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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 12 recite “a gaming establishment fund management system”. It is unclear what the scope of a gaming establishment comprises. Is there a structural difference between a fund management system for a bank and one for a “gaming establishment”? Is there a certain percentage of sales devoted to gaming that is required to make a business’s retail system a gaming establishment retail system? For example, DAVE AND BUSTERS is a restaurant that also has games to play. Is it a restaurant or a gaming establishment?
Claims 1 and 12 recite “a computing component of a debit card issuer operating independent of the processor” and “a balance of a gaming establishment cashless wagering account that is maintained independent of an account associated with the debit card maintained by the computing component of the debit card issuer”. It is unclear what the arrangement and operation of the system is. If the system is using a debit card issued by a bank to make a shadow account at a casino, the casino’s system must interact with the payment processor to intercept the refund request, at which point it is associated with the payment system and is connected to the debit card issuer and therefore not independent of it. If the system is separate from the banking system and is merely hijacking a debit card to use as the access card to the separate casino account used only within the casino system, then it is unclear how the processor of the casino system would be able to interface with the debit card issuer. In other words, the system would either need to be part of the payment processing network and thus cannot be independent of it or would need to be independent of the payment processing system and therefore cannot be responsive to commands from the payment processing system that issued and maintains the debit card. As best understood, the limitations appear to be trying to describe that the processor that runs the casino account is not the exact same processor that runs the debit card account (even though there would be many computers involved in reality) and otherwise works with the payment processing system that the debit card issuer is a member.
Claims 1, 10 and 12 recite “a processor … responsive to a receipt from a computing component of a debit card issuer operating independent of the processor”. It is unclear how the computing component operates independently of the processor when the component is in command of the processor. Further, similar to above, it isn’t clear how the two could operate independently while being in communication with each other to essentially share an account number. Again, if the system does allow for the hijacking of a return request to divert money into a casino account from a point of sale terminal, then either the casino system must be completely separate so that the pos terminal does not accidently contact the payment processing network and debit card issuer or the casino and the payment processing system and thus the debit card issuer would need to coordinate the transaction, which makes them not independent of each other.
Claim 11 recites that the gaming establishment cashless wagering account is maintained independent of an account associated with the debit card maintained by the computing component of the debit card issuer. Similar to above, it is not clear how these accounts could be independent when they are using the same account number and must be coordinated to allow for the other recited functions of the claims.
Claims 6 and 17 recite “wherein the point-of-sale terminal is separate from a gaming establishment retail system”. It is unclear what the scope of the limitation comprises. Would the mere presence of a pos terminal at one gaming establishment make it “separate” from a second gaming establishment? Does the claim require that pos terminal not communicate with something that is labeled or can be called a gaming establishment retail system? What is the scope of a retail system of a gaming establishment? Are cashless wagering systems retail systems of gaming establishments? Is it limited to food and beverage or consumer goods?
The dependent claims inherit(s) the deficiency by nature of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, at step 1, the claim recites a system with a processor and memory and is therefore one of the eligible categories.
With respect to step 2a, prong one, the following limitations are considered to be abstract:
processor responsive to a receipt, from a component of a debit card issuer, of data associated with an authorized refund transaction initiated in association with a debit card at a point-of-sale terminal and increase, based on the authorized refund transaction, a balance of a gaming establishment account that is independent of any account associated with the debit card
These limitations are abstract because the processes recited are mental processes such as recognition of events and decision making and/or certain methods of human activity, the exchange of financial obligations through the transfer of money and settling of accounts.
With respect to prong two, the following elements are additional:
a processor; and a memory device
The above elements are merely applying the abstract idea on a computer.
and communicate a notification to the point-of-sale terminal of a completion of the authorized refund transaction
The above element is merely a post-solution indicator of the results of the abstract idea.
In re-evaluating the claim at step 2b, the elements, when considered as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more because the claim is directed to the idea of financial transactions on a generic computer akin to the issue in Alice vs CLS and checking accounts for value and transferring money is a routine and conventional financial transaction occurring before the invention of the computer.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-9 merely further specify the abstract idea by adding conditions to the decision-making process by stipulating what is considered or who owns what accounts.
Claim 10 recites the following elements that are considered abstract:
determine:
whether to accept the refund transaction in association with a gaming establishment account, and
if the refund transaction complies with a debit card usage control, responsive to a determination to accept the refund transaction in association with the gaming establishment account and the refund transaction complying with the debit card usage control:
increase a balance of the gaming establishment account based on the refund transaction, and
responsive to the determination to accept the refund transaction in association with the gaming establishment account and the refund transaction being in violation of the debit card usage control, and
responsive to a determination not to accept the refund transaction in association with the gaming establishment account.
The above elements are abstract because they are directed to mental processes such as decision making and evaluation and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically financial transactions ala Alice.
The following are additional elements:
A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a receipt, from a component of a debit card issuer, of data associated with a refund transaction initiated in association with a debit card at a point-of-sale terminal, cause the processor to:
The above elements are general purposes computer components that merely apply the abstract idea on a generic computer.
communicate an authorization to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to complete the refund transaction,
communicate a denial to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to deny the refund transaction
communicate the denial to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to deny the refund transaction
The above limitations are merely post-solution notifications of the outcome of the decision on whether to allow the transaction.
In re-evaluating the claim as an ordered combination at step 2b, the claim fails to meet the requirements of §101 as it is merely an abstract idea without significantly more as it is basic monetary transaction applied by a generic computer in the context of a casino instead of any other sort of financial account.
Claims 12-15 and 17-20 are substantially the same as claims 1-4 and 6-9 and are rejected using the same rationale as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paris; Jared Adam et al. (US 20210019749 A1) in view of Potts, Craig et al. (US 20050107155 A1) and Higgins; Kevin M. et al. (US 20200152005 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 12, Paris discloses a gaming establishment fund management system and method comprising: a processor (par. 21, processor); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions (par. 21, medium types listed) that, when executed by the processor responsive to a receipt, from a computing component of a debit card issuer operating independent of the processor (par. 47, debit cards are an option for use and are separate from the refund operator), of data associated with an authorized refund transaction initiated in association with a debit card at a point-of-sale terminal (par. 29, point of sale terminal used to get refund requestions), cause the processor to:
cause an increase, based on the authorized refund transaction, a balance of a gaming establishment cashless wagering account that is maintained independent of an account associated with the debit card maintained by the computing component of the debit card issuer (par. 31, system allows refunds to any other type of account desired including virtual currencies such as cryptocurrencies which are used at some online casinos, brokerage accounts, etc.).
Paris does not explicitly disclose and communicate a notification to the point-of-sale terminal of a completion of the authorized refund transaction.
In related prior art, Potts discloses a money transfer system in the gaming industry whereby when a transfer is made, the automated system acknowledges money transfers and notifies the terminals to complete transactions or display error messages (fig. 4 and par. 33). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of checking to make sure a money transfer has actually completed so that customers would know where their money had gone and would not accuse the merchant of stealing from them or committing assault.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to have modified Paris in view of Potts to have the system communicate a notification to the point-of-sale terminal of a completion of the authorized refund transaction so that users know what happened to their money and do not wreck the place or call the police.
Paris discloses the refund may be made into cryptocurrencies, but does not explicitly disclose that cryptocurrencies are gaming establishment cashless wagering accounts.
In related prior art, Higgens discloses that cryptocurrency accounts can be used as gaming establishment cashless wagering accounts (par 49). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantages of allowing the people dumb enough to put their money into cryptocurrency to also spend their money on gambling because they are gullible and easy to get money from.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to have modified Paris in view of Higgens to have the cryptocurrency account that is allowed to refund to be a gaming establishment cashless wagering account so that gaming operation corporations can fleece crypto “investors” more directly and thus make more profit.
With respect to claims 2 and 13, Paris discloses the gaming establishment fund management system of Claim 1, wherein a determination to authorize the refund transaction occurs responsive to a determination by at least one of the computing component of the debit card issuer and the point-of-sale terminal (par. 31, the merchant i.e. the pos terminal can deny the refund request).
With respect to claims 3 and 14, Paris discloses the gaming establishment fund management system of Claim 1, wherein a transfer of an amount of funds associated with the authorized refund transaction occurs responsive to a settlement event (par. 31, once the transfer has started, the system settles the funds with the other account).
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Paris discloses the gaming establishment fund management system of Claim 3, wherein the settlement event occurs subsequent to the completion of the authorized refund transaction (par. 31, the person chooses to refund and then the money goes to the other account as a settlement can't occur before the transaction has started).
With respect to claims 6 and 17, Paris discloses the gaming establishment fund management system of Claim 1, wherein the point-of-sale terminal is separate from a gaming establishment retail system (par. 31, Paris does not state that the merchant agent 102 is in a casino and casinos are not inherently the only place a pos terminal could be and there is at least one gaming establishment that is not in the same place as a component in Paris).
With respect to claims 7 and 18, Paris discloses the gaming establishment fund management system of Claim 1, wherein a determination to authorize the refund transaction is based on the refund transaction complying with a debit card usage control (par. 42, there may be a transaction limit).
With respect to claims 8 and 19, Paris discloses the gaming establishment fund management system of Claim 7, wherein the debit card usage control is associated with an identity of a user associated with the refund transaction (par. 31, the user logs-in to their accounts to enable the transaction).
With respect to claims 9 and 20, Paris discloses the gaming establishment fund management system of Claim 7, wherein the debit card usage control is associated with at least one of a merchant identifier, a merchant category code, and an amount of funds associated with the refund transaction (par. 42, there may be a transaction limit).
With respect to claim 10, Paris discloses a gaming establishment fund management system comprising: a processor (par. 21, processor); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions (par. 21, medium types listed) that, when executed by the processor responsive to a receipt, from a computing component of a debit card issuer operating independent of the processor (par. 47, debit cards are an option for use and the debit issuer is not the same as the refund operator), of data associated with a refund transaction initiated in association with a debit card at a point-of-sale terminal (par. 29, point of sale terminal used to get refund requestions), cause the processor to:
determine:
whether to accept the refund transaction in association with a gaming establishment cashless wagering account (par. 31, the merchant can decide to accept or deny the refund), and
if the refund transaction complies with a debit card usage control, responsive to a determination to accept the refund transaction in association with the gaming establishment cashless wagering account and the refund transaction complying with the debit card usage control:
cause an increase of a balance of the gaming establishment account based on the refund transaction (par. 31, system allows refunds to any other type of account desired including virtual currencies such as cryptocurrencies which are used at some online casinos, brokerage accounts, etc.).
Paris further discloses that there may be a transaction limit on the refund (par. 42, which is a debit card usage control), but does not explicitly disclose communicate an authorization to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to complete the refund transaction,
responsive to the determination to accept the refund transaction in association with the gaming establishment account and the refund transaction being in violation of the debit card usage control, communicate a denial to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to deny the refund transaction, and
responsive to a determination not to accept the refund transaction in association with the gaming establishment account, communicate the denial to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to deny the refund transaction.
In related prior art, Potts discloses a money transfer system in the gaming industry whereby when a transfer is made, the automated system acknowledges money transfers and notifies the terminals to complete transactions or display error messages (fig. 4 and par. 33) where the authorization can be based on accounts validation issues (fig. 2 and par. 26, mismatch between tickets and accounts results in denial error and kiosk shows error, which means a denial message was communicated to the device). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of sending messages in a financial system to acknowledge or deny transactions so that both parties know what is happening with the money and it does not get lost or stolen.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to have modified Paris in view of Potts to have included the steps of communicate an authorization to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to complete the refund transaction,
responsive to the determination to accept the refund transaction in association with the gaming establishment account and the refund transaction being in violation of the debit card usage control, communicate a denial to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to deny the refund transaction, and
responsive to a determination not to accept the refund transaction in association with the gaming establishment account, communicate the denial to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to deny the refund transaction because sending messages about the acceptance or denial of transactions would inform the devices and by extension the users of where the money was going so that people did not lose money or get money stolen and thereby become hostile to the merchant.
Paris discloses the refund may be made into cryptocurrencies, but does not explicitly disclose that cryptocurrencies are gaming establishment cashless wagering accounts.
In related prior art, Higgens discloses that cryptocurrency accounts can be used as gaming establishment cashless wagering accounts (par 49). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantages of allowing the people dumb enough to put their money into cryptocurrency to also spend their money on gambling because they are gullible and easy to get money from.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to have modified Paris in view of Higgens to have the cryptocurrency account that is allowed to refund to be a gaming establishment cashless wagering account so that gaming operation corporations can fleece crypto “investors” more directly and thus make more profit.
With respect to claim 11, Paris discloses the gaming establishment fund management system of Claim 10, wherein the gaming establishment cashless wagering account is maintained independent of an account associated with the debit card maintained by the computing component of the debit card issuer (par. 31, the cryptocurrency account is maintained separately from the debit card issuer because legitimate banks in the US are not allowed to be denominated in cryptocurrency).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/06/23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amendments have addressed the 112(b) issues. Examiner disagrees in the rejections above.
Applicant argues with respect to the §101 rejection that gaming establishment fund management systems, debit card issuers and pos terminals are disparate environments which are not configured to communicate with each other and are not integrated with each other for various regulatory reasons. Examiner points out that regulatory barriers do not make the current application a technological improvement. Also, any system that was on the VISA, MASTERCARD, CIRRUS, or any other payment processor network could communicate with each other. There have been gaming machines that could take credit or debit cards for decades. POS terminals have been taking credit and debit cards for decades. It has been possible to refund a prior purchase to any other debit or credit card connected to the merchant payment processor for decades. Applicant’s invention does not solve a new technological problem. Further, the majority of the payment processing process is directed to an abstract process and abstract processes cannot provide a technological improvement, see MPEP 2106.05(a):
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Applicant argues that the claims are not obvious over Paris and Potts. Examiner disagrees that Paris did not have a “gaming establishment cashless wagering account” as that term has no structural limitation and is merely some virtual account operated or accepted by a casino as any of the virtual currency accounts may have been, but nonetheless examiner has provide a clear teaching that casinos may have cashless wagering accounts and that it would have been obvious to use the refund system of Paris to refund to those accounts so that casinos can fleece more people and make more money.
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 DAVID DUFFY whose telephone number is (571)272-1574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700 +/- 15.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at (571) 270-1935. 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.
/DAVID DUFFY/Quality Assurance Specialist, TC 3700
Prosecution Insights