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 June 17, 2026 as part of the Request for Continued Examination directed to the rejection set forth in the Final Office Action dated February 26, 2026. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-11, 13-16, and 18-21 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the centralized casino patron activity server configured to cause” (line 2) should read “the centralized casino patron activity server is configured to cause”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the centralized casino patron activity server configured to cause” (line 2) should read “the centralized casino patron activity server is configured to cause”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 13-16, 19, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “said communications interface” (line 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “a template” (lines 28-29) and “a template” (line 33). The first instance of a claim element should generally subsequently be followed by referring to the element using “the” or “said”. Reciting “a template” a second time makes it unclear whether the two instances of “a template” refer to the same claim element or different claim elements. Dependent claims 14-16 and 21 inherit this discrepancy by nature of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites “a log of changes” (line 3). Claim 13, upon which claim 16 depends, recites “a change log” (line 32). Consistent usage of the same terms is much preferred over creatively describing the same elements using different language. Using similar, yet slightly different claim language creates confusion. It is unclear whether each term is intended to refer to the same claim element or whether each term refers to a different claim element. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites “a second version” (lines 3-4). Claim 13, upon which claim 19 depends, recites “a second version” (line 27). The first instance of a claim element should generally subsequently be followed by referring to the element using “the” or “said”. Reciting “a second version” a second time makes it unclear whether the two instances of “a second version” refer to the same claim element or different claim elements. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 5-7, 10-11, 13-16, and 18-21 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 1-2, 5-7, 10-11, 13-16, and 18-21 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 1-2, 5-7, 10-11, 13-16, and 18-21 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). 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 recites the instructions for (the abstract idea is underlined) a system for generating a casino patron activity monetary value transaction report, comprising:
a centralized casino patron activity server comprising a processor, a memory, a communication interface and machine-readable code stored in said memory and executable by said processor;
a database which is accessible by said processor of said centralized casino patron activity server;
wherein said centralized casino patron activity server comprises an integrated anti-money-laundering reporting server including computer-readable modules implementing a subject manager function, a transaction manager function, a suspicious activity report manager function, and a currency transaction report manager function, said computer-readable modules sharing said database;
wherein said centralized casino patron activity server is in communication with a casino system of a casino which receives transaction information regarding one or more monetary value transactions of a patron at said casino;
said machine-readable code of the centralized casino patron activity server configured to cause said processor to:
associate patron identification information regarding said patron from a centralized patron record with a monetary value transaction report;
associate information regarding said one or more monetary value transactions of said patron received from separate casino subsystems and linked to said centralized patron record with said monetary value transaction report, said information regarding said one or more monetary value transactions comprising at least one of a monetary amount and a transaction type;
store a first version of said monetary value transaction report with said associated patron identification information and monetary value transaction information;
process said transaction information by matching transaction records received from said separate casino subsystems to said centralized patron record and by updating fields of said monetary value transaction report based on the matched transaction records;
transmit, via said communication interface and in electronic format to an external validation system, at least a portion of said patron identification information for use by said external validation system in validating said patron and providing a validation result; and
store a second version of said monetary value transaction report as updated.
Claim 7 recites a system for generating casino patron activity monetary value transaction reports, comprising:
a centralized casino patron activity server comprising a processor, a memory, a communication interface and machine-readable code stored in said memory and executable by said processor;
a database which is accessible by said processor of said centralized casino patron activity server;
wherein said centralized casino patron activity server comprises an integrated anti-money-laundering reporting server including computer-readable modules implementing a subject manager function, a transaction manager function, a suspicious activity report manager function, and a currency transaction report manager function, said computer-readable modules sharing said database;
wherein said centralized casino patron activity server is in communication with a casino system of a casino which receives transaction information regarding one or more monetary value transactions of a patron at said casino;
said machine-readable code of the centralized casino patron activity server configured to cause said processor to:
associate patron identification information regarding said patron from a centralized patron record with a monetary value transaction report;
associate information regarding said one or more monetary value transactions of said patron received from separate casino subsystems and linked to said centralized patron record with said monetary value transaction report, said information regarding said one or more monetary value transactions comprising at least one of a monetary amount and a transaction type;
store a first version of said monetary value transaction report with said associated patron identification information and monetary value transaction information;
determine if any errors exist in said first version of said monetary value transaction report;
generate an output which causes a user display to display information regarding one or more identified errors and afield-level location of each identified error in relation to a portion of said monetary value transaction report where said error exists, said output comprising the display of at least the portion of said monetary value transaction report containing said error in a machine-readable format in a first window and a corresponding portion of said monetary value transaction report transformed into and displayed in human-readable format in a second window adjacent thereto, wherein fields of said machine-readable format are mapped to corresponding fields of said human-readable format such that selection of a field in said first window and said second window automatically highlights the corresponding mapped field in the other window;
update a correction copy of said monetary value transaction report in response to input of a correction to said report by a user; and
store a second version of said monetary value transaction report as updated while retaining said first version without modification.
Claim 13 recites a system for generating casino patron activity monetary value transaction reports, comprising:
a centralized casino patron activity server comprising a processor, a memory, a communication interface and machine-readable code stored in said memory and executable by said processor;
a database which is accessible by said processor of said centralized casino patron activity server;
wherein said centralized casino patron activity server comprises an integrated anti-money-laundering reporting server including computer-readable modules implementing a subject manager function, a transaction manager function, a suspicious activity report manager function, and a currency transaction report manager function, said computer-readable modules sharing said database;
wherein said centralized casino patron activity server is in communication with a casino system of a casino which receives transaction information regarding one or more monetary value transactions of a patron at said casino;
said machine-readable code of the centralized casino patron activity server configured to cause said processor to:
associate patron identification information regarding said patron from a centralized patron record with a monetary value transaction report;
associate information regarding said one or more monetary value transactions of said patron received from separate casino subsystems and linked to said centralized patron record with said monetary value transaction report, said information regarding said one or more monetary value transactions comprising at least one of a monetary amount and a transaction type; and
store a first version of said monetary value transaction report with said associated patron identification information and monetary value transaction information;
generate a second version of said monetary value transaction report without permitting editing of said first version by applying a received change to a mapped field of a template of said monetary value transaction report; and
store a change log identifying a date and time of said received change,
wherein said monetary value transaction report comprises a template with a plurality of fields, and wherein said patron identification information and said monetary value transaction information are associated with said fields of said monetary value transaction report.
The present claims are directed to systems and methods for consolidating data from various casino systems to a central system, automatically performing due diligence on patron profiles using internal and external data, automatically identifying unusual patron profiles and transactions, and generating, submitting, and tracking AML reports. These steps fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. The steps involve the tracking of monetary value transactions and fall within the sub-categories of fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Finally, they also fall into the category of mental processes because some of the limitations (e.g., associating patron data with a report, matching transaction records to a patron record, determining whether errors exist in a report) "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper". Accordingly, the claims recite 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 centralized casino patron activity server comprising a processor, a memory, a communication interface and machine-readable code, a database, an integrated anti-money-laundering reporting server, a casino system, and a user display. 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 centralized casino patron activity server comprising a processor, a memory, a communication interface and machine-readable code, a database, an integrated anti-money-laundering reporting server, a casino system, (Goldstein, US 2010/0169802 A1, a conventional server including processors and storage means, for example databases and memory [0027]); (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]); (Updike, US 2005/0003878 A1, the process 500 is embodied in a software program which is stored in the game server memory 308 and executed by the game server CPU 304 in a well known manner [0049]); and
a user display (Tedesco et al., US 2008/0248865 A1, for gaming devices, common output devices include a cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor on a video poker machine, a bell on a gaming device (e.g., rings when a player wins), an LED display of a player's credit balance on a gaming device, an LCD display of a personal digital assistant (PDA) for displaying keno numbers [0120]).
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 1-2, 5-7, 10-11, 13-16, and 18-21.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, applicant's arguments filed June 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
The pertinent field of technology that Applicant submits is improved by way of the practical application of the combination of elements deemed novel and non-obvious by the Office relates to technology that should not be generalized to financial transaction management broadly speaking. Rather, the pertinent technological field involves computerized electronic gaming-related systems and methods representing ongoing and substantial technical innovation advantageously benefiting gaming operators required to efficiently acquire, maintain, analyze, and report a tremendous amount of gaming and patron-related data generated at a very high rate through practicing such technology as is now recited by independent claims 1, 7, and 13. Publication of the instant application, US 2023/0186721 Al (hereinafter "publication"), at paragraph (¶) [0004]. The claims now provide substantially more than the alleged abstract ideas by including further elements to provide more specifically how the particularized technical solution is practiced for utilizing a specialized computerized electronic system for, among other useful things, "consolidating data from various casino systems to a central system, automatically performing due diligence on patron profiles using internal and external data, automatically identifying unusual patron profiles and transactions, and generating, submitting, and tracking" anti-money laundering (AML) reports. Publication, at ¶ [0002]. (Response [pp. 9-10])
With respect to applicant’s statement that “the practical application of the combination of elements deemed novel and non-obvious” (Response [p. 9]), MPEP 2106.05 states:
Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101 ) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 ) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Thus, the “’novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter."
Applicant’s argument that “the pertinent technological field involves computerized electronic gaming-related systems and methods representing ongoing and substantial technical innovation advantageously benefiting gaming operators” (Response [p. 9]) is not persuasive. Restricting an abstract idea to a particular industry does not make an abstract idea any less abstract. Characterizing the field of use as “gaming-related systems” is not a technological improvement.
Applicant’s argument that the present invention involve “substantial technical innovation advantageously benefiting gaming operators required to efficiently acquire, maintain, analyze, and report a tremendous amount of gaming and patron-related data generated at a very high rate through practicing such technology as is now recited by independent claims 1, 7, and 13” (Response [p. 9]). There is no indication within the claims to support “a tremendous amount of gaming and patron-related data generated at a very high rate”. Even if the claims recited limitations to support this, faster data processing is the ordinary benefit of using a computer over manual processing – not an improvement to the computer or another technology.
The examiner does not agree that “The claims now provide substantially more than the alleged abstract ideas by including further elements to provide more specifically how the particularized technical solution is practiced” (Response [p. 10]). The most recent claim amendments have added an integrated anti-money-laundering server including computer-readable modules implementing a subject manager function, a transaction manager function, a suspicious activity report manager function, and a currency transaction report manager function. The anti-money-laundering server appears to be a generic server carrying out anti-money-laundering functions. The modules implemented by applicant are considered part of the abstract idea rather than additional elements since they carry out functions falling into the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Next, applicant states:
The specification describes the technical problem as conventional casino-management infrastructures storing patron profiles and transactions in separate, non-integrated systems, including SAR, CTR, accounting, and player-tracking systems, such that duplicate patron data may exist across separate gaming-related properties (e.g., casinos), as well as a lack of integration with external validation, due-diligence, AML, and reporting systems. Publication, at ¶¶ [0002]-[0003] and [0018]. To address such technical drawbacks of conventional approaches, the technical solution of amended claims 1, 7, and 13 provides a centralized system that communicates with functionally and often geographically disparate internal casino and third party regulatory and/or reporting systems, including accounting, player tracking, AML, and central credit subsystems, and that implements shared subject manager, transaction manager, suspicious activity report (SAR) manager, currency transaction reports (CRT) manager, and setup manager modules. Publication, at ¶¶ [0020], [0022], and [0035]. The claimed systems as now recited with added particularity receives activity and transaction data from multiple casino systems, stores patron profiles in a shared database accessible by the modules, links casino- specific patron records to a centralized patron identifier, and generates more accurate SAR/CTR reporting from a global multi-casino view. Publication, at ¶¶ [0038] and [0040]. (Response [p. 10])
The “technical problem” described by applicant is not actually a “technical problem”. Patron information scattered across separate departmental records, duplicated between properties, and validated externally is a record-keeping problem, not a technical problem. This does not address improvement to computer functionality or another technology.
Next, applicant argues:
The specification characterizes as among the technical advantages over known approaches as "a single system to unify the separate systems" and the creation of "federated patron profiles/accounts" that serve both as casino patron profiles and as an AML system of record, thereby providing the holistic view desired by regulators and which was lacking an effective technical solution for as of the filing date of the instant application. Publication, at ¶¶ [0180]. A person having ordinary skill in the art can recognize and appreciate that not only are the particularly-recited technical solutions to the aforementioned technical problems in the field of technology practically advantageous to electronic gaming operators, they require a particularized technical computing and communication environment that, although they may utilize at least one generic computer alongside specialized electronic-gaming focused components, include additional inventive elements and limitations (and combinations of the same) providing for the practical application of those unique and inventive features to improve upon known systems and methods in the field. See "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101", USPTO MEMORANDUM dated Aug. 4, 2025, at 4 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-101-20250804.pdf) (hereinafter "Reminder Memo"). (Response [pp. 10-11])
The examiner has considered these arguments but does not find them persuasive.
The advantages identified in [0180] are not technological improvements. The improvements are to the abstract idea rather than improvements to technology. Furthermore, “practically advantageous to electronic gaming operators” is not an improvement to computer functionality or an other technology.
Furthermore, the claims do not recite “a particularized technical computing and communication environment”. Although the claims may utilize “at least one generic computer alongside specialized electronic-gaming focused components”, it is unclear which components are “specialized electronic-gaming focused components”. As currently recited, the additional hardware components appear to all be generic.
Finally, applicant argues:
Even assuming, arguendo, that amended claims 1, 7, or 13 do recite an abstract idea, the advantageous improvements enabled thereby provide a technical solution that, as practically applied, improves the aforementioned field of technology by improving upon conventional modes of operating various electronic and computing devices used therein. Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are each amended to specify additional structural and functional details with respect to the centralized casino patron activity server including "an integrated anti-money-laundering reporting server including computer-readable modules implementing [algorithms to enable] a subject manager function, a transaction manager function, a suspicious activity report manager function, and a currency transaction report manager function, said modules sharing said database" Individually, each of claims 1, 7, and 13 provide a uniquely recited implementation. In particular:
The implementation as now recited by claim 1 provides workflow details for report generation and updating performed by a centralized, modular reporting server that matches casino-subsystem transactions to a centralized patron identifier and electronically validates patron information through external systems. They also add field-level change detection, visual alerts, and an alternative change acceptance/denial condition to emphasize technical data integration, validation, and updating of report-versions in a controlled way. The amendments to claim 1 are supported by, for example, ¶¶ [0005], [0014], [0020], [0022], [0032]-[0033], [0035], [0037]-[0038], [0040], [0069]-[0070], [0146]-[0147], [0157], and [0160]-[0161] of the publication.
The system implementation of amended claim 7 enables a specific electronic correction workflow for error determination and report updating, where the system parses a report and responds to a regulatory error acknowledgement, creates a correction copy, and preserves the originally submitted report for record keeping. The amendments further involve mapping of both machine-readable and human-readable information to two distinct display windows with automatic cross-highlighting of corresponding fields. The amendments to claim 7 are supported by, for example, the publication at ¶¶ [0132], [0136], [0139], [0142]-[0143], [0164]-[0166], [0173]-[0175], and [0177].
The amendments to the system now recited by claim 13 enable version generation as a controlled electronic report-editing process in which the system prevents direct modification of the first report version, instead routing subject or transaction edits through dedicated edit- subject/edit-transaction popups. The amendments further provide for applying those edits to mapped report fields to create a new version and storing a change log. The amendments to claim 13 are supported by, for example, ¶¶ [0069], [0146]-[0147], [0160]-[0163], and [0179] of the publication. (Response [pp. 11-12])
Applicant argues that the claims recite a technical solution that improves “conventional modes of operating various electronic and computing devices.” The examiner has considered this argument but does not find it persuasive. The inclusion of an anti-money-laundering reporting server including computer-readable modules implementing [algorithms to enable] a subject manager function, a transaction manager function, a suspicious activity report manager function, and a currency transaction report manager function, said modules sharing said database. The anti-money-laundering reporting server does not appear to be physically different from a generic server. Instead, it appears that applicant considers the modules executed by the server to be additional elements. The examiner does not agree. The functions performed by the modules are considered part of the abstract idea (that fall into the categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) rather than additional elements. Furthermore, it is unclear what “[algorithms to enable]” means since these algorithms appear to be missing from the latest amendments.
With respect to claim 1, the examiner was unable to find any limitations relating to “field-level change detection, visual alerts, and an alternative change acceptance/denial condition”.
With respect to claim 7, the examiner was unable to find any limitations relating to “pars[ing] a report and responds to a regulatory error acknowledgement”.
Applicant also relies on displaying the report in machine-readable format in a first window and human-readable format in an adjacent second window, with mapped fields such that selecting a field in one window automatically highlights the corresponding field in the other. The examiner has considered these limitations individually and in combination. They do not integrate the exception into a practical application. The displays present the same report information in two formats so that a user can located and correct errors more easily. That improves the user’s review of information, not the functioning of the computer. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 2017-2323, 9-10 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (a display that helps a user process information more quickly is not an improvement in computer functionality).
With respect to claim 13, the examiner was unable to find any limitations relating to “routing subject or transaction edits through dedicated edit- subject/edit-transaction popups”.
The examiner maintains that the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
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
