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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on October 9th, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent maturing from application 17/992544 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a system (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-11, and a method (i.e., a process) in claims 12-20.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. 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 computing component of a debit card issuer operating independent of the processor, and operating independent of any computing component of any gaming establishment asset management system, of data associated with a purchase transaction initiated in association with an open-loop debit card at a point-of-sale terminal operating independent of the processor and operating independent of any computing component of any gaming establishment asset management system, cause the processor to:
responsive to a determination, based on an amount of a fund balance of a gaming establishment account when the purchase transaction is initiated in association with the open-loop debit card, to authorize, without any prior transfer of any amount of funds from the gaming establishment account to any account associated with the open-loop debit card maintained by the debit card issuer to fund the purchase transaction and independent of any exchange of any amount of monetary currency and independent of any exchange of any ticket vouchers associated with any amount of monetary funds, the purchase transaction in association with a discount obtained in exchange for a gaming establishment asset associated with a user and maintained by a computing component of a gaming establishment asset management system:
decrease the amount of the fund balance of the gaming establishment account by a first amount of funds, the first amount of funds being based on the purchase transaction and the discount, and the gaming establishment account being independent of any account associated with the open-loop debit card, and
communicate an authorization to the computing 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 the amount of the fund balance of the gaming establishment account when the purchase transaction is initiated in association with the open-loop debit card, to authorize without any prior transfer of any amount of funds from the gaming establishment account to any account associated with the open-loop debit card maintained by the debit card issuer to fund the purchase transaction and independent of any exchange of any amount of monetary currency and independent of any exchange of any ticket vouchers associated with any amount of monetary funds, the purchase transaction independent of any discount obtained in exchange for any gaming establishment asset associated with the user:
decrease the amount of the fund balance of the gaming establishment account by a 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 computing component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to complete the purchase transaction.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for enabling a transaction discount based on the consideration of qualifying criteria as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including commercial or legal interactions involving sales activities and business relations because the claims set forth the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of a purchase authorization and accounting related to the same.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on a processor, a memory device, an open-loop debit card and a point-of-sale terminal it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other devices such as generic computers, cash registers, vending machines, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including a processor, a memory device, an open-loop debit card and a point-of-sale terminal amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0013], [0023], [0026], [0104], [0106]-[0107], [0122]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole, amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0013], [0023], [0026], [0104], [0106]-[0107], [0122]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-20 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of a processor, a memory device, an open-loop debit card and a point-of-sale terminal as respectively presented that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B for the reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 and further present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and therefore are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 21st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on pages 10-11 of the above dated remarks, the Applicant presents various arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more including:
i. the reasons set forth in the Applicant’s previously filed responses (Remarks Page 10);
ii. that the claimed invention improves the functionality of the underlying technology by improving the computational efficiencies and transaction time by allowing the redemption of ticket vouchers for purchases without first requiring the redemption of the ticket vouchers and transfer of value associated therewith to a debit card account (Remarks Pages 10-11); and
iii. that the invention would not fall under the enumerated grouping of Organizing Human Activity and would not describe the mere use of a computer as tool to implement a recited abstract idea (Remarks Page 11);
Responsive to the preceding arguments summarized above, the following is respectfully noted in corresponding order:
i.a) Prior office actions of record have respectively addressed the Applicant presented arguments subsequent to their original presentation and in manner consistent with the state of the claimed invention that they were originally presented with, and are likewise already of record.
ii.a) improvements in technology as defined by MPEP 2106.05(a) encompass improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field however as further defined by MPEP sections 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g) & 2106.05(h) inventions that merely utilizing the underlying computer as a tool to implement a judicial exception, reflect extra solution activity to a judicial exception and/or merely link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use are not sufficient to support the integration of a recited judicial exception into a patent eligible practical application thereof. Additionally, the proposed “inventive concept” cannot be part of the abstract idea itself; See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring) (“It is clear from Mayo that the ‘inventive concept’ cannot be the abstract idea itself, and Berkheimer . . . leave[s] untouched the numerous cases from this court which have held claims ineligible because the only alleged ‘inventive concept’ is the abstract idea.”); see also BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”).
While the Applicant proposes that the claimed invention improves the computational efficiencies and transaction time by allowing the redemption of ticket vouchers for purchases with fewer steps, it is again respectfully noted that the proposed improvement describes a system of accounting for purchase transactions that while practiced on technology, are not limited to being practiced on technology, do not improve the functional capability of the underlying technology within the meaning of MPEP 2106.05, and accordingly does not support the presence of a practical application as proposed. Alternatively stated, the modification of accounting practices on technology may modify how that technology is employed as a tool but in the instant case it does not result in an improvement in the functionality of the underlying technology.
iii.a) Financial transactions are an abstract idea grouped under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes as reflected in the rejection presented herein above. The Applicant’s proposal that the recited abstract idea would not describe the mere use of a computer as tool to implement a recited abstract idea is respectfully non-persuasive as the proposed improvement is directed to the purchase process itself and not to the functionality of the underlying hardware in manner consistent with MPEP 2106.05(a) wherein the underlying technology is utilized merely as a tool to implement the recited abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Improvements to an abstract idea itself that do not result in an improvement to the underlying technology which the abstract idea is performed on are not sufficient to support the proposed integration of the judicial exception into a practical application as noted by the courts, See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring) (“It is clear from Mayo that the ‘inventive concept’ cannot be the abstract idea itself, and Berkheimer . . . leave[s] untouched the numerous cases from this court which have held claims ineligible because the only alleged ‘inventive concept’ is the abstract idea.”); see also BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”). The distinction of the proposed advantage from the underlying technology further supports the characterization that the claim limitations only define the general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use that would not support the patent eligibility thereof (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
In view of the preceding the rejection of claim is respectfully maintained as presented herein above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715