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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the limitations on pages 9-10 are significantly more than using rules to authorize a financial transaction. The Examiner disagrees because the claim limitations are similar to analyzing and verifying details of a financial transaction, which is a long standing commercial practice, see Bozeman Financial LLC v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta 955 F.3d 971, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The Applicant argues the technical limitations have been overcome by connecting and communicating with the casino network, but the claims and the specification do not contain any specific networks or specific issue with the current networks (banking networks, the internet, payment networks) that are overcome or utilized in a manner not consistent with the current use of these networks such as to analyze and authorize financial transactions. Specification [0094] makes clear that the communications are run through any suitable data network such as the internet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claim 12 is directed to “a method of operating a multiple gaming establishment fund management system”. Claim 12 is directed to the abstract idea of “using rules to authorize a financial transaction” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice (determining an authorization of a purchase using an account is a form of mitigating risk) and commercial or legal interactions (authorizing a purchase is a sales behavior and business relation)” in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Claim 12 recites receiving data associated with a purchase transaction initiated in association with a multi-operator open-loop debit card, locating a plurality of fund balances of a plurality of gaming establishment accounts associated with the plurality of individual gaming establishments, determining based on the plurality of fund balances of the plurality of gaming establishment account located whether to authorize the purchase transaction, responsive to the determination being to authorize the purchase transaction, decreasing the fund balance of that gaming establishment account, wherein a collective decrease of the fund balances of the gaming establishment accounts is based on the purchase transaction, communicating an authorization to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to complete the purchase transaction, and responsive to the determination to not to authorize the purchase transaction, communicating a denial to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to deny the purchase transaction. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as a processor, a memory, a component of a debit card issuer that is distinct from a processor of the multiple gaming establishment fund management system, a forwarding service, a point-of-sale terminal represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. implement) the acts of using rules to authorize a financial transaction.
When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using rules to authorize a financial transaction using computer technology (e.g. a processor and memory). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. Dependent claims 2-9, 11, 13-20 further describe the abstract idea of the independent claims. In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/199557 (reference application) in view of Higgins US 2021/0090200. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Higgins discloses multiple gaming accounts as well as single gaming accounts in [0060] and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that multiple accounts and single accounts that function in the same manner is an obvious variant of the same invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nix US 2007/0267479 Sanford US 2018/0240302 Sanford US 2015/0019414 Sanford US 11004305 Higgins US 2019/0043306 Unrau US 11507938 Higgins US 2021/0090200 Irwin US 2014/0141866
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 P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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 P. SHARVIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692