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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments in the Response dated December 19, 2025 as part of the Request for Continued Examination directed to the rejection set forth in the Final Office Action dated August 27, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
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 non-statutory subject matter because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The determination of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, relies on the Mayo/Alice two-step analysis.
In step 1 of the analysis, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In the present case, claims 1-11 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 12-19 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claim 20 is directed to one or more non-transitory, machine readable mediums (i.e., a manufacture). The claims are, therefore directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner is directed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims are compared to groupings of subject matter that have been found by courts as abstract ideas. These groupings include
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—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); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 is considered representative and recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a method comprising:
detecting, by a processor of a player interface device via a wireless card reader communicatively coupled to the player interface device, a user input transmitted from a mobile device, wherein the player interface device is communicatively coupled to a gaming machine, wherein the mobile device is communicatively coupled to a third-party funding system via a telecommunications network, and wherein the user input is associated with a request to fund the gaming machine with an amount of monetary value,
wherein the user input comprises an encrypted authorization signal from the mobile device;
decrypting, by the processor of the player interface device using a secret key stored in a memory of the player interface device, the encrypted authorization signal to authenticate the user input;
in response to authenticating the user input, transmitting, from a virtual ticketing gateway communicatively coupled to a casino network, the request to the third-party funding system:
receiving, at the virtual ticketing gateway from the third-party funding system, a virtual ticket purchased, via the third-party funding system, from a ticketing server communicatively coupled to the casino network, wherein the virtual ticket is associated with a voucher identifier authorized by the ticketing server;
transmitting, from the virtual ticketing gateway to the ticketing server via the casino network, a redemption command including the voucher identifier to redeem, using the voucher identifier, the virtual ticket, wherein in response to redemption of the virtual ticket, the ticketing server transmits, via the casino network, a funding authorization; and
in response to receiving the funding authorization via the casino network, funding, by the processor via transmitting, from the virtual ticketing gateway to the wireless card reader, a final funding authorization that causes the player interface device to initiate, via a Slot Account System (SAS) protocol, a funds transfer of the amount of monetary value to a game controller of the gaming machine to cause the gaming machine to credit a credit meter.
The present claims are directed to a method of game funding and redemption. These steps fall under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, they are directed to the sub-category of fundamental economic activity because it relates to the transfer/redemption of funds. Additionally, several dependent claims recite “determining” steps that could be carried out in the mind and, therefore, fall into the category of mental processes because the “determining” steps could be performed in the human mind . Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the examiner considers whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (not considered relevant to the present claims);
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The additional elements in the present claims are a processor, a player interface device, a wireless card reader, a mobile device, a gaming machine, a third-party funding system, a telecommunications network, decrypting using a secret key, a memory, a virtual ticketing gateway, a casino network, a ticketing server, a game controller, a transaction server, a Slot Account System (SAS) host, an external telecommunications network, and an internal ticketing server. The additional elements do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional elements do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The additional elements do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The examiner considers if the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional as follows:
a processor, a player interface device, a gaming machine, a memory, a game controller (Bradford et al., US 6,709,333 B1, game device 100 includes the normal and well known internals needed in order to have a functioning game, such as at least one central processor, associated memory, input/output interfaces, peripheral interfaces to the video display, control buttons and lever, monetary input devices, slot machine interface board (SMIB), together with the firmware and software needed to implement the full functionality of the game (these internals not shown) [C8:7-21]);
a wireless card reader (Phillips, as is well known, contactless payment cards allow account holders to access debit or credit card accounts to pay for transactions by wireless communication between the contactless payment cards and proximity readers included in point of sale (POS) terminals [0001]);
a mobile device (Qureshi et al., US 2011/0145063 A1, examples of well known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use with aspects of the invention include, but are not limited to, mobile computing devices, personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, gaming consoles, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, mobile telephones, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like [0046]);
a third-party funding system (Rosenberger, US 8,682,790 B1, it is very important to note that these electronic transfers occur purely on the account level of the end user's account, which is maintained by an account provider comprising a financial institution, which is well known in the art [C5:8-22]);
a telecommunications network, a casino network, an external telecommunications network (Jaqua et al., US 2012/0052931 A1, wired or wireless networks as are well known in the art [0122]);
decrypting using a secret key (Szrek et al., US 6,477,251 B1, both public key and private key encryption are well known within the computer arts [C5:1-16]);
a virtual ticketing gateway (Stewart et al., US 2006/0112192 A1, external network gateways are well known in the art [0016]);
a ticketing server, a transaction server, an internal ticketing server (Walker et al., US 2004/0162130 A1, server 200 includes a processor 202, a storage device 204 and a communication port 220, as well as conventional server components well known in the art [0048]); and
a Slot Account System (SAS) host (Merati, US 2014/0234325 A1, the SAS accounting system 120 comprises a computerized system using the well-known Slot Accounting System (SAS) [0025]).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As a result, the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Prior Art
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to prong 1 of step 2A, applicant “submits that the problem addressed by claims is technical: the security vulnerability inherent in bridging an external, untrusted telecommunications network (a mobile device) with a regulated, closed-loop casino network” (Response [pp. 9-10]). Applicant further argues “the amended claims address this vulnerability not through ‘economic activity,’ but through a specific hardware-based security protocol.” (Response [p. 10]).
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The claims recite a transaction flow for transferring monetary value using authorization and the virtual ticket. The examiner maintains that this fits squarely within fundamental economic practices.
With respect to prong 2 of step 2A, applicant argues “that the amended claims integrate the concept into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on the operation of the casino network that improves its security” (Response [p. 10]).
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The combination of the additional elements is no more than using generic computing components to apply the judicial exception in their conventional roles. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, applicant argues that “decrypting … using a secret key stored in a memory of the player interface device” is similar to the verification structure that was stored in a specific portion of computer memory (BIOS) to improve security in Ancora Technolotgies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., 908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Response [p. 11]).
The examiner does not agree with applicant’s comparison. Ancora Technologies recited a particular method of verifying program usage using a particular set of steps using an erasable, non-volatile memory area of a BIOS.
In the present claims, the limitation recites “decrypting … using a secret key stored in a memory of the player interface device”. Public key and private key encryption are well known within the computer arts (Szrek et al., US 6,477,251 B1 [C5:1-16]).
There is no indication that the claim improves cryptographic techniques. Furthermore, the additional elements appear to be nothing more than implementing the transaction on generic computer components rather than improving the functioning of the computer or improving other technology or technical field.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WERNER G GARNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7147. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-15:30 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, 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.
/WERNER G GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715