DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, 17/992,544, was filed on Nov. 22, 2022, and does not claim foreign priority or domestic benefit to any other application.
The effective filing date is after the AIA date of March 16, 2013, and so the application is being examined under the “first inventor to file” provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of the Application
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication of July 29, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1, 10, and 12 are independent. In the most recent response, claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 18, and 19 have been amended.
All pending claims have been examined on the merits.
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 non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, without “significantly more”.
The abstract idea elements in independent claims 1 and 10 are shown in regular font. The “additional elements” and “extra solution steps” are shown in underlined font.
In regards to claim 1:
1. (Currently Amended) A gaming establishment fund management 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 operating independent of the processor, of data representative of a purchase transaction initiated in association with an open loop debit card at a point-of-sale terminal operating independent of the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to a determination, based on a first amount of funds residing in a gaming establishment account backed by at least a corresponding first amount of funds residing in a backing financial institution account that is independent of any account of the open loop debit card, to authorize the purchase transaction in association with an application of a coupon:
decrease a balance of the gaming establishment account by the first amount of funds, the first amount of being based on the purchase transaction and the application of the coupon, and
communicate 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 a determination, based on a second amount residing in the gaming establishment account backed by at least a corresponding second amount of funds residing in the backing financial institution account, to authorize the purchase transaction independent of any application of any coupon:
decrease the balance of the gaming establishment account by the second amount of funds, the second amount of funds being based on the purchase transaction and being greater than the first amount of funds, and
communicate the authorization to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to complete the purchase transaction.
In regards to claim 10:
10. (Currently Amended) A gaming establishment fund management 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 operating independent of the processor, of data representative of a purchase transaction initiated in association with an open loop debit card at a point-of-sale terminal operating independent of the processor and responsive to receipt, from a component of a coupon system operating independent of the processor, of an available coupon to apply to the purchase transaction, cause the processor to:
determine:
if a balance of funds residing in a gaming establishment account at least equals an amount of funds of the purchase transaction modified by an amount of the available coupon, wherein the balance of funds residing in the gaming establishment account is backed by at least a corresponding balance of funds residing in a backing financial institution account, and
if an application of the available coupon to the purchase transaction complies with a coupon limit,
responsive to the balance of the gaming establishment account at least equaling the amount of funds of the purchase transaction modified by the amount of the available coupon and the application of the available coupon to the purchase transaction complying with the coupon limit:
decrease the balance of funds residing in the gaming establishment account based on the purchase transaction modified by the amount of the available coupon, and
communicate an authorization to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to complete the purchase transaction,
responsive to the balance of funds residing in the gaming establishment account at least equaling the amount of funds of the purchase transaction modified by the amount of the available coupon and the application of the available coupon to the purchase transaction being in violation of the coupon limit, communicate a denial to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to deny the purchase transaction, and
responsive to the balance of funds residing in the gaming establishment account being less than the amount of funds of the purchase transaction, communicate the denial to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to deny the purchase transaction.
More specifically, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea: “Commercial or Legal Interactions (Including Agreements in the form of Contracts; Legal Obligations; Advertising, Marketing, or Sales Activities or Behaviors; Business Relations)”, as discussed in MPEP §2106(a)(2) Parts (I) and (II), and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The “Commercial or Legal Interactions” elements include:
In regards to claim 1:
“responsive to a determination, based on a first amount of funds residing in a gaming establishment account backed by at least a corresponding first amount of funds residing in a backing financial institution account that is independent of any account of the open loop debit card, to authorize the purchase transaction in association with an application of a coupon: decrease a balance of the gaming establishment account by the first amount of funds, the first amount of being based on the purchase transaction and the application of the coupon”.
“responsive to a determination, based on a second amount residing in the gaming establishment account backed by at least a corresponding second amount of funds residing in the backing financial institution account, to authorize the purchase transaction independent of any application of any coupon: decrease the balance of the gaming establishment account by the second amount of funds, the second amount of funds being based on the purchase transaction and being greater than the first amount of funds”.
In regards to claim 10:
“determine: if a balance of funds residing in a gaming establishment account at least equals an amount of funds of the purchase transaction modified by an amount of the available coupon, wherein the balance of funds residing in the gaming establishment account is backed by at least a corresponding balance of funds residing in a backing financial institution account, and if an application of the available coupon to the purchase transaction complies with a coupon limit”.
“responsive to the balance of the gaming establishment account at least equaling the amount of funds of the purchase transaction modified by the amount of the available coupon and the application of the available coupon to the purchase transaction complying with the coupon limit: decrease the balance of funds residing in the gaming establishment account based on the purchase transaction modified by the amount of the available coupon”.
“responsive to the balance of funds residing in the gaming establishment account at least equaling the amount of funds of the purchase transaction modified by the amount of the available coupon and the application of the available coupon to the purchase transaction being in violation of the coupon limit, communicate a denial”.
“responsive to the balance of funds residing in the gaming establishment account being less than the amount of funds of the purchase transaction, communicate the denial”.
The “additional elements” include: “a processor”, “a memory device”, “a point-of-sale terminal”, “an open loop debit card”, and “a coupon”.
The “additional extra-solution elements” include:
In regards to claim 1:
“stor[ing] a plurality of instructions”,
“a receipt, from a component of a debit card issuer operating independent of the processor, of data representative of a purchase transaction initiated in association with an open loop debit card at a point-of-sale terminal operating independent of the processor”,
“communicate an authorization to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to complete the purchase transaction”, and
“communicate the authorization to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to complete the purchase transaction”.
In regards to claim 10:
“stor[ing] a plurality of instructions”.
“a receipt, from a component of a debit card issuer operating independent of the processor, of data representative of a purchase transaction initiated in association with an open loop debit card at a point-of-sale terminal operating independent of the processor”.
“receipt, from a component of a coupon system operating independent of the processor, of an available coupon to apply to the purchase transaction, cause the processor”.
“communicate an authorization to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to complete the purchase transaction”.
“communicate a denial to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to deny the purchase transaction”.
“communicate the denial to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to deny the purchase transaction”.
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, because:
The claim recites an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The generically recited computer elements (“a processor”, “a memory device”, and “a point-of-sale terminal”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim amounts to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The extra-solution activities (“storing”, “receiving”, and “communicating”) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method, as they are insignificant extra-solution activity;
The combination of the abstract idea with the additional elements (generically recited computer elements), and/or with the extra-solution activities, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because:
When considering the elements "alone and in combination" “a processor”, “a memory device”, “a point-of-sale terminal”, “an open loop debit card”, and “a coupon”), they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception, because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Instead, they merely add the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
In regards to the extra solution activities (“storing”, “receiving”, and “communicating”), these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
More specifically, in regards to the “storing a plurality of instructions” step, see the court cases Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory); and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory).
More specifically, in regards to the “receiving” and “communicating” steps, see the court cases OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network) and (presenting offers and gathering statistics), OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Moreover, in regards to “apply it”, according to MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2):
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The Examiner holds that the independent claims “use a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data)” or “simply add a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea”.
Independent claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as independent claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Re: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Re: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
A new 35 USC 101 rejection has been added, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Re: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The 35 USC 103 rejection have been withdrawn, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The following related applications filed by the applicant do not qualify as prior art, but are relevant to the present application:
US 20240169357 A1. The Examiner notes that the application is currently in the course of prosecution, and that the scope of the claims is different from the claims in the publication. Therefore a double patenting rejection is not applicable.
US 20240169358 A1
US 20140229383 A1
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Examiner Ayal Sharon, whose telephone number is (571) 272-5614, and fax number is (571) 273-1794. The Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 6 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine M Behncke can be reached on (571) 272-8103. The fax 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.
Sincerely,
/Ayal I. Sharon/
Examiner, Art Unit 3695
October 4, 2025