DETAILED ACTIONStatus of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to an Amendment dated April 8, 2026. Claims 1-4 and 9-10 are amended. Claims 13-20 are newly added. Claims 1-20 are pending. All pending claims are examined.
Response to Arguments
101 and Art Rejection Analysis
Art Rejection
In light of the amendments the art rejection is withdrawn because, absent is art that directly discloses the invention as claimed and in particular the syncing to the slot machine with the mobile app or financial institution that effects the transfer. This makes money access inside a casino more convenient while adding location-based security and transaction control.
101 Analysis
In line with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance," which explains how we must analyze patent-eligibility questions under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 ("Revised Guidance"), the first step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2A) consists of two prongs. In Prong One, we must determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Section III.A. I.). If it does not, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
An abstract idea must fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in the Revised Guidance or be a "tentative abstract idea, "with the latter situation predicted to be rare. Id. at 51-52 (Section I, enumerating three groupings of abstract ideas), 54 (Section III.A. I., describing Step 2A Prong One), 56-57 (Section III.D., explaining the identification of claims directed to a tentative abstract idea).
If a claim does recite a judicial exception, the next is Step 2A Prong Two, in which we must determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception." Id. at 54 (Section II.A.2.) If it does, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
If a claim recites a judicial exception but fails to integrate it into a practical application, we move to the second step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2B). to evaluate the additional limitations of the claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept. Id. at 56 (Section III.B.). In particular, we look to whether the claim:
• Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional 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 analysis in line with current 101 guidelines. Even if the abstract idea is deemed to be novel, the abstract idea is no less abstract (see Flook- new mathematical formula was an abstract idea).
“ In accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve consistency and predictability, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(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)1 – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019 / p.52.
Step 1: The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the independent claims 1 and 13 recites:
“An eWallet transaction platform for enabling local electronic transactions at a plurality of gaming institution systems using a user’s eWallet account within a gaming institution comprising:
An eWallet platform processor and related memory storin executable instructions that define logic to enable the local electronic transactions , the eWallet platform processor
configured to provided financial transaction support and 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 via communication with at least one financial institution, the eWallet platform processor comprising a user wireless communication interface configured to allow communication between the eWallet platform processor and a user mobile device;
an eWallet app installed on the user mobile device configured to interface with the user via a user interface presented on the user mobile deice and to transmit transaction control inputs to the eWallet platform processor; 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 the wherein the gaming institutions systems comprisethe slot management system configured t0o be operable in a transaction disabled state and a transaction enable state with respect to 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 intitaiton signal to be transmitted to the eWallet platform processor via the wireless communication interface
wherein, in response to the initiation signal, the eWallet platform processorreceives a location signal generated by , wherein which allows the eWallet platform processor to automatically determines using location validation logic stored in memory physically located within the gaming institution using location logic stored in memory, and wherein the eWallet platform processor further generates signals communicated with the generate a used by the eWallet platform processor to control transaction enablement.
wherein after receipt of both the confirmation signal and the confirmation of the user’s physical location by will automatically generate and transmit a transaction enablement signal to the slot management system;
wherein receipt of the transaction enablement signals will enable the slot management system to transition from the transaction disable state to the transaction enabled state thereby electronically enabling the eWallet transaction at the ATM, the plurality of slot machines or the cahier system, wherein the eWallet transaction is inhibited whiel the slot management system is in the transaction disable state
2A, Prong One Taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, the invention is directed to a method of organizing human activity that is 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) in which a customer’s location is verified as part ot the authentication process for executing a financial transaction.(App. Spec. paras. 0034, 0051).
The innovation as claimed appears to be directed to the user’s objective of evaluating the different data points associated with a customer’s activity to determine if those conditions for funds transfer are satisfied (see App. Spec. 0034, 0051) rather than the integration of a practical application.
Evaluating information based on the existing data as recited in the claims are nothing more than gathering data and applying a set of instructions to the data.
These limitations describe steps a person would take in determining if certain conditions related to identity verification and geo-location of the user are satisfied for a funds transfer to take place based on the predefined criteria.
Beyond the abstract idea, the additional elements recite hardware components such as a computing processor (see App. Spec. paras. 0010, 0028, Figs. 1-2). There does not appear to be any technology being improved. They are described at a high level of generality where each step does no more than require a generic computer processor to perform generic computer functions. Absent is any support in the specification that the claims as recited require specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components.
Unlike, McRO, the present claims contain improvements to the context in which the data is gathered and assessment is made to determine the geo location of the user as a prerequisite for authorizing a transaction and not one of a technology or technological field.
In particular, there is a lack of improvement to a computer or technical field of evaluating a user’s activities because the data processing performed merely uses a system as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The invention as claimed recites a generic computer component and the claim does not pass step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B; The next step is to identify any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. The additional elements are computer processer which is disclosed in the specification at a high degree of generality. Absent is any genuine issue of material fact that this component requires any specialized hardware or inventive computer component.
Likewise, the dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20,are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For example, claims 2-5 provide descriptive material of the conditions or rules used in the making that evaluation. These claim limitations recite steps at a high level of generality and performed in a traditional manner and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Independent claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 including dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 which fall with claims 1-20. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the independent claims 1 and 13 recites:
“An eWallet transaction platform for enabling local electronic transactions at a plurality of gaming institution systems using a user’s eWallet account within a gaming institution comprising:
An eWallet platform processor and related memory storin executable instructions that define logic to enable the local electronic transactions , the eWallet platform processor
configured to provided financial transaction support and 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 via communication with at least one financial institution, the eWallet platform processor comprising a user wireless communication interface configured to allow communication between the eWallet platform processor and a user mobile device;
an eWallet app installed on the user mobile device configured to interface with the user via a user interface presented on the user mobile deice and to transmit transaction control inputs to the eWallet platform processor; 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 the wherein the gaming institutions systems comprisethe slot management system configured t0o be operable in a transaction disabled state and a transaction enable state with respect to 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 intitaiton signal to be transmitted to the eWallet platform processor via the wireless communication interface
wherein, in response to the initiation signal, the eWallet platform processorreceives a location signal generated by , wherein which allows the eWallet platform processor to automatically determines using location validation logic stored in memory physically located within the gaming institution using location logic stored in memory, and wherein the eWallet platform processor further generates signals communicated with the generate a used by the eWallet platform processor to control transaction enablement.
wherein after receipt of both the confirmation signal and the confirmation of the user’s physical location by will automatically generate and transmit a transaction enablement signal to the slot management system;
wherein receipt of the transaction enablement signals will enable the slot management system to transition from the transaction disable state to the transaction enabled state thereby electronically enabling the eWallet transaction at the ATM, the plurality of slot machines or the cahier system, wherein the eWallet transaction is inhibited whiel the slot management system is in the transaction disable state
the invention is directed to a method of organizing human activity that is 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) in which a customer’s location is verified as part ot the authentication process for executing a financial transaction.(App. Spec. paras. 0034, 0051).
The innovation as claimed appears to be directed to the user’s objective of evaluating the different data points associated with a customer’s activity to determine if those conditions for funds transfer are satisfied (see App. Spec. 0034, 0051) rather than the integration of a practical application.
Evaluating information based on the existing data as recited in the claims are nothing more than gathering data and applying a set of instructions to the data.
These limitations describe steps a person would take in determining if certain conditions related to identity verification and geo-location of the user are satisfied for a funds transfer to take place based on the predefined criteria.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitation is the processor which is described in terms that suggest it comprises generic computer components (see processor - App Spec. para. 0029, 0030-0035; see also Figs. 1-2).
Further, the dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20, recite additional details about the mobile application syncing of geolocation to authorize the transfer. For example, claims 2-5 provide descriptive material of the proximity execution, the coordination of the signals and other conditions or rules used in the making that assessment, however, the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claims only recite generic computer to process and transmit the submitted information used in the evaluation, authentication and authorization to transfer. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Independent claims 1 and 13 and the dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKA OJIAKU whose telephone number is (571)270-3608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8.30 AM -5:00 PM 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, Matthew Gart can be reached at 571 272-3955. 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.
/CHIKAODINAKA OJIAKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344–45 (concluding that ‘‘[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,’’ observing that the district court ‘‘pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.’’); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding the concept of ‘‘voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation,’’ a ‘‘fundamental activity’’ that humans have performed for hundreds of years, to be an abstract idea);
In re Smith, 815F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that ‘‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’’ are abstract).
14 If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir . 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping’’ was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer’’); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’’); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible); id. at 1376 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that ‘‘could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind’’). Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping, Benson, 409 U.S.at 67, or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 - – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019
Prosecution Insights