CTFR 16/414,264 CTFR 82660 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claim Status After the amendments filed 02/19/2026, claims 26-28 were newly added, therefore, claims 1-6, 8, 11-12, 14-19 and 21-28 remain pending, of which, 1, 8 and 14 were amended. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-6, 8, 11-12, 14-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines ( Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity ). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below. Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention. Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines . Independent claims 8 and 14, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable: 1. An electronic gaming machine comprising: a physical ticket voucher printer; a lighted bezel surrounding a printer slot of the physical ticket voucher printer through which physical ticket vouchers are dispensed; a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, upon a receipt independent of any communication of any data with any portable electronic device, of data associated a virtual ticket voucher having a first monetary value, cause the processor to: communicate, to a validation server of a cashless voucher handling system, data associated with a request to issue the virtual ticket voucher and when a credit balance of the electronic gaming machine stored in a state based memory portion of the memory device is associated with a request to issue the virtual ticket voucher (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity), cause a reduction of the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine by the first monetary value associated with the virtual ticket voucher, wherein the reduction of the credit balance is independent of any plays of any games and occurs following a receipt from the validation server of the cashless voucher handling system, of a communication of an authorization of the virtual ticket voucher and an electronic assignment of a ticket validation number to the virtual ticket voucher (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity), and after the reduction of the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine, and without communicating any data to the ticket voucher printer to cause any printing of any physical ticket vouchers: cause the lighted bezel to output an indication associated with an availability of the virtual ticket voucher, and cause a wireless communication of data associated with the virtual ticket voucher to a portable electronic device, the virtual ticket voucher is subsequently redeemable, one time and in association with a validation server of the cashless voucher handling system, for any one of: an amount of monetary currency at a redemption kiosk in communication with the portable electronic device to access, via an application being executed by the portable electronic device, the virtual ticket voucher, a first amount of credits of the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine in communication with the portable electronic device to access, via an application being executed by the portable electronic device, the virtual ticket voucher and a second amount of credits of another credit balance of another electronic gaming machine in communication with the portable electronic device to access, via an application being executed by the portable electronic device, the virtual ticket voucher. The limitations in claim 1 ( and similarly claims 8 and 14 ) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity , connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a processor, a memory device, a display device, a physical ticket voucher printer, a lighted bezel, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines : Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include: 1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging ( i.e., wagering ), insurance, mitigating risk); 2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); 3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions ). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping. Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least: A. Sales Activity ( e.g., “ responsive to a receipt, independent of any communication of any data with any portable electronic device, of data associated a virtual ticket voucher having a first monetary value ” ), which, in light of applicant' s specification, is interpreted as receiving data associated with an input from a user to initiate a purchase (See Specification ¶11, ¶44, wherein the virtual ticket voucher is created in response to receiving a purchase input (i.e., data) from the E-cash button 26 ). Sales Activity, is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Commercial or Legal Interactions. These limitations are interpreted as at least Commercial or Legal Interactions insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Sales Activity while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims. Regarding dependent claims 2-6, 11-12, 15-19 and 21-22: Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity . For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Sales Activity to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application: -Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a) -Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo -Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b) -Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c) -Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: -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 - see MPEP 2106.05(f) -Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) -Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) Claims 1-6, 8, 11-12 and 14-19 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application. Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “a housing including a door, a security sensor, a plurality of input devices, a payment acceptor, a processor, a memory device, an electronic gaming device, a display device, a physical ticket voucher printer, a lighted bezel ” , etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301) . As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible. In addition to the abstract ideas indicated above, the claims include additional elements, such as: A. “after the reduction of the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine, and without communicating any data to a ticket voucher printer associated with the electronic gaming machine, cause a wireless communication of data associated with the virtual ticket voucher to a portable electronic device, the virtual ticket voucher is subsequently redeemable, one time and in association with a validation server of the cashless voucher handling system, for any one of: an amount of monetary currency at a redemption kiosk in communication with the portable electronic device to access, via an application being executed by the portable electronic device, the virtual ticket voucher, a first amount of credits of the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine in communication with the portable electronic device to access, via an application being executed by the portable electronic device, the virtual ticket voucher and a second amount of credits of another credit balance of another electronic gaming machine in communication with the portable electronic device to access, via an application being executed by the portable electronic device, the virtual ticket voucher”. As claimed, these additional elements are viewed as mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). B. “cause the lighted bezel to output an indication associated with an availability of the virtual ticket voucher”. As claimed, this additional element is viewed as mere displaying of data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general-purpose structure and general-purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International , 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. For example, the elements of a processor, a memory device, a physical ticket voucher printer, a lighted bezel and a display device are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2003/0050111, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises a controller with a memory, display and a processor to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶2), 2004/0043813, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises a physical ticket voucher printer (¶46) and 2019/0362592, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises a lighted bezel (¶5-6, ¶8) . See Berkheimer v. HP Inc ., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026, regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 , have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims recite additional elements (e.g., a physical ticket voucher printer and a lighted bezel surrounding a printer) and associated functional steps which together overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 (See Remarks, pg. 10). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Under the Alice/Mayo framework, the inclusion of physical, tangible components within a claim does not automatically take it out of the realm of abstraction. The instant claims directed to an abstract concept of managing a financial ledger and routing commercial transaction credits, which falls squarely under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. Further, the additional limitations recited on page 10 merely represent standard ledger operations. The recitation of the hardware executing theses steps relies entirely on generic, high level functional language (e.g., communicate…data associated with a request, cause a wireless communication of data, etc.). The claims do not disclose or require any novel technical mechanism or specialized hardware configuration to achieve these results, rather, it simply takes an abstract financial process and uses conventional computing components to execute it. Applicant argues that the Office has not provided evidence that at least the lighted bezel or validation server of a cashless voucher handling system are generic, conventional, or well-known in accordance with MPEP2106.05(d) and Berkheimer v HP, Inc. (See Remarks, pg. 11). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Regarding applicant’s argument regarding the timeline of the U.S. 2019/0362592 reference, the examiner has not relied on this reference to establish a statutory prior art bar concerning novelty (i.e., 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103), but rather, to illustrate the well-known and generic nature of lighted bezels around gaming machine components within the computer and gaming fields. Furthermore, the claims recite these elements using broad, high-level functional language (e.g., a validation server, a physical ticket printer, a lighted bezel, etc.). The claim does not require a unique, specialized or non-conventional structural configuration of these elements, nor does it disclose a novel architecture related to these elements. A server performing standard authentication and a perimeter LED light display a status represent the execution of generic, off-the-shelf electronic elements performing their routine functions. Because the claims rely on the standard capabilities of these generic elements to carry out an abstract idea, the combination fails to establish an inventive step necessary for eligibility. Applicant argues that the detailed series of limitations in the claims impose meaningful limits and are incorrectly classified as “insignificant extra-solution activity” (See Remarks, pgs. 11-12). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Under 2106.05(g), an element of combination of elements is considered insignificant extra-solution activity if it represents a data gathering, data routing or data outputting step that is ancillary to the primary concept, or if it merely bounds the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The primary focus of the instant claims remains an abstract method of organizing human activity, namely an administrative financial transaction involving ledger credit adjustments. Further, the additional elements provide no limitations which provide a technological improvement to the underlying system and act merely as providing bounds of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Applicant argues that claimed invention solves technical problems. Specifically, applicant argues that the claimed invention solves the problem of informing a player if acquisition of a virtual ticket voucher was successful (See Remarks, pgs. 12-13). The examiner must respectfully disagree. A user’s desire or need for immediate confirmation that a commercial transaction has been successfully concluded is a business and human interaction challenge, not a problem rooted in computer technology. Applicant may have an improved abstract idea that allows a user to inform users of the success or failure of virtual ticket voucher acquisition. But the abstract idea does not solve a technical problem. And a new abstract idea, regardless of how great it is, is still an abstract idea. Abstract ideas are not patent-eligible without “significantly more.” In this case, Applicant has merely implemented an abstract idea using a generic computer. This is not considered to be “significantly more” than the abstract idea since the Supreme Court’s Alice decision was handed down. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET. 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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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. /Jason Pinheiro/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DMITRY SUHOL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 16/414,264 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 16/414,264 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 16/414,264 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 16/414,264 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 16/414,264 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 16/414,264 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 16/414,264 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 16/414,264 Page 9 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 16/414,264 Page 10 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 16/414,264 Page 11 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 16/414,264 Page 12 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights