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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on 8/14/2025. Claims 1-5 have been amended. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A Section 101 analysis is below.
Step 1 – are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The platform of claim 1 is within the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong one – do the claims recite a judicial exception, which is an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Claim 1 recites:
1. An eWallet transaction platform for coordinating the management and efficient use of a user's eWallet account within a gaming institution, comprising:
an eWallet platform processor configured to provide financial transaction support to accommodate user eWallet transactions, comprising, withdrawals, transfers, and deposits, the eWallet platform processor further configured to process ACH transactions, credit card clearing operations, and credit applications processes, the eWallet platform processor comprising a user wireless communication interface configured to allow communication between the eWallet platform processors;
an eWallet app installed on a user mobile device configured to interface with the user via a user interface; and
a slot management system having a slot management interface configured to securely interface with the eWallet platform processor, the slot management system further configured to communicate with a plurality of gaming institution systems comprising an ATM, a plurality of slot machines, and a cashier system, the slot management system further having a gaming institution wireless interface configured to interact with the eWallet app which will allow the eWallet platform processor to first determined if the user is within the gaming institution and to enable eWallet transactions involving the ATM, the plurality of slot machines and the cashier system;
wherein an eWallet transaction involving the ATM, any one of the plurality of slot machines or the cashier system is initiated by the user via the eWallet app on the user mobile device thereby automatically causing an initiation signal to be transmitted to the eWallet platform processor via the wireless communication interface and
wherein the eWallet platform processor will automatically collect a GPS confirmation signal from the user mobile device providing user location information which allows the eWallet platform processor to automatically confirm that the user is located within the gaming institution,
the eWallet platform processor further communicating with the eWallet app to automatically initiate a user confirmation process to be launched on the user mobile device which will cause a display to be presented to the user interface allowing the user to initiate a user confirmation process which will allow for the generation of the user confirmation signal after the user has provided a predetermined input to the eWallet platform processor and will cause the automatic transmission of the user confirmation signal to the eWallet platform processor, wherein once the GPS confirmation signal and the user confirmation signal are both received by the eWallet platform processor the transaction will be automatically initiated.
Referring to the limitations above, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106. Specifically, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, as drafted claim 1 only recites the commercial or legal interaction of the business relation of coordinating the management and use of a user's eWallet account within a gaming institution including confirming the user is located within the gaming institution before a transaction will be allowed. Please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) which gives the example of processing information through a clearing-house as an example of subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is business relations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) also lists mitigating settlement risk as an example of a commercial or legal interaction. It is respectfully noted that confirming a user is located within the gaming institution is a security measure to combat fraud. Please see Applicant’s specification, [0034], [0051]. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong two – do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Integration of the judicial exception into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Regarding claim 1, this claim only recites the additional elements of an eWallet transaction platform, eWallet platform processor, wireless communication interface, eWallet app, user mobile device, user interface, slot management system, slot management interface, ATM, plurality of slot machines, cashier system, gaming institution wireless interface, initiation signal, GPS confirmation signal, display, and user confirmation signal to perform coordinating the management and efficient use of a user's account within a gaming institution, comprising: provide financial transaction support to accommodate user transactions, comprising, withdrawals, transfers, and deposits, process ACH transactions, credit card clearing operations, and credit applications processes; communicate with a plurality of gaming institution systems to first determine if the user is within the gaming institution and to enable transactions; wherein a transaction initiated by the user automatically causing user location information to automatically confirm that the user is located within the gaming institution, a user confirmation process allowing the user to initiate a user confirmation process which will allow the transaction will be automatically initiated. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) discussing when the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished this does not show integration into a practical application. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application. It is further noted that the claimed invention as recited in claim 1 does not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer components themselves or a technological solution to a technological problem. Please also see MPEP 2106.05(g) regarding adding insignificant extra-solution activity including data gathering and manipulation. Please also see MPEP 2106.05(h) regarding field of use and technological environment.
Step 2B – do the claims recited additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 1, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an eWallet transaction platform, eWallet platform processor, wireless communication interface, eWallet app, user mobile device, user interface, slot management system, slot management interface, ATM, plurality of slot machines, cashier system, gaming institution wireless interface, initiation signal, GPS confirmation signal, display, and user confirmation signal to perform coordinating the management and efficient use of a user's account within a gaming institution, comprising: provide financial transaction support to accommodate user transactions, comprising, withdrawals, transfers, and deposits, process ACH transactions, credit card clearing operations, and credit applications processes; communicate with a plurality of gaming institution systems to first determine if the user is within the gaming institution and to enable transactions; wherein a transaction initiated by the user automatically causing user location information to automatically confirm that the user is located within the gaming institution, a user confirmation process allowing the user to initiate a user confirmation process which will allow the transaction will be automatically initiated amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The computer components implementing the abstract idea appear to be generic in view of at least Applicant’s specification, [0010]. Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In view of the above analysis, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-12 do not cure the deficiencies in their respective base claims. Specifically, claims 2-12 merely refine the abstract idea (2A1) by invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process (2A2, 2B). Regarding the further additional elements in the dependent claims including signals (claim 2), barcode, QR code (claims 3), user portal (claim 5), gaming institution portal (claim 6), gaming machine (claims 7, 10), cellular communication resources (claim 8), and display screen (claim 11), please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newsom (US 2022/0147957) in view of Lyons (US 2016/0019746)
Claim 1 recites:
An eWallet transaction platform for coordinating the management and efficient use of a user's eWallet account within a gaming institution, comprising: (Newsom, Fig. 1, [0023], systems for implementing integrated financial services functionality in a casino) Higgins, Fig. 1A, [0017], system, wallet)
an eWallet platform processor configured to provide financial transaction support to accommodate user eWallet transactions, comprising, withdrawals, transfers, and deposits, (Newsom, Fig. 1, [0030], processing system 48; [0037], moving funds to or from exchange)
the eWallet platform processor further configured to process ACH transactions, credit card clearing operations, and credit applications processes, (Newsom, Fig. 1, [0030], processing system 48; [0032], credit card; [0047], ACH transaction)
the eWallet platform processor comprising a user wireless communication interface configured to allow communication between the eWallet platform processor; (Newsom, [0074], communication interface via wireless links; see also [0033], [0062], [0063], communication interfaces)
an eWallet app installed on a user mobile device configured to interface with the user via a user interface; (Newsom, Fig. 1, [0056]-[0059], exchange application, patron’s device, interfaces to implement functionality)
a slot management system having a slot management interface configured to securely interface with the eWallet platform processor, (Newsom, [0027], slot management system 30; see also [0071]-[0076], slot management system 30 may transmit information to processing server 48)
the slot management system further configured to communicate with a plurality of gaming institution systems comprising an ATM, a plurality of slot machines, and a cashier system, (Newsom, [0071], slot management system 30, kiosks 34A, back end transaction server for processing transactions at the kiosks and casino cage, communication pathways; [0012], ATM; see also [0072]-[0076])
the slot management system further having a gaming institution wireless interface configured to interact with the eWallet app which will allow the eWallet platform processor to first determined if the user is within the gaming institution and to enable eWallet transactions involving the ATM, the plurality of slot machines and the cashier system; (Newsom, [0072], financial provider’s system 40 communicates with slot management system 30 to facilitate movement of funds, gaming machines 24; [0083], location of mobile device 34B, rule sets, particular casinos; [0076], kiosks 34A, casino cages 34C; see also [0071], [0073]-[0075])
wherein an eWallet transaction involving the ATM, any one of the plurality of slot machines or the cashier system is initiated by the user via the eWallet app on the user mobile device thereby automatically causing an initiation signal to be transmitted to the eWallet platform processor via the wireless communication interface and wherein the eWallet platform processor will automatically collect a GPS confirmation signal from the user mobile device providing user location information which allows the eWallet platform processor to automatically confirm that that the user is located within the gaming institution, and (Newsom, [0083], rules applied when transaction is requested, location of mobile device 34B detected by GPS. Although the cited portion of Newsom is believed to read on the above feature under BRI in view of Applicant’s specification, [0010], Newsom does not specifically disclose requiring a GPS confirmation signal. Lyons, [0171], discusses GPS data is used to verify that a player is physically located at an electronic gaming machine. If necessary, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the application of rules based on GPS of Newsom with the verification based on GPS location before initiating play of Lyons in order to control play as discussed in Lyons, [0171], and Newsom, [0082]. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to include the features as taught in Lyons in Newsom since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, both are in the field of casino gaming and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination to be predictable.)
the eWallet platform processor further communicating with the eWallet app to automatically initiate a user confirmation process to be launched on the user mobile device which will cause a display to be presented to the user interface allowing the user to initiate a user confirmation process which will allow for the generation of the user confirmation signal after the user has provided a predetermined input to the eWallet platform processor and will cause the automatic transmission of the user confirmation signal to the eWallet platform processor, wherein once the GPS confirmation signal and the user confirmation signal are both received by the eWallet platform processor the transaction will be automatically initiated. (Newsom, [0064], confirmation, mobile device 34B; [0083], [0084], rule sets including based on location applied before a transaction is allowed)
Claim 2 recites:
The eWallet transaction platform of claim 1 wherein the slot management system will recognize the presence of the user mobile device within the gaming institution based on automatic signals generated by the eWallet App running on the user’s mobile device and will provide signals allowing the eWallet platform processor to confirm that the user is within the gaming institution and will also automatically provide signals to the user mobile device to cause operation of the eWallet app to be altered, to thereby better accommodate coordination with the ATM, gaming machine or cashier system. (Newsom, [0082]-[0084], rule sets are applied based on location, location of the mobile device 34B obtained by exchange application)
Claim 3 recites:
The eWallet transaction platform of claim 2 wherein the predetermined input allowing for the generation of the user confirmation signal is created by the eWallet app coordinating a process wherein the user will scan a barcode or QR code that is associated with the ATM, gaming machine or cashier system. (Newsom, [0064], exchange application, confirmation code; [0105], QR code. Although Newsom discusses a confirmation code and the use of a QR code, Newsom does not specifically disclose the user will scan a barcode or QR code that is associated with the ATM, gaming machine or cashier system. Lyons, [0330], discusses a player scanning a QR code. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the confirmation code of Newsom with the QR code of Lyons in order to control play as discussed in Lyons, [0171], and Newsom, [0082].)
Claim 4 recites:
The eWallet transaction platform of claim 1 wherein the eWallet platform processor is further configured to receive data from the eWallet app installed on the user mobile device to allow the user to enroll a new account in the eWallet, account comprising electronically receiving information via the user interface which is necessary to access an existing account at a user's financial institution which was not previously enrolled. (Newsom, Fig. 6B, [0060], add new card)
Claim 5 recites:
The eWallet transaction platform of claim 4 wherein the eWallet platform processor is further configured to provide a user portal via the user interface allowing the user to access status information regarding the eWallet account and to initiate any one of the user eWallet transactions, and (Newsom, [0060]-[0064], interfaces; [0074], [0075], transactions)
a support dashboard configured provide a eWallet platform manager with information regarding a plurality of eWallet accounts managed by the eWallet platform processor. (Newsom, [0060], manage accounts associated with their exchange)
Claim 6 recites:
The eWallet transaction platform of claim 5 wherein the slot management system is configured to provide a gaming institution portal which allows the gaming institution to view eWallet transactions occurring withing the gaming institution. (Newsom, [0073], slot management system 30, accounting for funds in and out)
Claim 7 recites:
The eWallet transaction platform of claim 5 wherein the user interface can be presented on a gaming machine within the gaming institution. (Newsom, Figs. 1 and 9A, [0064], kiosk 34A may display an interface to complete transaction)
Claim 8 recites:
The eWallet transaction platform of claim 1 wherein communication between the user wireless communication interface and the eWallet app is achieved via cellular communication resources. (Newsom, Figs. 1 and 9A, [0074], wireless links reading on “cellular communication resources” under BRI in view of that the Applicant’s specification does not discuss this feature; [0083], cell location information; [0033], networks; [0110], communication interfaces, networks)
Claim 9 recites:
The eWallet transaction platform of claim 1 wherein the GPS confirmation signal and the user confirmation signal are both received via the gaming institution wireless communication system. (Newsom, [0064], confirmation; [0074], wireless; mobile device 34B; [0083], [0084], GPS, location obtained by location of mobile device 34B)
Claim 10 recites:
The eWallet transaction platform of claim 1 wherein the eWallet transaction involves the user applying for instant access credit which, upon approval can be credited to one of the user's eWallet accounts, or as a credit to a gaming machine. (Newsom, [0068], obtain a new credit card that is subsequently linked to exchange)
Claim 11 recites:
The eWallet transaction platform of claim 3 wherein the QR code or barcode is generated on a display screen of the ATM, Gaming machine or cashier system. (Newsom, Fig. 9A, [0064], kiosk 34A displays a confirmation code; [0105], QR code. Although Newsom discusses the well-known features of a kiosk displaying a code and QR codes, Newsom does not explicitly disclose the QR code or barcode is generated on a display screen of the ATM, Gaming machine or cashier system. Lyons, [0013], discusses the gaming machine may display a bar code or QR code. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the QR code and kiosk of Newsom to include the gaming machine displaying a bar code or QR code as in Lyons in order to control play as discussed in Lyons, [0171], and Newsom, [0082].
Claim 12 recites:
The eWallet transaction platform of claim 3 wherein the QR code or barcode is physically attached to a portion of the ATM, Gaming machine or cashier system. (Newsom, Fig. 9A, [0064], kiosk 34A displays a confirmation code; [0105], QR code. Although Newsom discusses the well-known feature of a QR code, Newsom does not explicitly disclose the QR code or barcode is physically attached to a portion of the ATM, Gaming machine or cashier system. Lyons, [0171], [0172], discusses an EGM-specific identifier such as a barcode or QR code located on the EGM. See also Lyons, [0271], [0409]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the QR code of Newsom to be printed on the gaming machine as in Lyons in order to control play as discussed in Lyons, [0171], and Newsom, [0082].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Step 2A, prong one, no arguments appear to have been presented regarding Step 2A, prong one.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include improvements to the functioning of a computer, applying the judicial exception with a particular machine, effecting transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing or applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful was beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The Applicant argues “As set forth above, the system set forth in independent claim 1 allows for the initiation of an eWallet transaction that is confirmed in multiple ways, including the detection of the eWallet app by the slot management system, the requirement of an automatic GPS verification signal when a transaction is initiated, and the requirement for a user confirmation signal. The system is configured in a way to cause many steps to occur automatically, thus providing an improved system which allows users to access funds in eWallet accounts. The various elements set forth in claim 1 and their configuration, allow a practical application that efficiently uses the enumerated features of the user device, eWallet platform processor and the slot management system to provide an efficient tool that allows user access to their eWallet accounts. Applicant appreciates that certain technological elements, such as GPS technologies, have been in existence well before applicant’s filings date, but the use of these technologies are simply part of the ordered combination of elements that enable a practical application. Generally speaking, the system set forth in the pending claims provides a unique solution which for efficient and controlled access to financial resources while at a gaming institution, addressing a challenge that has existed for many years.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) discussing when the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished this does not show integration into a practical application. Briefly, the claims do not recite and the Applicant’s remarks do not discuss any technical details that represent a technological solution to a technological problem. Instead, the claims only recite a result-oriented solution. Regarding “automatically”, the claims recite and the Applicant’s arguments note that the user sends a confirmation signal instead of an automatic operation. Please also see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) discussing when the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process including use of a computer or other machinery for economic tasks this does not show integration into a practical application. Briefly, the claims invoke computers merely as a tool for the economic task of performing financial transactions in a gaming institution. Please also see MPEP 2106.05(g) regarding adding insignificant extra-solution activity including data gathering and manipulation. Please also see MPEP 2106.05(h) regarding field of use and technological environment.
Regarding Step 2B, no arguments were presented regarding Step 2B. However, Step 2B is directed to whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (AKA “significantly more”) than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(d) gives examples recognized by the courts of known computer functions including “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, “performing repetitive calculations”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory” and “recording a customer’s order”, all of which directly correspond to the generically claimed operations of the present claims, which claim coordinating the management and use of a user's eWallet account within a gaming institution including confirming the user is located within the gaming institution before a transaction will be allowed.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered and the amended claims are addressed in detail above. Applicant argues “Independent claim 1 requires that the gaming institution interface provide signals allowing the eWallet platform processor to determine that the user in within the gaming institution based upon interaction with the eWallet app running on the users mobile device. Among other features, Applicant maintains that the cited reference do not teach this concept. The disclosed slot management system 30 of Newsom does not interact with the eWallet app running on the user’s mobile device to determine presence, nor does it suggest the use of this system to allow the eWallet to determine if the user is present in the gaming institute. Further, Lyons et al. does not teach this claimed feature.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Newsom, [0083], specifically discloses “when a transaction is requested or triggered, the location of the transaction is determined. For example, when a transaction is requested from a touchpoint 34, the location of that touch point is determined or obtained (for example, relative to a transaction requested by a patron by their mobile device 34B, the location of the mobile device 34B might be obtained in various manners, such as by the exchange application running thereon obtaining triangulated cell location information, by GPS or otherwise”. Applicant further argues “Further, Lyons et al. teaches the use of QR codes and barcodes for purposes of remote game play or the receipt of game information. See, Lyons et al., [0170]. As such, Applicant maintains that the cited references do not contain sufficient teaching to support the alleged combination of references.” It is unclear what feature the Applicant is arguing the patentability of. It is respectfully noted that QR codes were invented in 1994, almost 30 years prior to the effective filing date. Please see above regarding obviousness of the claimed QR code limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes: US 20220138728; US 20200302740; and US 20200020196 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory Harper whose telephone number is (571)272-5481. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Calvin Hewitt II can be reached on (571) 272-6709. 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.
/GREGORY HARPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3692