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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to an amendment received on 1/14/26 for patent application 14,499,300.
2. Claim 1 is amended.
3. Claims 1-7, 11-13 are pending.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant argues#1
The Office Action characterizes the claims as being directed to an abstract idea, specifically a "commercial or legal interaction" related to funds management. However, this characterization oversimplifies the technical recitations and ignores the specific technological improvements provided by the claimed system. The claims do not merely recite the concept of moving money; instead, they define a specific, multi-layered technological architecture for providing a secure electronic funds management interface between disparate network protocols. By reciting a tokenized player identifier that is a non-financial identifier configured to prevent transmission of account numbers over a first network, the claims solve a specific technical problem rooted in computer data security and network vulnerability. This functionality is not a method of organizing human activity that could be performed by a human or as a mental process, as no human can function as a protocol bridge or map non-financial tokens to encrypted account data within a secure server environment. The focus of the claims is on the specific technical implementation of a secure gateway that protects the integrity of an open-loop payment network while interacting with remote computing devices, which constitutes a non-abstract improvement to the functioning of computer systems and data security under MPEP 2106.04(a)(1).
Even if the claims were found to touch upon an abstract idea, they remain patent-eligible because the limitations integrate the exception into a practical application that improves the relevant technology. The transaction facilitator computing system is not a generic tool for implementing business rules; it is a specialized network node that performs a non-routine protocol bridging function. This function enables communication between conventionally incompatible networks, namely, the open-loop payment network and the closed-loop gaming environment, by translating requests and mapping identifiers within a secure environment. Furthermore, the execution of a technical gatekeeping function based on brand-affiliation logic imposes meaningful limits on the process by restricting the flow of data to specific, verified technological pathways. This automated, rule-based control mechanism improves the security and integrity of the transaction process, ensuring that sensitive financial data is never exposed to the potentially insecure first network. These features constitute a specific technological solution to the technical challenges of network interoperability and data protection, thereby integrating any alleged abstract idea into a practical application as described in MPEP 2106.05(a).
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are properly classified as an abstract idea (a commercial interaction, business relations), see the section 101 rejection below.
Firstly, a secure environment is recited at a high level of generality and operating in its ordinary capacity (a secure environment is designed specifically designed to protect data in a digital setting). The mapped tokenized player identifier to the store value account is within the secure environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of the computer system or data security. The secure environment is being used as a tool to implement the steps of the abstract idea.
Furthermore, a transaction facilitator is recited at a high level of generality and is operating in its ordinary capacity (as a third party payment intermediary), in this instance para 60 of the spec discloses that the transaction facilitator can act as a payment intermediary and a protocol bridge is recited at a high level of generality, operating in it ordinary capacity, as software that allows communication between two incompatible systems The transaction facilitator is using the protocol bridge recited at a high level of generality and is being used as tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
There are no additional elements in the claim that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#2
C. The Claims Recite an Inventive Concept Under Step 2B
Should the analysis reach Step 2B, the claims are eligible because the ordered combination of elements provides an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The Examiner asserts that the components are generic and the steps are routine; however, there is no evidence that the specific combination of a tokenized non-financial identifier, a protocol-bridging facilitator, and automated brand-affiliation gatekeeping was well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry at the time of filing. The ordered combination of these elements creates a specialized technological workflow that transforms the process of electronic funds management into a secure, computer-centric operation. This architecture allows for the real- time transfer of funds across disparate networks without the transmission of primary account numbers, a result that cannot be achieved through conventional generic computer use or human activity. Under the principles established in Berkheimer v. HP Inc., the question of whether a combination of elements is well-understood, routine, and conventional is a question of fact, and the current disclosure provides a specific technical architecture that departs from the prior art by creating a secure hub that bridges incompatible network environments. This unconventional technological integration provides the "significantly more" required to establish eligibility under Step 2B.
The Technological Improvements are Supported by the Specification
The technical improvements recited in the claims are fully supported by the specification, which describes the deficiencies of prior art systems, including the security risks and inefficiencies associated with conventional payment methods in online gaming. The specification details how the transaction facilitator acts as a central secure hub to orchestrate communications between the issuer processor and the gaming operator over separate networks. This specific architecture is rooted in technology and provides a tangible improvement in the security and efficiency of electronic fund transfers. By amending the claims to explicitly recite the protocol bridge and the mapping of the tokenized identifier within a secure environment, the technological character of the solution is further clarified. The claims do not preempt the field of funds management but instead provide a narrow, specific, and technologically-driven method for managing funds across disparate and secure network environments. Based on this analysis, the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the foregoing arguments and the specific technical recitations added to the claims by the present amendment, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner is not stating that the specific combination of a tokenized non-financial identifier, a protocol-bridging facilitator, and automated brand-affiliation gatekeeping was well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry at the time of filing.
The tokenized non-financial identifier is part of the identified abstract idea.
The determining of whether the gaming website is affiliated by the brand based on the gaming website identifier is not a technical function, its part of the identified abstract idea.
The transaction facilitator, see para 65, discloses that the transaction facilitator checks to see that the funds being transferred to a gaming account is part of the brand, and as such the transaction facilitator is recited at a high level of generality, and is being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Furthermore, applicant misapprehends when a Berkheimer analysis is required under current examination policy. Simply put, Examiner is not required under current Examination policy to evaluate under Step 2B, whether additional elements constitute “well-understood, routine, and conventional activities,” [“WURC activities”] unless an additional element(s) were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong 2. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I). Here, the condition precedent is not met and the Final Office Action is determining that the additional elements were no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception using a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Thus, Examiner was not required to determine a Berkheimer analysis. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I). (See the Section 101 rejection below).
Therefore, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
1. Claims 1-7, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-7, 11-13 are either directed to a method, which is a statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A computer-based method of providing a secure electronic funds management interface between an open-loop payment network and an online gaming environment, the method performed by a transaction facilitator computing system comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions that when executed, cause the transaction facilitator computing system to perform the method comprising:
associating, within a player database of the transaction facilitator computing system a stored value account of a player with (i) an open-loop stored value payment vehicle issued to a player and (ii) a tokenized player identifier of the player associated with a player loyalty program affiliated with a gaming website hosted by a gaming operator, wherein the tokenized identifier is a non-financial identifier configured to prevent transmission of an account number of the stored value account from a remote computing device, the stored value account having a balance usable in payment transactions with one or more non-gaming merchants via an open-loop payment network comprising an issuer processor computing system of the open-loop stored value payment vehicle, and wherein online gameplay is available at the gaming website, wherein the open-loop stored value payment vehicle is branded, and wherein at least one gaming website is affiliated with the brand;
subsequent to the player entering the tokenized player identifier into an application executing on a remote computing device, receiving, by the transaction facilitator computing system, the tokenized player identifier from the remote computing device over a first network, wherein the remote computing device is any of a mobile computing device, a smart phone, a tablet computer, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a gaming device, a wearable computing device, and a kiosk;
identifying, by the transaction facilitator computing system, the stored value account of the player by mapping the tokenized player identifier to the stored value account within a secure environment of the transaction faclitiator computing system to prevent exposure of the account number of the stored value account to the first network;
acting as a protocol bridge, by the transaction facilitator computing system, to communicate with the issuer processor computing system via a second closed-loop network to obtain the balance of the stored value account wherein the transaction facilitator computing system translates requests between the first network and the second, closed-loop network;
sending, from the transaction facilitator computing system, an indication of the balance of the stored value account for display within the application executing on the remote computing device;
receiving, by the transaction facilitator computing system, a first player funding instruction entered by the player into the application executing on the remote computing device, the first player funding instruction comprising any of the tokenized player identifier , a gaming website identifier, and a directive to transfer at least a portion of the balance from the stored value account to a gaming account of the gaming website hosted by the gaming operator, wherein the first player funding instruction does not identify the stored value account;
executing, by the transaction facilitator computing system, a technical gatekeeping function to determine whether the gaming website is affiliated with the brand based on the gaming website identifier;
when the gaming website is not affiliated with the brand, rejecting, by the transaction facilitator computing system, the first player funding instruction;
when the gaming website is affiliated with the brand, communicating, by the transaction facilitator computing system, with the issuer processor computing system via closed-loop transactions to decrease the balance of the stored value account based on the first player funding instruction entered by the player into the application executing on the remote computing device; and
communicating, by the transaction facilitator computing system, with the gaming operator via the second, closed-loop network to increase the balance of the gaming account based on the first player funding instruction entered by the player into the application executed on the remote computing device, wherein the balance of the gaming account received from the stored value account is usable by the player for the online gameplay available at the gaming website.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claim recites elements that are in bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as a commercial or legal interaction (business relations), (e.g., associating, a stored value account of a player with (i) an open-loop stored value payment vehicle issued to a player and (ii) a tokenized player identifier of the player associated with a player loyalty program affiliated with a gaming website, wherein the tokenized identifier is a non-financial identifier configured to prevent transmission of an account number of the stored value account, the stored value account having a balance usable in payment transactions with one or more non-gaming merchants and wherein online gameplay is available at the gaming website, wherein the open-loop stored value payment vehicle is branded, and wherein at least one gaming website is affiliated with the brand; subsequent to the player entering the tokenized player identifier, receiving, the tokenized player identifier; identifying, the stored value account of the player by mapping the tokenized player identifier to the stored value account; communicate, to obtain the balance of the stored value account; sending, an indication of the balance of the stored value account for display; receiving, a first player funding instruction entered by the player, the first player funding instruction comprising any of the tokenized player identifier , a gaming website identifier, and a directive to transfer at least a portion of the balance from the stored value account to a gaming account of the gaming website, wherein the first player funding instruction does not identify the stored value account; to determine whether the gaming website is affiliated with the brand based on the gaming website identifier; when the gaming website is not affiliated with the brand, rejecting, the first player funding instruction; when the gaming website is affiliated with the brand, communicating, to decrease the balance of the stored value account based on the first player funding instruction entered by the player; and communicating, to increase the balance of the gaming account based on the first player funding instruction entered by the player, wherein the balance of the gaming account received from the stored value account is usable by the player for the online gameplay available at the gaming website)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a commercial or legal interaction (a business relations), then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Claim 1 includes the following additional elements:
-An interface
-An open-loop payment network comprising an issuer processor computing system
-A remote computing device
-An application executing on the remote computing device (the remote device is any of a mobile computing device, a smart phone, a tablet computer, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a gaming device, a wearable computing device, and a kiosk
-A gaming operator
-A transaction facilitator computing system
-A memory
-A player database
-A first network
-A second closed loop network
-A secure environment
-A protocol bridge
-A gate keeping function
The interface, open-loop payment network comprising an issuer processor computing system, remote computing device, an application executing on the remote computing device, gaming operator, transaction facilitator computing system, memory, player database, a first network and a second closed loop network, secure environment, protocol bridge, gate keeping function are being recited at a high level of generality, operating in their ordinary capacity and are being used a tool implement the steps of the identified abstract idea, See MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea is not indicative of a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, on or with the use of generic computer components, or even without any computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-7, 11-13 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-7, 11-13 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1-7, 11-13 are not patent-eligible.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-3444. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, 9-600; Fri, 8-11, 3-5.
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, BENNETT SIGMOND can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694 3/16/2026