ 25, 36), and the first notification control unit switches the light emission unit and/or the sound notification unit for different kinds of errors (¶ 35-36 and 38). An analogous art of Akitani teaches a notification control unit that switches a light emission unit between different light emitting patterns for different kinds of errors (¶ 3281-3286, 3330-3331). 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 the game table computer device of Rouillard with the different light emitting patterns means of Akitani because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of indicating different types of errors in which at least Rouillard is intended (see above). Such a modification would make it to notify the operator thereof of the type of error more easily (Akitani – ¶ 3330-3331).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouillard (US 2016/0001170).
Claim 8: Rouillard teaches a system including a computer device (¶ 24 – “a central processor 240. Although such a central processor 240 is not necessary, as any of the individual components 210, 220, 230 may include sufficient processing power to accomplish the tasks hereof, many casinos utilize central processors 240 and servers and the like to monitor and/or process data from various tables. In this regard, the central processor 240 may be built into any of the above discussed components, or into the table itself, or may be included in a stand-alone computer system as would be understood. For the purposes hereof, it will be understood that substantive processing may be handled at a table, e.g., by the shoe 210 or by a processor built into or associated with the table, such that the central processor 240 merely monitors actions at the table and/or is alerted to problems at the table. Alternatively, substantive processing may be offloaded to the central processor 240, or there may be a combination of substantive processing in various locations.”), the computer device being configured to manage proceeding of a card game that uses a game table provided with a reading device (¶ 230) configured to read card information on cards dealt into a play area (¶ 38), the system comprising in at least either of the computer device and the server: a storage unit configured to store rule information on the card game (¶ 21); and a detection control unit (¶ 24, central processor 240 the central processor can be a stand alone computer system which has a processor) configured to detect an error about dealing of the cards based on a result of comparison between the card information and the rule information and record or output the detected error (¶ 24, 38-39).
Rouillard teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the system, additionally including a server. Rouillard teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 42). Additionally, Rouillard teaches that many casinos utilize central processors 240 and servers and the like to monitor and/or process data from various tables (¶ 24). 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 the system of Rouillard to additionally include a server as taught by Rouillard because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of monitoring and/or processing data from various casino tables in which at least Rouillard is intended (Abstract). Such a modification being considered mere routine to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (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 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights