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 § 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al, JP 2017018501.
Regarding claims 1-4, Yamaguchi et al disclose a game table system comprising: a game board 21, five antenna modules 220 (antenna modules 221, 222, 223, 224, and 225), an antenna 226, and an antenna 227 for reading the game medium arranged in each of the bet areas 211, 212, 213, 214, and 215, the dealer area 2106, and the commission area 2107 are embedded at positions corresponding to each area ([0153], Fig. 2, and Fig. 47), it is described that the control unit 3 determines the total of the valuable value of the first game medium arranged in the dealer area 2106 of the game board 21, determines the total of the second game medium excluding the first game medium arranged in the dealer area 2106 of the game board 21 after a predetermined timing, determines whether or not the first game medium and the second game medium match, and displays the determination result on the dealer display 4 ([0198]), and according to the above configuration, after reading the valuable value indicated by the first game medium in the dealer area 2106 of the same game board 21, the valuable value indicated by the second game medium excluding the first game medium can be read and displayed whether or not they match, and as a result, the dealer who manages the game table system can easily present the second game medium corresponding to the valuable value of the first game medium from the player, and can easily prevent an error in exchanging the game medium with the player ([0199]); the first game medium from the player and the second game medium from the dealer are arranged together in the dealer area 2106, and by shifting the timing for determining the total, it is determined whether or not the first game medium and the second game medium match, and currency exchange is performed; therefore, it can be said that both the "first game medium" and the "second game medium" are arranged in the dealer area 2106 for currency exchange. Here, it is determined whether or not the first game medium and the second game medium match in a single area called the dealer area 2106; however, in general, in a scene where a store customer, an employee, a private person, or the like exchanges currency, it is recognized that it is a common practice to prepare each currency at hand so as not to confuse both currencies, and to perform exchange when it is determined that the face values match; therefore, in view of the general procedure related to such exchange, it is merely a matter that could have been appropriately adopted by a person skilled in the art to arrange the first game medium in the dealer area 2106 by, for example, preparing another area or diverting the bet area at hand of the player, instead of aggregating the first game medium and the second game medium in the dealer area 2106, and to arrange only the second game medium in the dealer area to determine whether or not the first game medium and the second game medium match, and to perform exchange accordingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The applicant teaches a management system for managing equivalent exchange between gaming chips including RFID tag at the game table, wherein the RFID tag for storing identification information of the gaming chip read by a first reading device and identification information of the gaming chip read by a second reading device, a memory device for storing the identification information in association with a holder information of the gaming chip, a control device for rewriting in the memory device, the holder information associated with the identification information of the gaming chip read by the second reading device with the holder information associated with the identification information of the gaming chip read by the first reading device or the control device for rewriting in the memory device, the holder information associated with the identification information of the gaming chip read by the first reading device with the holder information representing a casino or the dealer. These limitations in conjunction with other limitations were not shown by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See examiner remarks.
Remarks:
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the game table comprises a chip tray to accommodate gaming chips of the dealer for exchanging chips with the players, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 3 shows a dealer area 2106 includes a tray for holding chips. Furthermore, it is common practice to include at least one tray for holding dealer chips in order to collect winnings and to provide payouts. With respect separating the reading area, the prior art is able the read the chips at different areas in the table, including betting area and dealer controlled areas. The applicant’s 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