DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments in the Response dated June 22, 2026 directed to the Non-Final Office Action dated April 2, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The determination of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, relies on the Mayo/Alice two-step analysis.
In step 1 of the analysis, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In the present case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 8-14 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine). The claims are, therefore, directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner is directed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims are compared to groupings of subject matter that have been found by courts as abstract ideas. These groupings include
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 is considered representative and recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a method comprising:
receiving, at a gaming device of a gaming network, one or more wireless communications from a portable electronic device, the one or more wireless communications including a funds transfer request;
processing, by one or more processors of the gaming device, the funds transfer request to identify at least a request to transfer an amount of funds from a financial source external to the gaming network for play of a wager-based game of chance on the gaming device;
transmitting, from the gaming device to a server system associated with the gaming network, a funds transfer message identifying one or more of:
the amount of funds, the financial source, a gaming device identifier identifying the gaming device, or a user identifier identifying a user of the portable electronic device;
receiving, at the gaming device from the server system, an authentication message: i) indicating that a server-based authentication has been performed to verify at least the gaming device and the user, and ii) whether the server-based authentication permits the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial source to a gaming account configured to fund the wager-based game of chance on the gaming device, the server-based authentication having been performed based at least in part on:
authentication information included in or with the funds transfer message, the authentication information identifying one or more of: the amount of funds, the financial source, the gaming device identifier, or the user identifier, and
location information identifying at least a location of the gaming device and time stamp data;
receiving, at the gaming device from the server system, when the server-based authentication permits the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial source to the gaming account, an indication that the transfer of the amount of funds has been initiated; and
subsequently providing, at the gaming device, a notification of the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial source to the gaming account.
The courts have used the phrases "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. The transfer of money from one account to a second account for the play of a wager-based game falls within the grouping of fundamental economic practices or principles, under certain methods of organizing human activity.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the examiner considers whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (not considered relevant to the present claims);
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses 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.
The additional elements in the present claims are a gaming device, a gaming network, a portable electronic device, one or more processors, a server system, a server, a peripheral management device, a peripheral device, a location tracking system, processing circuitry, memory circuitry, an authentication server, a player tracking server, a location server, and at least one processor.
The additional elements do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Instead, the computer elements are used to carry out the abstract idea.
The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The claims recite generic computer components carrying out the abstract idea.
The additional elements do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
The additional elements do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., a gaming network).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The examiner considers if the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements in the present claims are a gaming device, a gaming network, a portable electronic device, one or more processors, a server system, a server, a peripheral management device, a peripheral device, a location tracking system, processing circuitry, memory circuitry, an authentication server, a player tracking server, a location server, and at least one processor.
The additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional as shown:
a gaming device, a portable electronic device (Alameh et al., US 2010/0271331 A1, portable electronic devices, including mobile telephones, music and multimedia players, gaming devices, personal digital assistants, and the like are becoming increasingly commonplace [0005]);
a gaming network (Duddle, WO 2006/000786A1, it is now well-known to connect several games machines, such as personal computers or dedicated games consoles, via a communications network, such as a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), or the Internet [P1:27-P2:2]);
one or more processors, processing circuitry, memory circuitry, at least one processor (Slomiany, US 2002/0165019 A1, the CPU is also of a common and well known variety selected as desired, and would of course include memory, software, operational instructions [0031]);
a server system, a server, a location tracking system, an authentication server, a player tracking server, a location server (Cole et al., US 2011/0275443 A1, the gaming machine 100 may be configured to obtain game code or game outcome information from a remote server; the gaming machine 100 may also communicate with a remote accounting server and/or player tracking server, as is well known in the art [0037]);
a peripheral management device (Bradford et al., US 6,612,928 B1, game device 100 includes the normal and well known internals needed in order to have a functioning game, such as at least one central processor, associated memory, input/output interfaces, peripheral interfaces to the video display, control buttons and lever, monetary input devices, slot machine interface board (SMIB), together with the firmware and software needed to implement the full functionality of the game [C8:7-21]);
a peripheral device (Walker et al., US 2004/0038733 A1, input device 308 may comprise any number or combination of a variety of well-known devices, including, without limitation: a button, a touch screen, a handle (e.g., a slot machine handle), a keypad, a pointer device (e.g., a mouse, a trackball), a microphone, a keyboard, a video camera, a magnetic stripe reader (e.g., for performing functions related to player tracking cards, such as accepting and reading player tracking cards and communicating information read from such cards to the processor 301), a biometric input device (e.g., a fingerprint or retinal scanner), a radio antenna (e.g., for receiving inputs from a handheld device), a voice recognition module, and a coin and/or bill acceptor [0061]);
a location tracking system (CHOUEIRI et al., US 2020/0207601 A1, the positioning module can comprise a local or global positioning system, providing a positioning based on well-known located beacons (e.g. telecommunication antennas network, Wi-Fi accessing point, Bluetooth beacon [0084]).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. The claims merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to prong 1 of step 2A, applicant argues
Applicant submits that under Prong One of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Step 2A analysis, amended independent claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea. Amended claim 1, when taken as a whole, provides a specific technical way of achieving a specific result at a gaming device of a gaming network in which a server-based authentication is performed. There is a specific, technical implementation in a gaming system involving a novel and non-obvious way to implement and leverage: communications between the gaming device and a portable electronic device, communications between the gaming device and a server system, server-based authentication operations, processing of funds transfer requests, transfers of funds from an external financial source to a gaming account, and output capabilities of the gaming device to provide notification of the transfer.
As clarified by the present amendments, an authentication message received at the gaming device indicates: i) that a server-based authentication has been performed to verify at least the gaming device and the user, and ii) whether the server-based authentication permits the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial source to a gaming account configured to fund a wager-based game of chance on the gaming device. As recited in the present amendments to claim 1, the server-based authentication is performed based at least in part on: i) authentication information included in or with the funds transfer message, where the authentication information identifies one or more of: the amount of funds, the financial source, the gaming device identifier, or the user identifier, and ii) location information identifying at least a location of the gaming device as well as time stamp data. Such features are technical and not abstract since such information is processed as a basis for the server-based authentication as well as for further operations at the gaming device as mentioned above. Independent claim 1 does not recite subject matter categorized as mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. (Response [pp. 9-10])
Prong 1 of step 2A asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Judicial exceptions can be laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(I)). Rather than using a layperson’s definition of abstract ideas, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
In the present case, the claims describe concepts transferring money from one account to a second account. When considered individually and as a whole, the claims are clearly directed to the transfer of funds from an external financial source to the gaming network under prong 1 of step 2A. This falls within the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices).
Whether there is a specific, technical implementation in a gaming system involving a novel and non-obvious way to implement and leverage the abstract idea is not considered in prong 1 of step 2A.
The newly added claim limitations merely further describe the abstract idea, rather than reciting an additional element.
The examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea.
With respect to prong 2 of step 2A, applicant states:
Some implementations of independent claim 1 provide one or more improvements in the functioning (including implementation, usefulness and performance) of gaming devices and server systems as well as portable electronic devices. Claim 1 provides a specific technical application of improving the performance of such apparatus in effectively processing funds transfer requests and transferring funds from an external financial source to a gaming account. Server-based authentication is effectively implemented to provide a technical solution for controlling permissions to transfer funds, where identifying the correct particular gaming device on a casino floor (with numerous gaming devices) at which the particular user and portable electronic device are located provides a beneficial application of essential security mechanisms for fund transfers. This satisfies an existing challenge faced by gaming system developers in providing the necessary security in managing the interactions of various devices and systems at various locations.
For instance, in some non-limiting examples as explained at paragraph 0106 of Applicant's specification (cite to PGPUB 20210343116):
[0106] FIG. 11C illustrates an example graphical user interface indicating that the funds transfer request is processed and transmitted to the gaming machine. In one embodiment, as illustrated, a "Sending Your User Request To The Gaming Machine" message may be displayed on the display 1108 of the portable electronic device 1100 to inform the user of the transmission. The funds transfer request may include any information and requests to facilitate transfer of funds to the gaming machine. For example, the funds transfer request may include a unique user identification (ID), password, fund amount, funding source such as bank routing and checking account number and/or player tracking account number, and any other information or data necessary to facilitate the transfer of funds. In another embodiment, the funds transfer request may include location information of the portable electronic device (e.g. obtained from location server 104 illustrated in FIG. 1), location information of the gaming device (e.g. obtained from location server 104 illustrated in FIG. 1), time stamp data, and any other data or information that may be used to authenticate and/or verify the portable electronic device and the gaming device to ensure that the funds are transferred to the proper gaming device. (Response [pp. 10-11])
The additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements in the present claims are merely used to carry out the abstract idea. There is no improvement in the functioning of gaming devices, server systems, or portable electronic devices. Instead, these generic computer components are merely used to generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, controlling permissions to transfer funds is not considered a technical problem. The examiner considers controlling permissions to transfer funds an administrative or financial task rather than a technical problem. The examiner maintains that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under prong 2 of step 2A.
With respect to step 2B, applicant states:
Separately, under the USPTO Step 2B analysis, one or more combinations of features in some implementations of independent claim 1, by way of example, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as characterized by the Office Action. Reasons for this are evident in view of the absence of any prior art rejections in the Office Action. Applicant submits that independent claim 1 recites features, which are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, since an inventive concept is present.
Thus, Applicant submits that independent claim 1 is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. (Response [p. 11])
The additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
In the present instance, the additional elements are all considered well-understood, routine, or conventional.
According to MPEP 2106.05(I):
Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101 ) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 ) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The examiner maintains that the additional elements do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 WERNER G GARNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7147. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-15:30 EST.
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.
/WERNER G GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights