CTFR 17/992,577 CTFR 90923 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Amendment The Amendment filed on 2026 February 26 has been entered. The following is in reply to the Amendments and Arguments. Claims amended: 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 13-15, 17-19 Claims cancelled: 11 Claims added: none Claims currently pending: 1-10, 12-20 Response to Arguments Applicant, in the first paragraph under “ REMARKS ”, presents opening remarks regarding the disposition of the claims and the amendments to the claims. As no specific argument is raised in this/these section(s) with respect to the instant application, no rebuttal is required. Applicant, beginning on page 12, refers to In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V. , and argues that the steps of “decreasing an amount of a fund balance…”, “communicating an authorization…”, “causing a transfer of a first amount…” and “causing a transfer…of a second amount” are “not personal behavior or relationships, social activity, or rules for humans to interact”. This argument is unfounded because the grounds of rejection is based on a finding that the claims are directed towards ” commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations ” and not on a finding that the claims are directed towards “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions”. Applicant, on page 13, argues that the “claimed gaming establishment fund management systems achieve various operational efficiencies which are rooted in computer technology”. The claimed operational efficiencies amount to enabling “a purchase transaction to be completed using a debit card and with funds from a gaming establishment account”. However, this alleged “operational efficiency” is not actually an “efficiency” within the technology itself, but rather an “efficiency” within a business practice: that of using a gaming account for purchases directly. This is not a limitation of technology per se, but rather a use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology put to use towards, “commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations ”. As such, the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is herein maintained, albeit updated to reflect Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Applicant, beginning near the bottom of page 13, refers to MPEP 2106.04(d)(III) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and argues that the direct transfer of funds from a “gaming establishment account” to make a purchase represents a “technically efficient avenue to complete a transaction” which integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner disagrees to this notion as the use of a debit card to initiate purchases was well-understood, routine, and conventional well before the effective filing date of the instant application. Simply substituting one financial account for another, does not represent a technical innovation that would render the claims into a practical application. The combination of steps do not represent more than an application of the abstract idea as performed with well-understood, routine, and conventional elements (i.e., sending and receiving data, standard computing components). The elements that comprise the abstract idea are primarily accounting steps such as debiting and crediting various accounts, and communicating an authorization; while these steps are implemented with a “processor”, they are not technical in nature. Therefore, the claims are not found to represent a practical application of the abstract idea. Applicant, in the beginning near the bottom of page 15, refers to newly amended claim language and argues, “…no funds from the gaming account of the combination of Kranzley and Sanford would be directly transferred to any accounts of any retailers”. This argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. The new grounds of rejection rely upon a new reference, Skiba, which is integrated with Kranzley and Sanford, to teach the newly amended claim language. Examiner does note that the use of Sanford herein does not rely upon a wholesale inclusion of the invention of Sanford into the invention of Kranzley and Skiba, but rather a teaching that a financial account could pertain to a “gaming establishment”. Applicant does not present any arguments in support of the patentability of the dependent claims except to assert that the claims are patentable based on their dependence from the independent claim(s). Therefore, said dependent claims stand rejected under the grounds of rejection presented herein and no detailed rebuttal is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more . Step 1: Claims 1-7 and 8-10, 12, 13 are directed towards a system. Claims 14-20 are directed towards a method. Thus, these claims, on their face, are directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Step 2A - Prong One: As per MPEP 2106.04, Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim(s) recites a judicial exception; that is, whether the claim(s) set forth or describe a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr , 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo , 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp ., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement". Claim 1 is presented here as a representative claim for specific analysis (The underlined claim terms here are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two): 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 computing component of a debit card issuer operating independent of the processor , of data associated with a purchase transaction initiated in association with an open-loop debit card at a point-of-sale terminal associated with a retail establishment and operating independent of the processor, 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 the purchase transaction in association with an application of an incentive: decrease the amount of the fund balance of the gaming establishment account by a first amount of funds, wherein: the decrease is based on the purchase transaction, the gaming establishment account is independent of any account associated with the open-loop debit card, and the decrease occurs independent of any funds residing in any financial institution account associated with the open-loop debit card, and independent of transferring any funds from the gaming establishment account to the financial institution account associated with the open-loop debit card, communicate an authorization to the computing component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to complete the purchase transaction independent of any exchange of any amount of physical monetary currency, independent of any exchange of any physical ticket vouchers associated with any amount of monetary funds, and independent of any amount of funds being transferred from any financial institution account associated with the open-loop debit card, and responsive to an occurrence of a settlement event: cause a direct transfer of the first amount of funds from the gaming establishment account to an account of the retail establishment, and cause a transfer of a second amount of funds to the account of the retail establishment, the second amount of funds being based on the application of the incentive and the second amount of funds being independent of any funds maintained in the gaming establishment account. The claims here are based on the recitation of an abstract idea (i.e. recitation other than the additional elements delineated here with underlining and further addressed per Step 2A - Prong Two and Step 2B). The claims recite the abstract idea of incentivizing a retailer to process payments using a gaming establishment account which is found to fall within certain methods of organizing human activity. The phrase "certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions. Refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C. The Remaining Claims: The analysis of claim 1 is applicable to the additional independent claims 8 and 14 as these additional claims comprise a slightly altered version of claim 1 and an alternate embodiment that implement the same steps of the method of the claim analyzed above. The dependent claims fail to recite any additional elements. The dependent claims further reiterate the same abstract idea with further embellishments: claims 2, 9, and 15 send a settlement account message; claims, 3, 10, and 16 associate particular retailers with varying discounts; claims 4 and 17 introduce a third amount to the transaction; claims 5 and 18 provide different discounts based on the user; claims 6 and 19 provide an incentive to the retailer for accepting the transaction; claims 7, 12, and 20 indicate the retailer is separate from the gaming establishment; claim 11 provides users with varying discounts; and claim 13 adds the usage of a cashless wagering account. Therefore, the identified claims fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2A - Prong Two: As per MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2, Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ? The claims offer the additional elements of: a processor, a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions, a retail establishment . It would have been readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was filed that the additional elements represent generic computing devices. The additional element(s) are simply utilized as generic computing tools to implement the abstract idea, functioning as mere instructions to apply the exception. The specification, in at least 00104, describes implementing the invention using "one or more servers", "one or more non-gaming establishment devices", and "one or more gaming establishment devices" and further, in at least 00106, that the "...at least one processor is any suitable processing device". Merely adding generic hardware and computer components to perform abstract ideas does not integrate those ideas into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223 (The "mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."); see also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished.'") (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse , 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). Therefore, the claims amount to no more than a mere method, system, and/or computer program product to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The claims offer the additional elements of: receipt, from a computing component of an open-loop debit card issuer … of data associated with a purchase transaction initiated in association with an 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 . The gathering of data represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional element of a retail establishment amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The ordered combination offers nothing more than employing a generic configuration of computer devices and computer functions. The claims do not amount to a practical application, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. Step 2B: As per MPEP 2106.05, the additional elements are analyzed, both individually and in combination, to determine whether an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis under Step 2B does not consider the elements describing the abstract ideas that are set forth above in Step 2A. Instead, the analysis only assesses the claim limitations other than the invention's use of the ineligible concepts to which the claims are directed. The court's precedent has consistently employed this same approach, and as a matter of law, narrowing or reformulating an abstract idea does not add "significantly more" to it. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons , Inc., 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The claims offer the additional elements of: receipt, from a component of a debit card issuer … of data associated with a purchase transaction initiated in association with a debit card, and communicate an authorization to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to complete the purchase transaction . The gathering of data represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, in regards to the " communicate " and " receipt " steps, see receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec , 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) The additional element of a retail establishment amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The ordered combination offers nothing more than employing a generic configuration of computer devices and computer functions. The claims do not amount to a practical application, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. References of Record but not Applied in the Current Grounds of Rejection The prior art listed below is made of record as considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is not relied upon in the grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Those starred with '*' were added to this list in this Office action. Those without "*" were added in a previous Office action and are not repeated on a PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form, but are maintained herein for informational purposes only. Simms (Pub. #: US 2019/0073651 A1) discloses a system for processing lottery transactions utilizing an existing gift card processing system. Shepherd et al. (Pub. #: US 2021/0104123 A1) discloses a system that incentivizes use of a gaming establishment account for making retail purchases. Nyman et al. (Pub.#: CA 2742957 A1) discloses a system that combines a lottery/gaming system with the traditional payment processing systems. Allen et al., in "Assessing incentives to increase digital payment acceptance and usage: A machine learning approach", discloses a variety of payment systems and incentives to encourage their usage. Examiner's Note on the Format of the Prior Art Rejections The prior art rejections below contain underlined markings of the limitations (e.g. sample limitation ). The underlined portions of a claim are addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim. Examiner notes that the underlining of the claim language is not a statement that the primary reference does not teach that language, but simply that said claim language is addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-5, 7-10, 12-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kranzley et al. (Pub. #: US 2017/0323295 A1) in view of Skiba et al. (Pub. #: US 2015/0127476 A1) in view of Sanford et al. (Pub. #: US 2017 /0011372 A1). Claim(s) 1 and 14: These claims are analogous with different representative embodiments; claim 1 is a system embodiment, claim 14 is a method embodiment. Kranzley teaches a computer system with computer-readable media in at least Figure 1 and 0230-0242 for performing the steps: responsive to a receipt, from a computing component of a debit card issuer operating independent of the processor, of data associated with a purchase transaction initiated in association with a an open-loop debit card at a point-of-sale terminal associated with a retail establishment and operating independent of the processor, cause the processor to: (Kranzley discloses a point-of-sale terminal for enabling payments for products in at least 0005, for processing of payments via a "Payment Network" (i.e., “independent of the processor”) and an "Exchange Server", analogous to the “processor”, in at least 0619, 0620, for "Credit/Debit" accounts in at least Figure 18, 0098, 0155 and specifically at least a "Bank or non-Bank" via "debit card" in at least 0156.) responsive to a determination, based on an amount of a fund balance of a gaming establishment account when the purchase transaction is initiated in associated with the open-loop debit card, to authorize the purchase transaction in association with an application of an incentive: (Kranzley discloses performing transactions with "Qualifying Offers" which corresponds to "incentive" in at least Figure 27B, Figure 30 and 0179-180. The “User Fund Account” stores funds held by a user and are used in the authorization of a transaction in at least 0380, 0381, 0598, and 0621-0633.) decrease the amount of the fund balance of the gaming establishment account by a first amount of funds, wherein: the decrease is based on the purchase transaction, the gaming establishment account is independent of any financial institution account associated with the open-loop debit card, and the decrease occurs independent of any funds residing in any financial institution account associated with the debit card and independent of transferring any funds from the gaming establishment account to the financial institution account associated with the open-loop debit card, (Kranzley discloses payment of funds from a funding account to a retailer (i.e., the first amount) for the net purchase price of the product in at least 0204-0208 and Figure 27B. Kranzley discloses several disparate accounts that can be used in a transaction in at least the several “User Fund Account” items listed in Figure 27B with the decrease in funds of any account is made “independently” of the others.) communicate an authorization to the computing component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to complete the purchase transaction , independent of any exchange of any amount of physical monetary currency, independent of any exchange of any physical ticket vouchers associated with any amount of monetary funds, and independent of any amount of funds being transferred from any financial institution account associated with the open-loop debit card, and responsive to an occurrence of a settlement event: (Kranzley discloses a point-of-sale terminal for enabling payments for products in at least 0005 and transaction settlement in at least 0203 whereby the various fee/incentives are transferred to the appropriate accounts in at least 0204-0208.) cause a direct transfer of the first amount of funds from the gaming establishment account to an account of the retail establishment, (Kranzley discloses payment of funds from a funding account to a retailer (i.e., the first amount) for the net purchase price of the product in at least 0204-0208 and Figure 27B) and cause a transfer of a second amount of funds to the account of the retail establishment, the second amount of funds being based on the application of the incentive and the second amount of funds being independent of any funds maintained in the gaming establishment account. (Kranzley discloses payment of funds (i.e., the second amount) from an offer provider to a retailer for use of the offer in at least 0208 with the statement: "(e.g., a Qualifying Fund Account held by the party making a Qualifying Offer in the form of cash back from Payment Issuer Server 02800)". Also see 0225-0227.) As, for, “ open-loop ”, and “ to notify the point-of-sale terminal to complete the purchase transaction , independent of any exchange of any amount of physical monetary currency, independent of any exchange of any physical ticket vouchers associated with any amount of monetary funds, and independent of any amount of funds being transferred from any financial institution account associated with the open-loop debit card, ”: Kranzley does not appear to make explicit that the accounts may be “open-loop” accounts (i.e., generally accepted payment cards). However, Skiba discloses a technique for a debit card to be simultaneously tied to both a “closed loop account” and an “open loop account” in at least 0021 and 0022. Kranzley does not appear to specify notifying the POS to complete the purchase independent of cash, vouchers, and of the open-loop account. However, Skiba discloses processing a transaction over “the credit or debit rails” in at least 0032, and processing a “closed loop transaction” therewith in at least 0039-0047, including transaction approval in at least 0047. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transaction processing system of Kranzley with the technique of using a single debit card and the open loop card system to process closed loop transactions in addition to open loop transactions as taught by Skiba. Motivation to combine Kranzley with Skiba derives from the desire to “provide a single product that can process” both types of transactions in an effort to increase end user convenience (Skiba: 0005). As for, the account being a " gaming establishment " account: Kranzley discloses a variety of types of accounts in at least 0156 and 0225. Kranzley, in view of Skiba, does not appear to make explicit that the funding account for the first amount is a "gaming establishment account". However, Shepherd teaches a technique of transferring funds from a “gaming establishment account” to a “retail establishment” via communication with a “gaming establishment fund management system” in at least 0014-0018, 0047, and 0066. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transaction processing system of Kranzley, in view of Skiba, with the linking of a gaming account with the broader payment processing systems as taught by Sanford. Motivation to combine Kranzley, in view of Skiba, with Sanford comes from the desire to further track a user's purchase activity, "both inside and outside the casino" (Sanford: 0004). Claim(s) 2, 9, and 15: wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor 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 the purchase transaction independent of any application of any incentive, cause the processor to: decrease the amount of the fund balance of the gaming establishment account by the first amount of fund based on the purchase transaction, the decrease occurring independent of any funds residing in any financial institution account associated with the open-loop debit card and independent of transferring any funds from the gaming establishment account to the financial institution account associated with the open-loop debit card, communicate the authorization to the computing component of the debit card issuer to notify the point- of-sale terminal to complete the purchase transaction independent of any exchange of any amount of physical monetary currency, independent of any exchange of any physical ticket vouchers associated with any amount of monetary funds, and independent of any amount of funds being transferred from any financial institution associated with the open-loop debit card, and responsive to the occurrence of the settlement event, cause a direct transfer of the first amount of funds from the gaming establishment account to the account of the retail establishment. (Kranzley discloses a point-of-sale terminal for enabling payments for products in at least 0005 and transaction settlement in at least 0203 whereby the various fee/incentives are transferred to the appropriate accounts in at least 0204-0208. Kranzley discloses several disparate accounts that can be used in a transaction in at least the several “User Fund Account” items listed in Figure 27B with the decrease in funds of any account is made “independently” of the others.) As, for, “ open-loop ”, 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 independent of any exchange of any amount of physical monetary currency, independent of any exchange of any physical ticket vouchers associated with any amount of monetary funds, and independent of any amount of funds being transferred from any financial institution associated with the open-loop debit card, ”: Kranzley does not appear to make explicit that the accounts may be “open-loop” accounts (i.e., generally accepted payment cards). However, Skiba discloses a technique for a debit card to be simultaneously tied to both a “closed loop account” and an “open loop account” in at least 0021 and 0022. Kranzley does not appear to specify notifying the POS to complete the purchase independent of cash, vouchers, and of the open-loop account. However, Skiba discloses processing a transaction over “the credit or debit rails” in at least 0032, and processing a “closed loop transaction” therewith in at least 0039-0047, including transaction approval in at least 0047. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transaction processing system of Kranzley with the technique of using a single debit card and the open loop card system to process closed loop transactions in addition to open loop transactions as taught by Skiba. Motivation to combine Kranzley with Skiba derives from the desire to “provide a single product that can process” both types of transactions in an effort to increase end user convenience (Skiba: 0005). As for, the account being a "gaming establishment" account and "communicate the authorization to the component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to complete the purchase transaction,": Kranzley discloses a variety of types of accounts in at least 0156. Kranzley, in view of Skiba, does not appear to make explicit that the funding account for the first amount is a "gaming establishment account". However, Sanford discloses conducting a transaction at a POS both for affiliated and non-affiliated merchants in at least items 812 and 818 in Figure 8 and 0064 using a gaming establishment account in at least 0023-0025. Sanford further discloses completion of the transaction at the POS via an authorization message in at least 0065. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transaction processing system of Kranzley, in view of Skiba, with the linking of a gaming account with the broader payment processing systems as taught by Sanford. Motivation to combine Kranzley, in view of Skiba, with Sanford comes from the desire to further track a user's purchase activity, "both inside and outside the casino" (Sanford: 0004). Claim(s) 3, 10, and 16: wherein different retail establishments are associated with different second amounts of funds. (Kranzely discloses that the "Qualifying Offers" may comprise criteria that includes data pertaining to particular retailers in at least 0211 and 0215.) Claim(s) 4 and 17: wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the determination to authorize the purchase transaction in association with the application of the incentive and an application of a discount, cause the processor to decrease the amount of the fund balance of the gaming establishment account by a third amount of funds, the third amount of being based on the purchase transaction and the discount. (Kranzley discloses a "Sales Tax Server" that can receive an amount of "any class of tax on a Transaction in at least 0289-0292 and Figres 3G, which corresponds to a third amount based on the purchase transaction and the discount.) See the parent claim for the grounds of rejection using a “ gaming establishment ” account. Claim(s) 5 and 18: wherein different relationships with a gaming establishment obtain different discounts. (Kranzely discloses that the "Qualifying Offers" may comprise criteria that includes data pertaining to particular funding sources/loyalty program in at least 0211 and 0214.) As for relationship being to a "gaming" establishment: Kranzley discloses a variety of types of accounts in at least 0156 and discounts based on a relationship between the parties in at least 0211 and 0214. Kranzley does not appear to make explicit that the establishment pertains to "gaming" establishment. However, Sanford discloses conducting a transaction at a POS both for affiliated and non-affiliated merchants in at least items 812 and 818 in Figure 8 and 0064 using a gaming establishment account in at least 0023-0025. Sanford further discloses completion of the transaction at the POS via an authorization message in at least 0065. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transaction processing system of Kranzley with the linking of a gaming account with the broader payment processing systems as taught by Sanford. Motivation to combine Kranzley with Sanford comes from the desire to further track a user's purchase activity, "both inside and outside the casino" (Sanford: 0004). Claim(s) 7, 12, and 20: wherein the retail establishment is independent of any gaming establishment. As for, "wherein the retail establishment is independent of any gaming establishment": Kranzley does not appear to make explicit that the establishment pertains to "gaming" establishment. However, Sanford discloses conducting a transaction at a POS both for affiliated and non-affiliated merchants in at least items 812 and 818 in Figure 8 and 0064 using a gaming establishment account in at least 0023-0025. Sanford further discloses completion of the transaction at the POS via an authorization message in at least 0065. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transaction processing system of Kranzley with the linking of a gaming account with the broader payment processing systems as taught by Sanford. Motivation to combine Kranzley with Sanford comes from the desire to further track a user's purchase activity, "both inside and outside the casino" (Sanford: 0004). Claim(s) 8: 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, of data associated with a purchase transaction initiated in association with a open-loop debit card at a point-of-sale terminal associated with a retail establishment and operating independent of the processor, cause the processor to: (Kranzley discloses a point-of-sale terminal for enabling payments for products in at least 0005, for processing of payments via a "Payment Network" (i.e., “independent of the processor”) and an "Exchange Server", analogous to the “processor” in at least 0619, 0620, for "Credit/Debit" accounts in at least Figure 18, 0098, 0155 and specifically at least a "Bank or non-Bank" via "debit card" in at least 0156.) responsive to a determination, based on an amount of a fund balance of a gaming establishment account when the purchase transaction is initiated in associated with the open-loop debit card, to authorize the purchase transaction in association with an application of an incentive: (Kranzley discloses performing transactions with "Qualifying Offers" which corresponds to "incentive" in at least Figure 27B, Figure 30 and 0179-180. The “User Fund Account” stores funds held by a user and are used in the authorization of a transaction in at least 0380, 0381, 0598, and 0621-0633.) decrease the amount of the fund balance of the gaming establishment account by a first amount of funds, wherein: the decrease is based on the purchase transaction, the gaming establishment account is independent of any financial institution account associated with the open-loop debit card , and the decrease occurs independent of any funds residing in any financial institution account associated with the open-loop debit card and independent of transferring any funds from the gaming establishment account to the financial institution account associated with the open-loop debit card, (Kranzley discloses payment of funds from a funding account to a retailer (i.e., the first amount) for the net purchase price of the product in at least 0204-0208 and Figure 27B. Kranzley discloses several disparate accounts that can be used in a transaction in at least the several “User Fund Account” items listed in Figure 27B with the decrease in funds of any account is made “independently” of the others.) communicate an authorization to the computing component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to complete the purchase transaction independent of any exchange of any amount of physical monetary currency, independent of any exchange of any physical ticket vouchers associated with any amount of monetary funds, and independent of any amount of funds being transferred from any financial institution account associated with the open-loop debit card, and responsive to an occurrence of a settlement event: (Kranzley discloses a point-of-sale terminal for enabling payments for products in at least 0005 and transaction settlement in at least 0203 whereby the various fee/incentives are transferred to the appropriate accounts in at least 0204-0208.) cause a direct transfer of the first amount of funds from the gaming establishment account to an account of the retail establishment, (Kranzley discloses payment of funds from a funding account to a retailer (i.e., the first amount) for the net purchase price of the product in at least 0204-0208 and Figure 27B) and receive, in association with an account independent of the gaming establishment account, data associated with a transfer of a second amount of funds, the second amount of funds being based on the application of the incentive. (Kranzley discloses payment of funds (i.e., the second amount) from an offer provider to a retailer for use of the offer in at least 0208 with the statement: "( e.g., a Qualifying Fund Account held by the party making a Qualifying Offer in the form of cash back from Payment Issuer Server 02800)". Also see 0225-0227.) As for, “ open-loop ”, “ account is independent of any account associated with the open-loop debit card ”, “ to notify the point-of-sale terminal to complete the purchase transaction independent of any exchange of any amount of physical monetary currency, independent of any exchange of any physical ticket vouchers associated with any amount of monetary funds, and independent of any amount of funds being transferred from any financial institution account associated with the open-loop debit card, ”: Kranzley does not appear to make explicit that the accounts may be “open-loop” accounts (i.e., generally accepted payment cards). However, Skiba discloses a technique for a debit card to be simultaneously tied to both a “closed loop account” and an “open loop account” in at least 0021 and 0022. Kranzley does not appear to specify notifying the POS to complete the purchase independent of cash, vouchers, and of the open-loop account. However, Skiba discloses processing a transaction over “the credit or debit rails” in at least 0032, and processing a “closed loop transaction” therewith in at least 0039-0047, including transaction approval in at least 0047. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transaction processing system of Kranzley with the technique of using a single debit card and the open loop card system to process closed loop transactions in addition to open loop transactions as taught by Skiba. Motivation to combine Kranzley with Skiba derives from the desire to “provide a single product that can process” both types of transactions in an effort to increase end user convenience (Skiba: 0005). As for, the account being a " gaming establishment " account: Kranzley discloses a variety of types of accounts in at least 0156 and 0225. Kranzley, in view of Skiba, does not appear to make explicit that the funding account for the first amount is a "gaming establishment account". However, Shepherd teaches a technique of transferring funds from a “gaming establishment account” to a “retail establishment” via communication with a “gaming establishment fund management system” in at least 0014-0018, 0047, and 0066. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transaction processing system of Kranzley, in view of Skiba, with the linking of a gaming account with the broader payment processing systems as taught by Sanford. Motivation to combine Kranzley, in view of Skiba, with Sanford comes from the desire to further track a user's purchase activity, "both inside and outside the casino" (Sanford: 0004). Claim(s) 13: wherein the gaming establishment account comprises one of a cashless wagering account and a gaming establishment retail account. Kranzley discloses a variety of types of accounts in at least 0156 and 0225. Kranzley does not appear to make explicit that the funding account for the first amount is a "gaming establishment account" or a "cashless wagering account". However, Sanford discloses conducting a transaction using a gaming establishment account in at least 0023-0025 and a cashless wagering account in at least 0026. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transaction processing system of Kranzley, in view of Skiba, with the linking of a gaming account with the broader payment processing systems as taught by Sanford. Motivation to combine Kranzley, in view of Skiba, with Sanford comes from the desire to further track a user's purchase activity, "both inside and outside the casino" (Sanford: 0004) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kranzley et al. (Pub. #: US 2017/0323295 A1) in view of Skiba et al. (Pub. #: US 2015/0127476 A1) in view of Sanford et al. (Pub. #: US 2017 /0011372 A1) in view of Ecker et al. (Pub. #: US 2024/0054522 A1). Claim(s) 6 and 19: wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the occurrence of the settlement event, cause the processor to cause a transfer of a fourth amount of funds to the account of the retail establishment, the fourth amount of funds being based on the discount and the fourth amount of funds being independent of any funds maintained in the gaming establishment account associated with the user. This appears to be the "incentive amount to compensate the retail establishment for partnering with the gaming establishment" as detailed in 0087 of the specification in the instant application. Kranzley in view of Sanford discloses a payment system wherein various fees are apportioned for a transaction including a "Transaction fee". Kranzley in view of Skiba and Sanford does not appear to specify transferring a fourth amount to the retailer from funds independent of any funds maintained in the gaming establishment account. However, Ecker discloses a system that includes a technique for incentivizing retailers to accept particular payment instruments by including an "incentive for the redeeming retailer" in at least 0055-0058. Ecker further discloses that this amount may be held in a "collateral account" in at least 0048. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transaction processing system of Kranzley in view of Skiba and Sanford with the payment of an incentive to a retailer for accepting a particular payment instrument as taught by Ecker. Motivation to combine Kranzley in view of Sanford with Ecker in order to incentivize retailers to accept the payment instrument (Ecker: 0055). Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 SCOTT SNIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-9604. The examiner can normally be reached M-W: 9:00-4:30 Mountain (11:00-6:30 Eastern). 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at (571)270-3948. 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. /S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3621 /WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 2 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 3 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 4 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 5 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 6 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 7 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 8 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 9 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 10 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 11 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 12 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 13 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 14 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 15 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 16 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 17 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 18 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 19 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 20 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 21 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 17/992,577 Page 22 Art Unit: 3621
Prosecution Insights