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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments in the Response dated August 8, 2025 directed to the Non-Final Office Action dated May 8, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and generate, generate a physical token validation number” (lines 17-18) should presumably read “, generate a physical token validation number,”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 gaming system (i.e., a machine), claims 8-15 are directed to a ticketing system (i.e., a machine), and claims 16-20 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). 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 recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a gaming system comprising:
A gaming system comprising:
a printer;
a processor coupled with the printer; and
a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
receive an input indicating a request to transfer an amount from a player account associated with a player of the gaming system to a physical token redeemable by a staff member of a gaming venue in which the gaming system is installed, the amount comprising a tip from the player to the staff member, wherein the player account comprises a cashless account separate from a credit meter of the gaming system;
validate the request to transfer the amount from the player account to the physical token based on at least one of an electronic record associated with the player account or one or more inputs; and
in response to validating the request to transfer the amount from the player account to the physical token, update the electronic record associated with the player account to decrement a balance of the player account by the amount and generate, generate a physical token validation number, and generate, through the printer, the physical token with an indication of the amount and [[a]] the physical token validation number identifying the token, wherein a leading two digits of the physical token validation number indicates are set to a code indicating, to a ticketing system, the physical token is a tip ticket.
Claim 8 recites a ticketing system of a gaming venue, the ticketing system comprising:
A ticketing system of a gaming venue, the ticketing system comprising:
a communications interface;
a processor coupled with the communications interface; and
a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
maintain an electronic record for a player of the gaming venue, the electronic record comprising a field storing a value indicating an account balance for an account of the player, wherein the account of the player comprises a cashless account separate from a credit meter of the gaming system;
receive, from a gaming system of the gaming venue, through the communications interface, an electronic message indicating a request to transfer an amount from the account balance for the account of the player to a physical token redeemable by a staff member of the gaming venue, the amount comprising a tip from the player to the staff member;
validate the request to transfer the amount from the account balance for the account of the player to the physical token; and
in response to validating the request to transfer the amount from the account balance for the account of the player to the physical token, update the electronic record to decrement the account balance by the amount, generate a physical token validation number, and send, to the gaming system, through the communication interface, an electronic message comprising the physical token validation number identifying the token, a leading two digits of the physical token validation number set to a code indicating, to the ticketing system, the physical token is a tip ticket and an instruction to initiate printing of the physical token with an indication of the amount and the physical token validation number by the gaming system.
Claim 16 recites a ticketing system of a gaming venue, a method for tracking use of a physical token within a gaming venue, the method comprising:
receiving, by a gaming system, a request to transfer an amount from a player account associated with a player of the gaming system to a physical token redeemable by a staff member of the gaming venue, the amount comprising a tip from the player to the staff member,
wherein the player account comprises a cashless account separate from a credit meter of the gaming system;
validating, by the gaming system, the request to transfer the amount from the player account to the physical token; and
in response to validating the request to transfer the amount from the player account to the physical token, updating, by the gaming system, an electronic record associated with the player account to decrement a balance of the player account by the amount,
printing, by the gaming system, the physical token with a physical token validation number identifying the physical token and
an indication of the amount, wherein a leading two digits of the physical token validation number indicates the physical token is a tip ticket, and sending, by the gaming system, to a ticketing system of the gaming venue, an electronic message comprising the physical token validation number.
in response to validating the request to transfer the amount from the player account to the physical token, updating, by the gaming system, an electronic record associated with the player account to decrement a balance of the player account by the amount, generating, by the gaming system, a physical token validation number, printing, by the gaming system, the physical token with the physical token validation number identifying the physical token and an indication of the amount, wherein a leading two digits of the physical token validation number indicates are set to a code indicating, to a ticketing system of the gaming venue, the physical token is a tip ticket, and sending, by the gaming system, to the ticketing system of the gaming venue, an electronic message comprising the physical token validation number.
The present claims are directed to the use of physical tokens to transfer a value between individuals and, in particular, toward generating and tracking physical tokens within a gaming venue (Specification [0001]).
The current limitations fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, the limitations fall into the sub-categories of fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions.
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 value clearly falls into the category of fundamental economic practices.
"Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The limitations recite the steps involved in transferring an amount and updating records associated with the transfer also fall under the category of commercial or legal interactions similar to the processing of information through a clearing house similar to the processing of information through a clearing-house as in Dealertrack v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1331, 101 USPQ2d 1325, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The validation step falls into the category of mental processes because it can be performed in the human mind.
The dependent claims further expand on the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims are directed to 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 printer, a processor, a memory, a physical token, a ticketing system, a display device, a communications interface, a mobile device, and a gaming system.
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. 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 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 (i.e., generic computer components in a gaming venue). 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.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in step 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional, as evidenced below:
a printer (Coulombe et al., US 2012/0061150 A1, operation of … receipt printer 413 are conventional and known in the art [0025]),
a processor, a memory, a display device, a communications interface, (Walker et al., US 2004/0082384 A1, components well known in the art, specifically a processor, Ram and ROM, a data storage device, a random number generator, a communication port, a hopper controller, a hopper, a video controller, a touch screen, a coin acceptor controller, a coin acceptor, a bill acceptor controller, a bill acceptor, a reel controller, reels, an input device, an output device and a sensor [0058])
a physical token (Herrington, US 2009/0209327 A1, redeemable "tickets," electronic funds transfers to/from a player's account, and other means well known in the industry [0004]);
a mobile device (Qureshi et al., US 2011/0145063 A1, examples of well known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use with aspects of the invention include, but are not limited to, mobile computing devices, personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, gaming consoles, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, mobile telephones, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like [0046]); and
a gaming system, a ticketing system (Netley et al., US 2009/0005157 A1, like electronic gaming machines, player tracking systems are well-known in the art [0018]).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Prior Art
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, applicant states:
Applicant respectfully submits that the Office should apply the Streamlined Eligibility Analysis and find the pending claims patent eligible. In particular, for the purposes of efficient examination, a streamlined analysis is available for claims that "clearly do not seek to tie up any judicial exception such that others cannot practice it." Such claims do not need to proceed through the full two-part analysis as their eligibility will be self-evident. (Response [p. 9])
According to MPEP 2106.06,
For purposes of efficiency in examination, examiners may use a streamlined eligibility analysis (Pathway A) when the eligibility of the claim is self-evident, e.g., because the claim clearly improves a technology or computer functionality. However, if there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself, the full eligibility analysis (the Alice/Mayo test described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III) should be conducted to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or recites significantly more than the judicial exception.
The examiner does not agree that the eligibility of the claim is self-evident. Therefore, the examiner considers it appropriate to conduct the full analysis.
Furthermore, MPEP 2106.06 also states “[t]he results of the streamlined analysis will always be the same as the full analysis, thus the streamlined analysis is not a means of avoiding a finding of ineligibility that would occur if a claim were to undergo the full eligibility analysis.”
With respect to prong 1 of step 2A, applicant states:
The Office Action focuses on subject matter (b) and (c) by characterizing the claims as fundamental economic practices and mental processes. See, e.g., Office Action, Page 5-6. (Response [p. 13])
The examiner does not fully agree with applicant’s summary of the rejection. The claim limitations fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Within certain methods of organizing human activity, the claim limitations fall into the sub-categories of fundamental economic practices and commercial or legal interactions.
Applicant argues that
Applicant submits that the pending claims are not directed to, and cannot be construed as fundamental economic practices. Rather, the claims recite specific electronic interactions between different systems. For at least these reasons, the limitations cannot be construed as reciting limitations that are associated with certain methods of organizing human activity. (Response [p. 13])
Applicant makes a conclusory statement without addressing the examiner’s analysis.
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. According to applicant’s specification, “[t]he present disclosure is generally directed to use of physical tokens to transfer a value between individuals and, in particular, toward generating and tracking physical tokens within a gaming venue” (Specification [0001]). The transfer of value from a player to a staff member using a physical token. The absence or presence of different systems does not preclude the identification of an abstract idea. The examiner maintains that limitations fall into the sub-category of fundamental economic practices because they involve the exchange of value between parties.
Furthermore, the transfer of value recited in the claims also involves recordkeeping by updating accounts and records to track the transfer of value. This clearly falls into the sub-category of commercial or legal interactions.
The claims also recite validating a request to transfer the amount. This can be accomplished by a human by requesting identification information from a player and confirming an amount from the player account.
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Applicant cites McRO as support that the present claims cannot be performed by a human. The present claims, however, do not recite intricate algorithms to synchronize match a digital model’s mouth with speech. The validate step can be performed in the human mind, much in the same way that a bank teller verifies a customer’s identity and confirms the amount in a customer’s bank account prior to transferring money.
The examiner maintains that the claims are directed to an abstract idea under prong one of step 2A.
With respect to prong 2 of step 2A, applicant “submits that the pending claims comprise a number of additional elements that go beyond the alleged judicial exception” (Response [p. 15]).
Applicant goes on to state that “abstract” is defined as “disassociated from any specific instance” (Response [p. 15]). However, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary definition of “abstract” was not adopted by the courts with respect to subject matter eligibility analysis.
The abstract idea exception has deep roots in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601-602, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2010) (citing Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156, 174–175 (1853)). Despite this long history, the courts have declined to define abstract ideas.
To facilitate examination, 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 are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
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) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Rather than use applicant’s preferred definition of “abstract”, the examiner relies on the Office’s guidance as describe in MPEP 2106.
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.
Applicant goes on to state:
Applicant respectfully submits that in the instant case, the pending claims properly integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. The pending claims address a technical problem associated with interactions between various computing systems within a gaming venue. Specifically, generating and tracking a physical token between systems in a gaming venue to detect patterns of activity indicative of fraud, cheating, money laundering, etc. (Response [p. 16])
The examiner does not agree that “generating and tracking a physical token between systems in a gaming venue to detect patterns of activity indicative of fraud, cheating, money laundering, etc.” is a technical problem. Instead, it appears to be a method of bookkeeping that uses technology (i.e., generic computer components) to carry out the abstract idea.
The examiner maintains that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under prong 2 of step 2A.
Applicant states that the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under prong 2.
It appears that applicant may be referring to step 2B, where the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Applicant states:
Even if the Examiner were correct that some of the individually-viewed elements do not add significantly more or integrate the exception, those additional elements when viewed in combination may render the claim eligible. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188, 209 USPQ2d 1, 9 (1981) ("a new combination of steps in a process may be patentable even though all the constituents of the combination were well known and in common use before the combination was made"); BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016). (Response [p. 16])
Generally speaking, the examine agrees that “additional elements when viewed in combination may render the claim eligible”. In the present instance, however, the examiner does not agree that the additional elements render the claim eligible. The additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, the additional elements 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 examiner maintains that the present claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103, the examiner is persuaded by applicant’s remarks (Response [pp. 16-19]). There are currently no prior art rejections against the claims.
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