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 § 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 21-33 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the ultra-wideband signal" in 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims 22-33 are also rejected because they are, directly or indirectly, depending from rejected claim 21.
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, 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 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) 21-27 and 29-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe et al. (US 7,938,722) in view of Myung et al. (KR 20090097577A, English machine translation).
Regarding claim 21, Rowe teaches a tracking system for tracking game chips in a casino (col. 2, lines 51-54), the tracking system comprising a data processing hardware to determine a value of the gaming chips (col. 4, lines 21-40), some or all of the gaming chips comprise a communication module to allow the gaming chips to communicate with each other using wireless communication signals (RFID) and with the data processing hardware to determine the value and/or location of the gaming chips (col. 2, line 50 to col. 5, line 20 and col. 11, lines 34-41).
Rowe fails to teach communication module using an ultra-wideband signal. However, Rowe further suggested that other frequency ranges can be used (col. 7, lines 39-50). Moreover, Myung teaches broadband RFID system using an ultra-wideband signals (pages 1-2).
In view of Myung’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rowe by incorporating the teaching as taught by Myung since it is just a matter of selecting frequency ranges for the RFID communication.
Regarding claim 22, Rowe as modified by Myung teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Rowe further teaches wherein when the gaming chips are arranged in a stack on a gaming table in the casino (fig. 4A), a top gaming chip located on top of the stack is configured to function as a listening device to detect one or more other gaming chips in the stack (col. 11, lines 34-41).
Regarding claim 23, Rowe as modified by Myung teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Rowe further teaches wherein the top gaming chip is configured to send information about the one or more other gaming chips it detected in the stack to the tracking system (col. 11, lines 34-41).
Regarding claim 24, Rowe as modified by Myung teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Rowe further teaches wherein after the information about the one or more other gaming chips in the stack is sent to the tracking system, a second gaming chip located in the stack in a region below the top gaming chip is configured to function as a listening device for detecting other gaming chips in the stack (col. 11, lines 34-41).
Regarding claim 25, Rowe as modified by Myung teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Rowe further teaches wherein the second gaming chip is configured to send information about the other gaming chips it detected in the stack to the tracking system (col. 11, lines 34-41).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Rowe as modified by Myung teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for wherein some or all of the gaming chips comprise one or more devices for tracking system to determine if one or more of the gaming chips are at rest or in motion and further limitations as claimed. However, Rowe teaches each gaming chip can be used for tracking purpose (col. 6, lines 22-24), each gaming chip can be adapted to provide different functions with respective to other chips (col. 7, lines 54-62) and its movement can be detected (col. 9, lines 45-48). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention would have recognized to modify the invention of Rowe to configure the chips that are at rest as a fixed location (anchor) to monitor tracking of the chips that are in motion since using the signals transmitted at the fixed location for determining the location of the other tags within the range are notoriously well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 29, Rowe as modified by Myung teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Rowe further teaches wherein when the gaming chips are arranged in a stack (fig. 4A) on a gaming table in the casino, a top gaming chip located on top of the stack is configured to detect or obtain data from other gaming chips in the stack (col. 11, lines 34-41).
Regarding claim 30, Rowe as modified by Myung teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Rowe further teaches wherein the top gaming chip is configured to function as an anchor to transmit and receive one or more ultra-wideband signals, and at least some of the other gaming chips in the stack are configured to function as a tag to transmit and receive one or more ultra-wideband signals from other gaming chips in the stack (chips are communicating with each other. One of the chips can be functioned as an anchor and other chips can function as a tag, col. 11, lines 34-41).
Regarding claim 31, Rowe as modified by Myung teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Rowe further teaches wherein after information about the top gaming chip is transmitted to the tracking system, the top gaming chip is configured to function as an anchor to transmit and receive one or more of the ultra-wideband signals, and at least some of the other gaming chips in the stack are configured to function as a tag to transmit and receive the one or more ultra-wideband signals (chips are communicating with each other. One of the chips can be functioned as an anchor, col. 11, lines 34-41).
Regarding claim 32, Rowe as modified by Myung teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Rowe further teaches wherein a second gaming chip located in the stack in a region below the top gaming chip is configured to function as an anchor to obtain information about other gaming chips in the stack (chips are communicating with each other, one of the chips can be functioned as an anchor, col. 11, lines 34-41).
Regarding claim 33, Rowe as modified by Myung teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for wherein the other gaming chips in the stack below the second gaming chip are configured to transmit different ultra-wideband signals than signals transmitted by the second gaming chip. However, Rowe suggested that other frequency range can be used for the gaming chips (col. 7, lines 39-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rowe and Myung to use different frequency ranges for the gaming chips as suggested by Rowe since it is just a matter of selecting frequency range for the gaming chips.
Regarding claim 34, Rowe teaches a tracking system for tracking game chips in a casino (col. 2, lines 51-54), the tracking system comprising a data processing hardware to determine a value and/or location of the gaming chips (col. 4, lines 21-40), some or all of the gaming chips comprise a communication module (RFID antenna) to allow the gaming chips to communicate with each other using wireless communication signals (RFID) and with the data processing hardware to determine the value and/or location of the gaming chips (col. 2, line 50 to col. 5, line 20), wherein the communication module on some or all of the gaming chips is configured to change function as a tag and as an anchor depending on a location of the gaming chips relative to other gaming chips (chips are communicating with each other. One of the chips can be functioned as an anchor and one of the other chips can function as a tag, col. 11, lines 34-41)
Rowe fails to teach communication module using an ultra-wideband signal. However, Rowe further suggested that other frequency ranges can be used (col. 7, lines 39-50). Moreover, Myung teaches broadband RFID system using an ultra-wideband signals (pages 1-2).
In view of Myung’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rowe by incorporating the teaching as taught by Myung since it is just a matter of selecting frequency ranges for the RFID communication.
Regarding claim 35, Rowe as modified by Myung teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Rowe further teaches wherein a top gaming chip is configured to function as an anchor and other gaming chips below the top gaming chip are configured to function as a tag (fig. 4A, chips are communicating with each other, one of the chip can be functioned as an anchor and the other can function as a tag, col. 11, lines 34-41).
Regarding claim 36, Rowe as modified by Myung teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Rowe further teaches wherein a second gaming chip below the top gaming chip is configured to change function from a tag to an anchor (fig. 4A, chips are communicating with each other, one of the chip can change function from a tag to an anchor, col. 11, lines 34-41).
Regarding claim 37, Rowe as modified by Myung teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Rowe further teaches wherein an open gaming chip that is not arranged in the stack or in any stack is configured to function as an anchor (chips are communicating with each other, one of the chip can be functioned as an anchor, col. 11, lines 34-41).
Regarding claim 38, Rowe as modified by Myung teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Rowe further teaches wherein when the gaming chips are arranged in a stack (fig. 4A), an end gaming chip is configured to function as an anchor and other gaming chips below or above the end gaming chip are configured to function as a tag (chips are communicating with each other, one of the chip can be functioned as an anchor and the other can function as a tag, col. 11, lines 34-41).
Regarding claim 39, Rowe as modified by Myung teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Rowe further teaches wherein the value and/or location of the tag is determined using at least one of the following methods: time different of arrival (TDOA), reverse (TDOA), two-way ranging (TWR), and phase difference of arrival (PDOA) (col. 9, line 45 to col. 10, line 26).
Regarding claim 40, Rowe as modified by Myung teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Rowe further teaches wherein the one or more gaming chips comprise a charging module and/or a battery (col. 11, lines 41-45).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe as modified by Myung as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Danielson et al. (US 2021/0074117).
Regarding claim 28, Rowe as modified by Myung teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Rowe further teaches each gaming chip can be used for tracking purpose (col. 6, lines 22-24) but silent to an accelerometer.
However, Danielson teaches gaming chip comprises one or more devices for tracking and wherein the one or more devices include an accelerometer (fig. 2 and [0041]).
In view of Danielson’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rowe and Myung by incorporating the teaching as taught by Danielson in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would not involve any inventive feature since using the accelerometer is well-known in the art for detecting the movement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
References: Kotab (US 2011/0227703); Mattice et al. (US 2010/0093429); Wolf et al. (US 2009/0253498); Moore (WO 2016187164A1); Bann (US 7,038,573) and Shiau (US 8,339,243) are cited because they are related to system and method for gaming chips.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuyen Kim Vo whose telephone number is (571)270-1657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8AM-6:30PM.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/TUYEN K VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876