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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “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”. It is unclear how in the process of using the debit card account to transfer money to the gaming establishment account the gaming establishment account is independent of “any account associated with the debit card” since by nature of the transaction, the gaming account and the debit card are “associated with each other”. As best understood, the account is just not at the same institution or company. Claims 10 and 12 recite similar language and have the same issue.
Claim 1 recites “a gaming establishment account”. It is unclear what makes an account a gaming establishment account compared to any other sort of account. As best understood, any electronic account that could be used at a gaming establishment would be structurally the same as limitations are not differentiated by who owns them. Claims 10 and 12 recite similar language and have the same issue.
Claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20 inherit(s) the deficiency by nature of dependency.
Claims 6 and 17 recite the limitation “a non-gaming establishment retail point-of-sale terminal”. It is unclear what is required to make a terminal a non-gaming establishment terminal. The specification in par. 84 says that this is, e.g. at a retailer located external to and independent of a gaming establishment. To what degree of relationship is required to establish independent? Are they not allowed to have marketing agreements? Are subsidiaries prohibited? As best understood, this is just a terminal anywhere other than a casino but not structurally distinct.
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 1-20 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 therefor 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 2-9 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 12-20 are substantially the same as claims 1-9 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) 1-20 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).
With respect to claims 1 and 12, Paris discloses a 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 component of a debit card issuer (par. 47, debit cards are an option for use), 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:
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 (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.
With respect to claims 2 and 13, Paris discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein a determination to authorize the refund transaction occurs responsive to a determination by at least one 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 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 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 5 and 16, Paris discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the gaming establishment account comprises one of a cashless wagering account and a gaming establishment retail account (par. 31, any account can be sent the money including cryptocurrency accounts, which are used for some cashless gaming websites).
With respect to claims 6 and 17, Paris discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the point-of-sale terminal comprises a non-gaming establishment retail point-of-sale terminal (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).
With respect to claims 7 and 18, Paris discloses the 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 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 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 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 component of a debit card issuer (par. 47, debit cards are an option for use), 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 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 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 (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.
With respect to claim 11, Paris discloses the system of Claim 10, wherein the gaming establishment account comprises one of a cashless wagering account and a gaming establishment retail account (par. 31, any account can be sent the money including cryptocurrency accounts, which are used for some cashless gaming websites).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2025/03/03 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claim is eligible under §101 referencing Enfish and arguing a technological improvement. Examiner disagrees. The invention is about settlement of accounts on generic computers. The invention is extremely similar to the issue at the heart of Alice that was found to be ineligible. The “technological improvements” are merely overly detailed steps that any transaction with even basic safety checks would do. Ask for money. Ensure the money is available to transfer. Get confirmation the money was actually sent. Doing it on a computer is not a technological improvement as these are basic banking functions that have been done for decades, if not longer.
With respect to the arguments about Nix and AGA, a new rejection is set forth above. Though examiner still considers Nix relevant.
Conclusion
Other relevant art cited on attached PTO-892.
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