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 Request for Continued Examination and receipt of amendments/arguments filed 3/5/26. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-7, 9-18, and 20 are pending, Claims 8 and 19 are canceled, Claims 1, 10, and 12 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to Claims 1, 10, 12 each of the claims contain the limitations of randomly determine/determining, “at least partially based on at least one of the fee amount assessed and the amount of funds transferred from the external account”, an incentive; however, the specification lacks any disclosure of the incentive being randomly determined based at least partially based on at least one of the fee amount assessed and the amount of funds transferred from the external account.
In regards to Claims 1 and 12, each of the claims contain the limitations of “responsive to the received data comprising data associated with an occurrence of an external account fee event associated with a fee amount assessed on the transfer of the amount of funds from the external account to the gaming establishment account”, wherein the received data refers back to data received from a computing component that maintains an external account, the data associated with a transfer of an amount of funds from the external account to a gaming establishment account. The specification is silent in regards to the received data including both data associated with a transfer of an amount of funds from the external account to a gaming establishment account and data associated with an occurrence of an external account fee event associated with a fee amount assessed on the transfer of the amount of funds from the external account to the gaming establishment. Additionally, the specification is silent to the steps of “randomly determine/determining… and communicate/communicating…” occurring responsive to receipt of the combination of received data.
Claims 2-7, 9, 11, 13-18, and 20 inherent the deficiencies of the corresponding dependent claims from which they depend and are rejected herein.
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 1-7, 9-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions, that when executed by the processor cause the processor to: receive, from a computing component that maintains an external account, data associated with a transfer of an amount of funds from the external account to a gaming establishment account, and responsive to the received data comprising data associated with an occurrence of an external account fee event associated with a fee amount assessed on the transfer of the amount of funds from the external account to the gaming establishment account: randomly determine, at least partially based on at least one of the fee amount assessed and the amount of funds transferred from the external account, an incentive, and communicate data that results in a display device displaying the randomly determined incentive” (Claim 1); “A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive, from a computing component that maintains an external account, data associated with a transaction comprising a transfer of an amount of funds from the external account to a gaming establishment account, determine if the transaction is associated with any assessed external account fees, wherein at least a portion of the amount of funds are accessible from the gaming establishment account independent of any dispensing of any physical forms of currency associated with the portion of the amount of funds and independent of any printing of any paper ticket vouchers associated with the portion of the amount of funds, and responsive to the determination being that the transaction is associated with an assessed external account fee: randomly determine, at least partially based on at least one of the assessed external account fee and the amount of funds transferred from the external account, an incentive to at least partially offset the external account fee, communicate data which results in a display device displaying the randomly determined incentive” (Claim 10), and “A method of operating a system, the method comprising: receiving, from a computing component that maintains an external account, data associated with a transfer of an amount of funds from the external account to a gaming establishment account, and responsive to the received data comprising data associated with an occurrence of an external account fee event associated with a fee amount assessed on the transfer of an the amount of funds from the external account to the gaming establishment account: randomly determining, by a processor and at least partially based on at least one of the fee amount assessed and the amount of funds transferred from the external account, an incentive, and communicating data that results in a display device displaying the randomly determined incentive” (Claim 12). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as it pertains to either fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
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 (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed limitations of “communicate data that results in a display device displaying the randomly determined incentive” (Claim 1); “communicating data that results in a display device displaying the randomly determined incentive” (Claim 12) are also recited at a low level of generality (e.g. as a general means of displaying the determined randomly determined incentive) and amount to mere post solution displaying of notifications, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claimed computer components (system, processor, memory device, computing component, display device, mobile device) 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.
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 “system”, “processor”, “memory device”, “computing component”, “display device”, and “mobile device”) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the 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 (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). 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. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the system(s) and/or method and/or the extent to which a computer performs/implements the system(s) and/or method. 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.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11, 13-18, and 20 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as it pertains to either fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7, 12-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalpakian (US 2003/0073494) in view of Williams (US 2021/0365942) in view of Norton (US 2007/0015569), and in further view of Huard (US 2003/0137110).
Claims 1 and 12: Kalpakian discloses a system and method comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions, that when executed by the processor (¶ 61-78) cause the processor to receive, from a computing component (¶ 83 – “the user may transfer money into the real money field 206 by invoking conventional on-line payment methods (not part of this invention), such as on-line credit card payment or on-line bank account debiting, for example. Preferably, the game server 54 does not store the user's credit card information, to reduce security risks to the user, but rather, uses a third party secure financial transaction provider for this purpose. Similarly, the play money field 208 is used to store an amount of play money available to the user.”) that maintains an external account, data associated with a transfer of an amount of funds from the external account to a gaming establishment account (¶ 83-84), and responsive to data associated with an occurrence of an external account fee event associated with a fee amount assessed on the transfer of the amount of funds from the external account to the gaming establishment account ((¶ 83 – “the user may transfer money into the real money field 206 by invoking conventional on-line payment methods (not part of this invention), such as on-line credit card payment or on-line bank account debiting, for example. Preferably, the game server 54 does not store the user's credit card information, to reduce security risks to the user, but rather, uses a third party secure financial transaction provider for this purpose. Similarly, the play money field 208 is used to store an amount of play money available to the user.” ¶ 84 – “the fees paid field 210 is used to store a cumulative amount of transaction fees paid by the user to whom the particular user record 200 corresponds, and conversely, the fees returned field 212 is used to store a cumulative amount of transaction fees refunded to the user. In this regard, it is contemplated that where an on-line payment transaction method is used to deposit funds into the real money field 206 of the user record 200, the proprietor of the game server 54 may choose to charge the user for any transaction fees associated with the payment. For example, if the user uses a credit card from a company that charges a 3% transaction fee, to deposit $100.00 into the user's real money field 206, the processor circuit 52 may be configured to deposit $97.00 into the user's real money field, and to deposit the remaining $3.00 into an account of the proprietor (not shown), to cover the $3 transaction fee that the proprietor will have to pay to the credit card company”,
, ¶ 123, ¶ 192) cause the gaming establishment component processor to (¶ 61-78): determine an incentive (¶ 83-84, 123, 192).
Kalpakian teaches the above, but lacks explicitly the data derived from the received data. However, an analogous art of Williams teaches receiving from a computing component data associated with a transfer of an amount of funds, wherein the data includes an occurrence of an external account fee event associated with a fee amount assessed on the transfer of the amount of funds from the external account (¶ 58, 82). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method, particularly the data associated with the occurrence of an external account fee event, of Kalpakian is derived from the received data associated with the transfer of funds from the external account of Kalpkian as taught by Williams, because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of determining that an occurrence of an external account fee event has occurred in which at least Kalpkian is intended (see above). Such a modification allows the proprietor of the gaming server of Kalpkian to properly access transaction fee for the transfer of funds.
Kalpakian in view of Williams teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting to communicate or communicating data which results in a display device displaying the determined incentive. Kalpakian at least teaches determining an incentive (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Norton teaches communicating data which results in a display device displaying the determined incentive (¶ 6, 11, 18, 24, 26, 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and/or method of Kalpakian in view of Williams with the determined incentive display means of Norton to provide a means of displaying the possibility of an determined incentive to a user. Such a modification would add to the overall anticipation of such an determined incentive by letting the user visually experience the possibility of being provided an determined incentive; thereby making the overall gaming experience more enjoyable.
Kalpakian in view of Williams in view of Norton teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the determined incentive being randomly determined, at least partially based on at least one of the fee amount assessed and the amount of funds transferred from the external account. Kalpakian at least teaches determining an incentive, wherein a portion of the transaction fees fund or total is the incentive provided to the user, wherein transaction fees are based on a percentage of the amount transferred (¶ 83-84). Furthermore, an analogous art of Huard teaches determining an incentive that includes awarding a randomly selected percentage of an award fund or total to the user (¶ 99, 151). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portion of the transactions fees fund or total (the incentive) provided to the user of Kalpakian in view of in view of Williams in view of Norton such that the portion is randomly determined as taught by Huard because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of determining a portion of the incentive to provide to the user in which at least Kalpakian is intended (see above). Such a modification would raise the user’s interest in the game (Huard - ¶ 3).
The above modification resulting in at least the incentive being randomly determined, at least partially based on at least one of the fee amount assessed and the amount of funds transferred (considering that Kalpakian teaches determining an incentive, wherein a portion of the transaction fees fund or total is the incentive provided to the user, wherein transaction fees are based on a percentage of the amount transferred (¶ 83-84)).
Claim 2 and 13: Kalpakian in view of Williams in view of Norton in view of Huard teaches wherein an amount of the randomly determined incentive is less than the fee amount (Kalpakian - ¶ 84, 123, 192). Here if the system only collects one transaction fee prior to awarding the player the randomly determined incentive then the system only provides only a portion of the transaction fee as the randomly determined incentive or if the system collects multiple amounts of transaction fees from a user the user is only award a portion of the total amount of transaction fees accumulated (Kalpakian - ¶ 84, 123, 192).
Claims 3 and 14: Kalpakian in view of Williams in view of Norton in view of Huard teaches wherein the external account fee event occurs based on at least one of an action of a user, and a location of the user (Kalpakian - ¶ 84, 123, 192).
Claims 4 and 15: Kalpakian in view of Williams in view of Norton in view of Huard teaches wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine a first randomly determined incentive in association with a first fee amount and determine a second, different randomly determined incentive in association with a second, different fee amount (Kalpakian - ¶ 84, 123, 192, Kalpakian indicates that different cards can have different fee amounts, wherein some can be a flat fee and others can be a percentage (a percentage fee is different from a flat fee and results in different randomly determined incentives). Additionally, those fees and or percentages depends on the card company e.g. one of ordinary skill in the art knows that fees are different dependent on the company).
Claims 5 and 16: Kalpakian in view Williams in view of Norton in view of Huard teaches wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor when the transfer is for a first amount of funds, cause the processor to determine a first randomly determined incentive in association with a first user and determine a second, different randomly determined incentive in association with a second, different user (¶ 84, 123, 192, Kalpakian indicates that the randomly determined incentives are determined separately for different users).
Claims 7 and 18: Kalpakian in view of Williams in view of Norton in view of Huard teaches wherein the randomly determined incentive comprises at least one of: a random amount, a quantity of entries into a drawing, a conditional award, and a feature usable in association with a play of a game (¶ 84, 123, 192, Kalpakian indicates that the randomly determined incentive comprises a conditional award, for example, the user playing a threshold amount of hands).
Claims 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalpakian (US 2003/0073494) in view of Norton (US 2007/0015569), and in further view of Huard (US 2003/0137110).
Claim 10: Kalpakian teaches a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (¶ 61-78): receive, from a computing component that maintains an external account, data associated with a transaction comprising a transfer of an amount of funds from the external account to a gaming establishment account (¶ 83-84, 123, 192), determine if the transaction is associated with any assessed external account fees (¶ 83-84, 123, 192), wherein at least a portion of the amount of funds are accessible from the gaming establishment account independent of any dispensing of any physical forms of currency associated with the portion of the amount of funds and independent of any printing of any paper ticket vouchers associated with the portion of the amount of funds (¶ 74, 189), and responsive to the determination being that the transaction is associated with an assessed external account fee (¶ 83-84, 123, 192): determine an incentive to at least partially offset the external account fee (¶ 83-84, 123, 192).
Kalpakian teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting to communicate or communicating data which results in a display device displaying the determined incentive. Kalpakian at least teaches determining an incentive (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Norton teaches communicating data which results in a display device displaying the determined incentive (¶ 6, 11, 18, 24, 26, 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Kalpakian with the determined incentive display means of Norton to provide a means of displaying the possibility of an determined incentive to a user. Such a modification would add to the overall anticipation of such an determined incentive by letting the user visually experience the possibility of being provided an determined incentive; thereby making the overall gaming experience more enjoyable.
Kalpakian in view of Norton teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the determined incentive being randomly determined, at least partially based on at least one of the assessed external account fee and the amount of funds transferred from the external account. Kalpakian at least teaches determining an incentive, wherein a portion of the transaction fees fund or total is the incentive provided to the user, wherein transaction fees are based on a percentage of the amount transferred (¶ 83-84). Furthermore, an analogous art of Huard teaches determining an incentive that includes awarding a randomly selected percentage of a award fund or total to the user (¶ 99, 151). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portion of the transactions fees fund or total (the incentive) provided to the user of Kalpakian in view of Norton such that the portion is randomly determined as taught by Huard because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of determining a portion of the incentive to provide to the user in which at least Kalpakian is intended (see above). Such a modification would raise the user’s interest in the game (Huard - ¶ 3).
The above modification resulting in at least the incentive being randomly determined, at least partially based on at least one of the fee amount assessed and the amount of funds transferred (considering that Kalpakian teaches determining an incentive, wherein a portion of the transaction fees fund or total is the incentive provided to the user, wherein transaction fees are based on a percentage of the amount transferred (¶ 83-84)).
Claim 11: Kalpakian in view of Norton in view of Huard teaches wherein an amount of the randomly determined incentive is less than the fee amount (Kalpakian - ¶ 84, 123, 192). Here if the system only collects one transaction fee prior to awarding the player the randomly determined incentive then the system only provides only a portion of the transaction fee as the randomly determined incentive or if the system collects multiple amounts of transaction fees from a user the user is only award a portion of the total amount of transaction fees accumulated (Kalpakian - ¶ 84, 123, 192).
Claims 6, 9, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalpakian (US 2003/0073494) in view of Williams (US 2021/0365942) in view of Norton (US 2007/0015569) in view of Huard (US 2003/0137110), and in further view of Walker (US 2006/0154722).
Claims 6 and 17: Kalpakian in view of Williams in view of Norton in view of Huard teaches the above, in addition to wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor when the transfer is for a first amount of funds, cause the processor to determine a first randomly determined incentive in association with a first parameter of a gaming establishment (¶ 84, 123, 192), but lacks explicitly suggesting determine/determining a second, different randomly determined incentive in association with a second, different parameter of the gaming establishment. Kalpakian at least teaches providing users with loyalty points (¶ 84). Furthermore, an analogous art of Walker teaches, generally, based on a first amount transferred providing a user with an randomly determined incentive such as loyalty points (¶ 194). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and/or method of Kalpakian in view of Williams in view of Norton in view of Huard to include the additional randomly determined incentive (second randomly determined incentive) means of Walker because such a modification would encourage users to continue to transfer funds that require fees in which Kalpakian is intended (see above).
Claims 9 and 20: Kalpakian in view of Williams in view of Norton in view of Huard teaches the above, in addition to wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor following a completion of the transfer, cause the processor to cause at least a portion of the amount of funds to be accessible from the gaming establishment account independent of any currency dispenser dispensing any physical forms of currency associated with the portion of the amount of funds and independent of any paper ticket voucher printer printing any paper ticket vouchers associated with the portion of the amount of fund (¶ 74, 189), but lacks explicitly suggesting in association with data communicated from a mobile device executing a mobile device application associated with the gaming establishment. However, an analogous art of Walker teaches a similarly structured system or method, wherein the memory device (116, 118) stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor (133) following a completion of the transfer (¶ 8, 125, 143) and in association with data communicated from a mobile device (¶ 8, 46 (gaming devices include portable gaming device), ¶ 76-86) executing a mobile device application associated with a gaming establishment (¶ 8, 10, 46, 78-86), cause the processor (Fig. 1) to cause at least a portion of the amount of funds to be accessible from the gaming establishment account independent of any currency dispenser dispensing any physical forms of currency associated with the portion of the amount of funds and independent of any paper ticket voucher printer printing any paper ticket vouchers associated with the portion of the amount of fund (¶ 10, 169, 172). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and/or method, particular as it pertains to the client devices of Kalpakian in view of Williams in view of Norton in view of Huard to include the mobile devices means of Walker because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of allowing users to play gambling games such as poker via a client device in which at least Kalpakian is intended (see above). Such a modification allows user(s) to be mobile while playing games; thereby, making the gaming experience more convenient.
Such a modification would result in “following a completion of the transfer and in association with data communicated from a mobile device executing a mobile device application associated with a gaming establishment..” considering that the transfer request is occurring on the mobile device from which the game is played (Kalpakian in view of Norton, as modified above, in view of Walker).
Response to Arguments
101 rejection
Applicant argues:
“Applicant respectfully submits that such a position is improper since, in accordance with MPEP §2106, a claimed invention may be subject-matter eligible when such recites an improvement which does not improve the functionality of a computing device per se, but instead represents and improvement to other fields, even when such is rooted in or utilizes computer technology. In this case, the claimed systems which realize these acknowledged benefits represent an improvement in technology and are therefore patent-eligible. In other words, by providing random incentives which would not otherwise be available to the user, the claimed systems and methods encourages the cashless and ticketless transfer of funds from an external account to a gaming establishment account and thus improve gaming establishment fund management systems (which are rooted in computer technology) operations.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner reiterates that the claimed invention does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a). “Providing random incentives which would not otherwise be available to the user, the claimed systems and methods encourages the cashless and ticketless transfer of funds from an external account to a gaming establishment account and thus improve gaming establishment fund management systems (which are rooted in computer technology)” is not is not an actual improvement to the actual technology e.g. electronic funds transfers in an electronic environment/network, but rather a means of awarding users that use efts to engage in the system. Providing an incentive for efts is not an improvement to a technology but rather an enticement to use the system. The claimed invention is not an improvement to the functions of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Applicant argues:
“In view of such a disconnect between these independently operating entities, the claimed systems and methods represent a technical improvement to a computing system or environment via acting as a bridge between these non-integrated computing systems. In other words, the claimed systems and methods offer an improvement in computing technology by operating with various independently operating computing devices (e.g., a computing component that maintains an external account) to enable randomly determined incentives to be realized based on a fee amount assessed by the computing component and/or an amount of funds transferred from the external account. Such a configuration offers computational operational efficiencies (e.g., introducing transfers of funds from external accounts reduces the use of cash and paper ticket vouchers and thus reduces computational resources otherwise dedicated to handling such cash and paper ticket vouchers), increases user safety (e.g., no threat of cash being stolen if cash is removed from the gaming environment) and saves users time (e.g., no time needs to be spent obtaining cash prior to a gaming session and/or redeeming a paper ticket voucher for cash following a gaming session). Accordingly, a processor of a system that operates with a computing component that maintains an external account to offer non-cash and non-paper ticket voucher avenues to introduce funds into a gaming establishment is hardly a method of organizing human activity that merely uses a computer as a tool to perform such an alleged abstract idea”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The computing component refers is a generic component, which at best represents the external account of an individual e.g. a computer component that maintains the external account allows for transfer of funds and accesses a fee from the external account wherein such features at best represent fundamental economic practices, wherein transferring of funds from one account to another account (in a bridge) is a long standing fundamental economic practice, wherein the claimed invention generically applies it to systems external to each other, but with the addition of providing an incentive to use the system. Such a bridge failing to establish an improvement to the technology. Applicant argues that incentives promote the use of cashless and ticketless transactions through providing randomly determined incentives, wherein instances of theft are reduced and user’s reluctance to transfer funds due to fees are addressed. Examiner contends that a reduction of theft of cash transactions are reduced, but that doesn’t prevent theft pertaining to credit card or debit card transactions including transfer of funds. Furthermore, a reduction of theft, encouragement or incentive to the user to do transfers, or a reduction of printed paper ticket/vouchers are advantages to the gaming establishment or player and not an actual improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. Applicant argues that claimed invention pertains to providing an additional means of game funding (e.g. electronic funds transfers) into a gaming environment, wherein the applicant argues that such additional means provides less wear and tear or prevents excessive wear and tear on currency dispensers and paper ticket vouchers printers due to the additional means and/or provides a safer environment. Such an improvement is not an actual improvement to the actual technology e.g. electronic funds transfers in an electronic environment/network. The claimed invention pertains to a means to provide electronic funds transfers, wherein the ability to have options of funding such as efts, paper ticket vouchers, or physical currency can result in less wear and tear on any of the input devices used for said options and lack of currency and paper ticket vouchers in a gaming establishment e.g. possibly making it a safer environment by prevent theft, etc. The applicant’s electronic funds transfer still requires the use of payment devices or input devices such as card readers, mobile devices, etc (¶ 19, 21, 61, 68, 77, 138, 212); and, additionally, while providing the additional efts means may reduce the use of currency and paper tickets resulting in an indirect safer environment it doesn’t eliminate the use of currency and paper ticket. Furthermore, even with electronic funds transfers a user still needs credit card, debit cards, mobile device, or other devices that have a reflection on the appearance of safety in the gaming environment. Assuming arguendo, the improvements are not improvements to the technology. The claimed invention is not a improvement to the functions of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
At least based on the above, the 101 rejection is clarified and maintained here.
Prior Art Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Particularly, the applicant argues that “since none of the claims pertain to any systems of playing any games, increasing the betting amount or other avenues “to raise the user’s interest in the game” is not a viable reason to combine Huard with Kalpakian and Norton”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kalpakian is drawn towards gaming (Abstract) and providing user’s incentives (awards/prize) for efts (see above). Furthermore, the claimed invention is drawn towards efts in a gaming environment. Kalpakian teaches that an incentive (award/prize) can be a portion of the transaction fees fund or total, wherein the transaction fees represent a portion/percentage of the amount of funds transferred (¶ 83-84). Huard teaches that incentives (award/prizes) can include awarding a randomly selected percentage of a award fund or total to the user (see above). Applying such teachings would of yielded predictable results, namely, a means of determining a portion of the incentive to provide to the user in which Kalpakian is intended (see above). Haurd teaches “More particularly, new and improved casino games allowing for faster-paced games, an increase in the betting amount per game, and a raise in the player's interest in the game, present a real appeal to casino house managers” (¶ 3), wherein the feature of a randomly selected percentage of an award is new feature that raises the player’s interest in the game. One would conclude that such a feature would raise the player’s interest in the game environment of at least Kalpakian without hindsight reconstruction.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the randomly, selected prize is not at least partially based on a fee amount assessed on a transfer of an amount of funds from the external account. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kalpakian at least teaches determining an incentive, wherein a portion of the transaction fees fund or total is the incentive provided to the user, wherein transaction fees are based on a percentage of the amount transferred (¶ 83-84). Furthermore, an analogous art of Huard teaches determining an incentive that includes awarding a randomly selected percentage of an award fund or total to the user (¶ 99, 151). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portion of the transactions fees fund or total (the incentive) provided to the user of Kalpakian in view of Norton such that the portion of Kalpakian is randomly determined as taught by Huard because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of determining a portion of the incentive to provide to the user in which at least Kalpakian is intended (see above). Such a modification would raise the user’s interest in the game (Huard - ¶ 3).
The above modification resulting in at least the incentive being randomly determined, at least partially based on at least one of the fee amount assessed and the amount of funds transferred (considering that Kalpakian teaches determining an incentive, wherein a portion of the transaction fees fund or total is the incentive provided to the user, wherein transaction fees are based on a percentage of the amount transferred (¶ 83-84)).
At least based on the above, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715