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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takine (US 2021/0090379).
Claim 1: Takine discloses a game table system configured to read an RFID tag embedded in a gaming chip (¶ 137) placed in a betting area on a game table, wherein the game table has a main betting area and a side betting area (Figs. 2-5, 8-13), the game table system comprising: a first antenna (511b) and a second antenna (511c) having reading ranges overlapping with each other (Fig. 13, 5111b-5111c are overlapping ranges), wherein the reading ranges cover a first betting area and a second betting area adjacent to the first betting area on the game table (Fig. 13); and a chip determination unit (56)(¶ 155) configured to estimate whether the gaming chip is placed in the first betting area or the second betting area based on the results of the reading of the RFID tag by each of the first antenna and the second antenna, wherein the first antenna is configured to read RFID tags of gaming chips placed in the first betting area and RFID tags of gaming chips placed in the second betting area, wherein the second antenna is configured not to read the RFID tags of the gaming chips placed in the first betting area and is further configured to read the RFID tags of the gaming chips placed in the second betting area, and wherein the chip determination unit is configured to estimate that the gaming chip whose RFID tag is read by the second antenna is placed in the second betting area and is further configured to estimate that the gaming chip whose RFID tag is read by the first antenna and is not read by the second antenna is placed in the first betting area or in a betting area other than the first and second betting areas (¶ 151-173).
Claim 2: Takine discloses a database configured to store the chip identification information in association with the player identification information of the player who is the holder of the gaming chip (¶ 137, 141, 154, 167-172); and a update unit configured to update in the database the player identification information associated with the chip identification information of a gaming chip that is paid by a dealer for a gaming chip that wins a game as a result of a game using the gaming chip to the player identification information of the player who wins the game, wherein a content stored in the RFID tag embedded in the gaming chip includes chip identification information for uniquely identifying the gaming chip (Fig. 14, ¶ 137, 167-178, emphasis on ¶ 171-178).
Claim 3: Takine discloses a player identification unit configured to identify the player who placed the gaming chips in the first betting area and the second betting area (¶ 103, 137, 141, 151-152, 154, 166-172).
Claim 5: Takine discloses wherein the game table is a baccarat table, the first betting area is a player area or a banker area, and the second betting area is a side betting area (Figs. 2-5, 8-13).
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 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 Takine (US 2021/0090379) in view of Shigeta (US 2022/0101688).
Claim 4: Takine discloses a database configured to store the chip identification information in association with the player identification information of the player who is the holder of the gaming chip (¶ 137, 141, 154, 167-172); player identification unit configured to identify the player identification information of the player who placed the gaming chip in the first betting area and the second betting area (¶ 103, 151-152, 166-169), wherein a content stored in the RFID tag embedded in the gaming chip includes chip identification information for uniquely identifying the gaming chip (¶ 173).
Takine teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting an alert unit configured to output an alert when the player identification information identified by the player identification unit is not associated in the database with the chip identification information of the gaming chip placed by the player in the first betting area or the second betting area. Takine at least teaches management of or tracking of gaming chip ownership (¶ 168-169). Furthermore, an analogous art of Shigeta teaches an alert unit configured to output an alert when the player identification information identified by the player identification unit (¶ 180, 202, 231) is not associated in the database with the chip identification information of the gaming chip placed by the player in the first betting area or the second betting area (first or second betting area referring to betting area (11)) (Fig. 3, Abstract, ¶ 64-65, 81, 88, 92, 104, 107, 111-112, 122, 124, 129-130, emphasis on ¶ 83, 111, 175). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the gaming table system of Takine with the alert means of Shigeta because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of preventing mistakes and/or fraud in which Takine is intended (Takine ¶ 4, 184, 209). Such a modification provides a system that makes it possible to determine and manage owner information of gaming chips (Shigeta - ¶ 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached 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