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 .
The Applicant’s amendment and argument received on 02/20/2026 has been considered. It is noted that claims 1 and 4-12 have been amended.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleveland et al (US 2020/0111279) in view of Kubajak et al (US 2022/0270438).
Regarding claims 1 and 10: Cleveland et al discloses an NFC-enabled table system for facilitating a wagering game, comprising: a plurality of wagering tables, each wagering table comprising a table surface defining a plurality of player position areas, and wherein each of the player position areas comprises a unique NFC tag having a Unique Tag Identifier (UTID) (see figures 1 and 13; abstract; paragraphs [0099], [0126], [0127]); a database defining a plurality of records, each record corresponding to a respective UTID of an NFC tag, a unique table identifier of the wagering table at which the NFC tag is located and the corresponding player position area at which the NFC tag is located (see figures 1-5; abstract; paragraphs [0005]-[0007], [0055], [0119]); a processing device in communication with the database (see figures 13-16; paragraphs [0005]-[0007]); and a non-transitory memory device in communication with the processing device, the memory device storing instructions that when executed by the processing device, result in: receiving, by the processing device, and via a player App on a mobile device of a player (see paragraph [0124], showing the player 302 has their mobile computing device (or just “personal device”) 604 (e.g., their smartphone) on their person during the game play session, and the player 302 has a player application (“player app”) installed on their personal device 604. Such verification then associates the particular player 302 to the player position 602B for a game play session) an indication that a player has scanned a particular NFC tag at the wagering table at a first time, the indication comprising the UTID of the particular NFC tag and a unique player identifier of the player (see paragraphs [0103], [0124], [0127]); determining, by the processing device querying the database, a particular wagering table and a particular player position area at which the player scanned the particular NFC tag, thereby identifying an activated wagering table and an activated player position area (see paragraphs [0122], [0124], [0127]; outputting to the player, via a player App on a mobile device of the player and responsive to the received indication that the player scanned the particular NFC tag at the first time, an indication of the first time (see paragraph [0122]); the activated wagering table and the activated player position area (see paragraphs [0046], [0058]); and a clocking-in request; receiving, from the player and via the App (see figures 17-19; paragraphs [0122]-[0124], [0137]); and clocking the player in as having initiated a wagering session specific to the activated player position area at the activated wagering table at the first time, responsive to the received first confirmation (see figures 17-19; paragraphs [0122]-[0124]); tracking wagering activity of the player at the activated wagering table and the activated player position during the wagering session (see paragraphs [0039], [0044], [0057]); receiving from the player a request to end the wagering session at a second time (see figures 17-19; paragraphs [0122]-[0124]); and clocking the player out as having ended the wagering session specific to the activated player position area at the active wagering table at a second time, responsive to the received request (see paragraphs [0137], [0143], [0162]).
In an analogous invention, Kubajak et al teaches the NFC tag being passive NFC tag (see paragraphs [0035], [0065], showing an NFC tag may be an active or passive NFC device, or any other device which conveys information needed to automatically establish a Bluetooth connection by and between the MID 110 and the player's mobile device 114).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Cleveland’s NFC and wagering table games as taught by Kubajak’s passive NFC tag for the purpose of having a system with the option of passive NFC tag which are inexpensive and have no internal power as compared to active NFC tags. This yields the expected result of reducing cost of producing the wagering system and thereby increasing satisfaction by the users.
Regarding claim 2: Cleveland et al discloses wherein receiving from the player the request to end the wagering session at the second time comprises: receiving, by the processing device, an indication that the player has scanned the particular NFC tag at a second time that is later than the first time (see paragraphs [0103], [0124], [0127]); outputting to the player, via the player App, an indication of the second time (see paragraph [0122]); and a clocking-out request and receiving, from the player and via the App, a second (see paragraphs [0137], [0143], [0162]).
Regarding claim 3: Cleveland et al discloses wherein the activated wagering table comprises a dealer display for outputting instructions to a dealer of the particular wagering table, and wherein instructions, when executed by the processing device, further result in: retrieving, by the processing device and based on the player identifier, an image; and outputting, via the dealer display, the image and a prompt for the dealer to confirm that the player present at the activated player position area matches the image (see paragraph [0122]).
Regarding claim 4: Cleveland et al discloses wherein the remote transaction device comprises the activated wagering table (see paragraphs [0130], [0139]-[0141]).
Regarding claim 5: Cleveland et al discloses wherein the activated player position area comprises a bet position defining a specific bet available at the activated wagering table, and wherein the gaming transaction comprises automatically placing an instance of the specific bet on behalf of the player for the next game session to be played at the activated wagering table (see paragraphs [0093], [0101], [0130], [0139]-[0141]).
Regarding claim 6: Cleveland et al discloses wherein the remote transaction device comprises a POS device in a casino (see paragraphs [0043], [0067]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 7: Cleveland et al discloses wherein the wherein the gaming transaction comprises a purchase order for a product to be delivered to the activated player position area (see paragraphs [0130], [0209]).
Regarding claim 8: Cleveland et al discloses wherein the gaming transaction comprises an offer that has been output to, and accepted by the player (see paragraphs [0115]-[0117], [0209]).
Regarding claim 9: Cleveland et al discloses wherein causing the remote transaction device to initiate a gaming transaction, the gaming transaction being specific to the activated player position area, comprises causing promotional currency to be issued to the player, the promotional currency being a benefit defined by the offer accepted by the player (see paragraphs [0115]-[0117], [0209]).
Regarding claim 11: Cleveland et al discloses wherein the memory device stores further instructions that when executed by the processing device further result in: receiving, from a player and via a software app of the player's mobile device, an indication of the UTID of the NFC tag (see paragraphs [0100], [0127], [0198]-[0201]); receiving at least one of a unique identifier of the player and a unique identifier of the player's mobile device (see paragraphs [0100], [0127], [0198]-[0201]); and storing in a database an indication that the player is currently participating in a wagering game at the one wagering table and at the specific player position corresponding to the UTID (see paragraphs [0100], [0127], [0198]-[0201]).
Regarding claim 12: Cleveland et al discloses wherein the memory device stores further instructions that when executed by the processing device further result in: tracking game play of the player (see paragraphs [0115]-[0117], [0141], [0144]); determining, based on the game play, that the player has qualified for an offer defining a benefit in exchange for agreeing to a commitment (see paragraphs [0115]-[0117], [0141], [0144]); outputting, to the player via the player's mobile device, the offer (see paragraphs [0115]-[0117], [0141], [0144]); determining, after outputting the offer, that the player has scanned the NFC tag, thereby determining that the player has accepted the offer (see paragraphs [0115]-[0117], [0141], [0144]).
Regarding claim 13: Cleveland et al discloses wherein the memory device stores further instructions that when executed by the processing device further result in: transmitting a command signal to a remote device, the command signal being operable to cause the benefit to be provided to the player (see paragraphs [0115]-[0117]).
Regarding claim 14: Cleveland et al discloses wherein the remote device comprises a dealer display of the one wagering table, the benefit defined by the offer comprises a specified value of wagering chips, and the command signal comprises instructions for the dealer to provide the specified value of wagering chips to the player at the specific player position (see paragraphs [0115]-[0117], [0141], [0144]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose receiving confirmation via a player app on a mobile device of a player, the examiner disagrees. The examiner points out that as discussed in the above office action, Cleveland in paragraph [0124], explicitly teaches :
“ [0124] In some embodiments, the table management device 320 automatically detects which player position (or just “position”) 602 the player 302 occupies at the table 300. The player 302, in this example, is a loyalty member with the casino operator, having a registered player profile with the casino (e.g., a loyalty card, a unique identifier, player information, and so forth, stored within the player tracking system). Further, the player 302 has their mobile computing device (or just “personal device”) 604 (e.g., their smartphone) on their person during the game play session, and the player 302 has a player application (“player app”) installed on their personal device 604. Such verification then associates the particular player 302 to the player position 602B for a game play session (e.g., via virtual presence as recorded and maintained in table management database 1320).”.
The examiner points out that this paragraph shows clearly the limitation of the having their mobile computing device (or just “personal device”) 604 (e.g., their smartphone) on their person during the game play session, and the player 302 has a player application (“player app”) installed on their personal device 604. Such verification then associates the particular player 302 to the player position 602B for a game play session. Wherein the verification is construed to be equivalent to receiving confirmation by the player app on the mobile device for the player with the mobile device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADETOKUNBO OLUSEGUN TORIMIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1345. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8am - 4pm).
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571)270-7625. 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.
/ADETOKUNBO O TORIMIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights