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
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 –
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller et al (US 2007//0194931 A1).
Miller et al disclose a game table reading system for game tokens, comprising: a game table having a plurality of reading areas including at least a plurality of betting areas for positioning a game token in which a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag is embedded ([0039]-[0040]); a plurality of reading antennas, each respectively installed in correspondence with a respective one of the plurality of reading areas for reading the RFID tag embedded in the game token placed in the corresponding reading area (see figs. 1-3, 12; [0044]); a plurality of read-restriction antennas, each respectively installed in correspondence with a respective one of the plurality of reading areas (see fig. 16, 29-133);; a first control device connected to the plurality of reading antennas, wherein the first control device is configured to control the plurality of reading antennas to read in sequence (see fig. 16, 129, fig. 17, [0048], [0052], [0081]); and a second control device wherein the second control device is configured to control the plurality of read-restrictions in synchronization with the control of the plurality of reading antennas by the first control device so that, during the reading by the plurality of reading antennas in the sequence, for each of the plurality of reading areas, when the respective reading antenna of the respective reading area is being controlled to read, the second control device controls the read-restriction antennas to restrict the reading by at least the respective reading antenna of each of one or more of the reading areas that is adjacent to the respective reading area whose reading antenna is being controlled to read (see fig. 16; 133), wherein the first control device is configured to control the plurality of reading antennas so that the sequence is such that those of the plurality of reading antennas that correspond to those of the reading areas that are adjacent to each other do not read simultaneously (see fig. 16, 129, fig. 17, [0048], [0052], [0081]), wherein, after all the multiple ones of the reading antennas have completed reading, the first control device is configured to cause another set of multiple ones of the plurality of the reading antennas to read simultaneously (see fig. 16), wherein the first control device is configured to select which one or more of the plurality of reading antennas is to perform the reading depending on a determined progress of the game (see fig. 16), wherein the game table is a table for baccarat game, and the plurality of reading areas include a plurality of side betting areas provided for each play position and located adjacent to each other (inherent feature), wherein the game table has a plurality of play positions, and the plurality of reading areas are provided for each of the player positions, wherein the plurality of reading areas include a player area and a banker area adjacent to each other for each of the player positions (see fig. 18), wherein the player area and the banker area are divided into a respective plurality of reading areas (see fig. 18), wherein the plurality of reading areas additionally includes a card reading area in which can be placed a member’s card in which an RFID tag is embedded ([0058]-[0059]), and wherein each of the plurality of read-restriction antennas is configured to restrict the reading by the respective one of the plurality of reading antennas of the one of the reading areas to which the read-restriction antenna corresponds (see figs. 7-9A).
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) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. The teachings of Miller et al have been discussed above.
Miller et al disclose means for shielding and/or shaping the electromagnetic field generated by the reading antenna, but fail to specifically disclose a shielding member, such as a plate, tape, film, etc., provided in the same plane of the reading antenna for shielding or shaping the electromagnetic field of the reading antenna. However, the specific shielding member is a matter of engineering choice for meeting specific customer requirements, wherein the system must be designed to only read the tokens at specific areas, such as the betting area to register the user wagers. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 19-32 of copending Application No. 18/940,514 (reference claim). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claimed invention is a similar recitation of the reference claims. For instance, in claim 1 of the current application and in the reference application, the applicant claims:
Application No. 19/279,381
Application No. 18/940,524
A game table reading system comprising: a game table on which one or more betting areas are laid out; a plurality of reading antennas installed corresponding to each of a paying area and a plurality of small areas comprising the betting areas, and configured to read RFID tags embedded in gaming chips placed in each of the paying area and the plurality of small areas; a read restriction antenna installed corresponding to a corresponding small areas to restrict reading by a reading antenna installed corresponding to small areas other than the corresponding small area will not read the RFID tag on the gaming chip in the corresponding small area; a management controller configured to, when the RFID tag is read by the reading antenna, identify, according to the small area to which the reading antenna corresponds, the location at which the gaming chip for which the RFID tag is read is placed; a chip tray on the game table; a chip tray reading antenna configured to read the RFID tag embedded in the gaming chip stored in the chip tray; and a read restriction member configured to restrict the reading of the RFID tag embedded in the gaming chip stored in the chip tray by the reading antenna of the paying area, wherein the read restriction member is configured to restrict the reading of the RFID tag of the gaming chip in the small area by the chip tray reading antenna.
A game table reading system, comprising: a game table on which one or more areas are laid out; a plurality of reading antennas installed corresponding to each of a plurality of sub-areas comprising the areas and configured to read radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags embedded in game tokens placed in each of the plurality of sub-areas; a read-restriction antenna configured to restrict readings by the reading antenna so that the reading antenna do not read the RFID tags of the game tokens in sub-areas other than the sub-area corresponding to the reading antenna; and a management control device configured to, when the RFID tag is read by the reading antenna, identify a position where the game token whose RFID tag is read is placed according to the sub-area to which the reading antenna corresponds.
Thus, in respect to above discussions, it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time the invention was made to use the teaching of claims 1 and 19-32 of the reference application as a general teaching for a game table reading system, to perform the same function as claimed in the present invention. The instant claims obviously encompass the claimed invention of the claims of the reference application and differ only in terminology. The extent that the instant claims are broaden and therefore generic to claimed invention of the reference application [species], In re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a co-pending application.
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection is a judicially established doctrine based upon public policy and is primarily intended to prevent prolongation of the patent term by prohibiting claims in a second patent not patentably distinct from the claims in a first paten. IN re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. & 1.321(b) would overcome an actual or provisional rejection on this ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 C>FR> &1.78(d).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See examiner remarks.
Remarks:
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art (Miller/20070194931) fails to disclose a chip tray, a chip tray reading antenna, a read restriction members, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Figs 18-21 are examples applications of the invention, Fig. 21 shows a chip tray, and Figs. 22A-22C, disclose the circuitry for reading the tags information on the chips at different location, including restriction for preventing reading of tags at certain location (see par. 0089-0101). Regarding the double patent rejection, although the application 18/940,514 is abandoned, the claims would also be rejected over patent No. 12,183,150. Application 18/940,514 is a CON of 17/310,244, now Patent 12/183,514. The claims would be rejected over the 1-18 of Patent 12,183,150. The applicant argument is not persuasive. Refer to the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Pham Thomas can be reached on 571-272-3689. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights