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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement entered May 29th, 2025 has been considered. A copy of the cited statement(s) including the notation indicating its respective consideration is attached for the Applicant's records.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a computer-based method (i.e., a process) in claims 1, 3-8, 10-17, and a system for game play funding (i.e., a machine) in claims 18-20.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. A computer-based method, the method performed by one or more computing devices, at least one of the one or more computing devices defining a transaction facilitator computing system, the method comprising instructions stored in a memory, which when executed by one or more processors of the one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform the method comprising:
associating utilizing an association stored in computer memory a database communicatively coupled to the transaction facilitator computing system, the association linking a financial account number of a player maintained by a financial institution with a player identifier of a gaming environment, wherein the player identifier is a casino-issued unique identifier tied to a loyalty program associated with the gaming environment, wherein the financial account holds a balance amount maintained by a host computing system of the financial institution on a bank card network, wherein the financial account is identifiable by the financial account number, and wherein funds held in the financial account are usable for open-loop payment transactions at any of a plurality of merchants associated with the bank card network;
receiving, by the transaction facilitator computing system, a load request from a casino computing system of the gaming environment, wherein the load request comprises a request to load player funds to the financial account;
receiving, by the transaction facilitator computing system, player funds information, wherein the player funds information comprises at least a total value of the player funds;
instructing, by the transaction facilitator computing system via closed communications with the host computing system, the host computing system to increase the balance amount of financial value account based on the total value of the player funds;
subsequent to the increasing of the balance amount of the financial account based on the load request, receiving, by the transaction facilitator computing system, a funding instruction comprising the player identifier of the player and does not comprise the financial account number, wherein the funding instruction and the player identifier are provided by the player to a gaming device of the gaming environment, wherein the player identifier is associated with a gaming account associated with the gaming device, the gaming account having a balance maintained by the casino computing system of the gaming environment, and the casino computing system is separate and different from the host computing system of the financial institution, and the gaming device is in communication with the casino computing system;
identifying, by the transaction facilitator computing system and based at least partially on the association of the financial account and the player identifier by querying the database using the received player identifier, the financial account of the player maintained by the host computing system of the financial institution on the bank card network;
instructing, by the transaction facilitator computing system via closed communications a secure communication channel distinct from the bank card network with the host computing system, the host computing system of the financial institution to decrease the balance amount of the financial account based on an amount of funds identified in the funding instruction;
instructing, by the transaction facilitator computing system via closed communications a secure communication channel distinct from the bank card network with the casino computing system, the casino computing system to increase the balance amount of the gaming account maintained by the casino computing system, wherein decreasing the balance amount of the financial account and increasing the balance amount of the gaming account occurs in substantially real-time;
receiving, by the transaction facilitator computing system, transaction-related information associated with the use of the funds for an open-loop payment transaction at one of the plurality of merchants;
generating, by the transaction facilitator computing system, a player intelligence report based at least partially on the transaction-related information, wherein the player intelligence report comprises the player identifier and identifies the merchant at which the open-loop payment transaction was used; and
providing the player intelligence report to the casino computing system for integration with a player loyalty profile associated with the player identifier maintained by the casino computing system, thereby enabling tracking of player spending across gaming and non-gaming environments associated with the financial account.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices including book keeping/intermediary settlement and managing personal behavior or relationships including following rules or instructions because they involve customer and merchant accounting and Mental Processes performable by the human mind including observation, evaluation and judgement because they involve a series of steps for maintaining, tracking and manipulating data.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on computing device(s)/systems,, a memory, processor(s), and a network it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific machine and would reasonably include other network connected devices such as generic computers, cash registers, automated teller machines, slot machines and the like. Accordingly, the claims fail to identify a practical application of the identified judicial exception and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including computing device(s)/systems,, a memory, processor(s), and a network amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0040], [0043], [0048], [0050], [0064], [0073], [0079]-[0083]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amount to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0040], [0043], [0048], [0064], [0073], [0081]-[0083]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 3-8, and 10-20 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of computing device(s), computing systems, a table game, a gaming device, a kiosk, a payment/bankcard network, a customer management system, processor(s), a memory, network and a computer readable medium as respectively presented that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B for the reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 and further present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and therefore are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 3rd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are fully not persuasive.
Commencing on page 10 of the Applicant’s above dated remarks, the applicant proposes that the presented claim amendments have addressed the previously noted antecedent basis issues identified in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. §112.
Responsive to the Applicant presented amendments the previously noted antecedent basis issues have been addressed and the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. §112 has been withdrawn.
Continuing on pages 10 and 11, Section A, of the Applicant’s above dated remarks, the Applicant presents that the claimed invention is directed to a practical application and a specific improvement in computer technology embodied in three distinct and separate computing platforms: (1) a host computing system of a financial institution, (2) a casino computing system, and (3) a transaction facilitator computing system that functions as a specialized, secure intermediary. The Applicant further presents, “This is not a generic arrangement. It is a specific technological solution to a technical problem rooted in computer security, as detailed in the specification at [0029] and [0052]”. The Applicant further presents that “the claims recite that the transaction facilitator communicates with the host and casino systems via "closed communications a secure communication channel distinct from the bank card network." This limitation is a specific technological improvement to computer networking”
Responsive to the preceding, the cited portions of the Applicant’s specification [0029] and [0052] do not describe or support the Applicant’s understood position that the claimed invention reflects a practical application involving the use of a particular machine, or the use of computer technology to provide an unconventional solution to a technological problem as proposed. Additionally, it is noted that the Applicant’s specification disclaims the described embodiments of hardware software and architecture in at least paragraphs [0076]-[0084] of the same, that would respectfully contradict the argued importance of the recited computer and their arrangement as presented.
As previously noted, the proposed improvement concerning linking separate host and casino systems through secure channels separate from the bank card network is not disclosed by the Applicant’s specification as representing an unconventional improvement as required by MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a) and is further understood to represent similar architectures & methods as taught by the prior art of record including Babi (2007/0203832). As the application does not support that this arrangement and/or process represents an unconventional improvement in technology this feature is understood to represent the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer wherein the same merely utilizes the computer as tool to implement the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). In an analogous consideration, the court has explicitly noted that claims drawn to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and that merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
Continuing on page 11, Section A, of the Applicant’s above dated remarks, the Applicant presents that, “the claimed process improves the functioning of the computing devices themselves. At the point of interaction (the gaming device), funds are requested using only a ‘player identifier,’ and the claims expressly state that the funding instruction ‘does not comprise the financial account number.’" and that recognizing the same merely as a surrogate identifier as proposed by the Examiner fails to appreciate the significance of this arrangement which improves the security of the overall system.
Responsive to the preceding and as previously noted, the proposed improvement concerning the use of a player identifier for to identify corresponding financial accounts is not disclosed by the Applicant’s specification as representing an unconventional improvement as required by MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a). Additionally, in so much that the claimed invention utilizes a player identifier in the place of player account information for player transactions, the player identifier becomes the surrogate financial information that is exposed on the network and would not necessarily result in increased security as proposed. Alternatively stated, if a property guest pays for a meal with their room number or membership number rather than a credit card number, they are merely exposing surrogate types of financial information and are not avoiding the exposure sensitive financial information as proposed. In either arrangement the system transmits sufficient information to enact a financial transaction and accordingly no new functionality is imparted to the underlying computer system in the proposed alteration. The Applicant’s remarks of this section do not identify support in the Applicant’s specification that the proposed use of “a player identifier” as a surrogate reflects an unconventional improvement in technology and would provide an advantage beyond the those recognized through conventional use of surrogate references.
Concluding on pages 11 and 13, Section B, of the Applicant’s above dated remarks, the Applicant presents that claims recite an inventive concept under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework because the ordered combination of claim elements is not routine, or conventional. Specifically, the Applicant proposes that the use of the transaction facilitator as a trusted intermediary to bridge a general-purpose financial account with a specific-purpose gaming account, using a non-financial identifier transmitted from the casino environment and executed over secure, non-public channels, is an unconventional solution that provides a streamlined and more secure funding mechanism. Additionally, the Applicant presents, that "’player intelligence report’ …provides a significant improvement to the technical capabilities of the casino computing system. As explained in the specification at [0054]-[0055], prior art casino loyalty systems were technologically siloed; they were incapable of capturing and processing a player's spending at unaffiliated, off-property merchants. The claimed process overcomes this specific technical limitation.”
As previously noted, the Applicant specification disclaims the described embodiments of hardware software and architecture in at least paragraphs [0076]-[0084] of the same, accordingly insomuch as these elements have been disclaimed by the Applicant’s specification they cannot also provide significantly more as such would be contradictory in nature. Further, the Applicant’s argument is additionally not persuasive because the features the Applicant argument identifies as the inventive concept are part of the abstract idea itself; as such, these features cannot constitute the “inventive concept.” See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring) (“It is clear from Mayo that the ‘inventive concept’ cannot be the abstract idea itself, and Berkheimer . . . leave[s] untouched the numerous cases from this court which have held claims ineligible because the only alleged ‘inventive concept’ is the abstract idea.”); see also BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”).
Responsive to the Applicant proposed improvement concerning information sharing and the receipt of player non-gaming transaction data, also described at least in part as a “player intelligence report”, this feature relates to the transfer and/or exchange of information (mere manipulation of data) utilizing a computer as a tool but is not representative of a technological improvement as proposed because it does not enhance the functional capability of the underlying computer technology. The Applicant proposes that referencing this feature as the mere manipulation of data is an oversimplification of a technical improvement, however the particular data being processes or collected does not support eligibility because these features relate to what the underlying computer is being utilized as a tool to collect or process, but does not enhance the ability of the underlying technology to perform a new or unconventional function that would support an improvement in technology or an inventive concept as proposed. Additionally, as previously noted, the cited portions of the Applicant’s specification, including paragraphs [0054]-[0055], while discussing the desirability of collecting player purchase information from outside of the gaming environment does not identify the claimed processes for doing so as being unconventional improvement and in an non-conclusory manner as required by MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a).
In view of the preceding the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above.
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 ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715