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 response filed on 9/9/2025. Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-17 and 19 have been amended. Claims 9, 11 and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-8, 10 and 12-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objection
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informality: the third clause of amended independent claim 10 should end with punctuation such as a comma or semicolon to separate the third clause from the fourth clause. Appropriate correction is requested.
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 1-8, 10 and 12-19 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 systems of claims 1 and 10, and method of claim 12 are within the statutory categories of invention.
The response filed 9/9/2025 substantially amended independent claims 1, 10 and 12 so that the scope of claims 1 and 12 now differs from independent claim 10. For the purpose of clarity, Step 2 of the Section 101 analysis is divided into two sections, the first addressing claims 1-8 and 12-19, and the second addressing claim 10.
Section 101 Analysis, Step 2, Claims 1-8 and 12-19
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. Using the text of claim 12 as an example, claims 1 and 12 recite:
12. A method of operating a gaming establishment fund management system, the method comprising:
responsive to a receipt, from a component of a credit card issuer that is distinct from a processor of the gaming establishment fund management system, of data associated with a purchase transaction initiated in association with a credit card at a point-of-sale terminal operating independent of the processor of the gaming establishment fund management system:
determining, by the processor of the gaming establishment fund management system, an amount of funds associated with a cashless wagering account maintained, by the processor of the gaming establishment fund management system, independent of an account associated with the credit card, wherein the amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account is backed, independent of the account associated with the credit card, by at least a corresponding amount of funds in a backing financial institution account, and
communicating, to the component of the credit card issuer that issued the credit card independent of the gaming establishment fund management system, data associated with the determined amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account, wherein a determination of whether to authorize the purchase transaction is based, at least in part, on a dynamic credit limit of the account associated with the credit card which is at least partially determined based on the determined amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account, and
responsive to approving, based on the determined amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account, a requested transfer of funds from the cashless wagering account to a credit balance of an electronic gaming machine, modifying, by the processor of the gaming establishment fund management system, the determined amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account based on the approved transfer.
Referring to the limitations above, independent claims 1 and 12 recite an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106. Specifically, claims 1 and 12 recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, as drafted claims 1 and 12 only recite the commercial or legal interaction of mitigating settlement risk that is “determination of whether to authorize the purchase transaction is based, at least in part, on a dynamic credit limit of the account associated with the credit card which is at least partially determined based on the determined amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account”. Please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) listing mitigating settlement risk as an example of a commercial or legal interaction. Accordingly, claims 1 and 12 are directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Although a specific legal interaction is not recited in the claims, it is respectfully noted that gaming establishment accounts are stringently regulated, as noted in Applicant’s specification, [0024], [0068], including the movement of funds into or out of gaming accounts.
Although the claims have been placed in the commercial or legal interactions subgrouping of the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), the claims also fall in the fundamental economic practices or principles subgrouping discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) lists mitigating settlement risk as an example of fundamental economic principles or practices. Here, both securing a transaction through another financial account and determining credit based on assets are fundamental economic practices. Please see Applicant’s specification, [0011].
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 claims 1 and 12, these claims only recite the additional elements of a processor, memory device, fund management system, component, point-of-sale terminal and electronic gaming machine to perform responsive to a receipt from a credit card issuer that is distinct from the gaming establishment of data associated with a purchase transaction initiated in association with a credit card independent of the gaming establishment: determining, by the gaming establishment, an amount of funds associated with a cashless wagering account maintained by the gaming establishment, independent of an account associated with the credit card, wherein the amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account is backed, independent of the account associated with the credit card, by at least a corresponding amount of funds in a backing financial institution account, and communicating, to the credit card issuer that issued the credit card independent of the gaming establishment, data associated with the determined amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account, wherein a determination of whether to authorize the purchase transaction is based, at least in part, on a dynamic credit limit of the account associated with the credit card which is at least partially determined based on the determined amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account, and responsive to approving, based on the determined amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account, a requested transfer of funds from the cashless wagering account to a credit balance, modifying, by the gaming establishment, the determined amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account based on the approved transfer. 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 claims 1 and 12 do not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer components themselves or a technological solution to a technological problem. Regarding the additional element of an electronic gaming machine, please see MPEP 2106.05(b) discussing particular machines. In the present case, the electronic gaming machine is not claimed with any particularity (MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)), does not implement steps of the method (MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)), and the involvement of the electronic gaming machine is extra solution activity and a field of use limitation (MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)). 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 claims 1 and 12, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor, memory device, fund management system, component, point-of-sale terminal and electronic gaming machine to perform responsive to a receipt from a credit card issuer that is distinct from the gaming establishment of data associated with a purchase transaction initiated in association with a credit card independent of the gaming establishment: determining, by the gaming establishment, an amount of funds associated with a cashless wagering account maintained by the gaming establishment, independent of an account associated with the credit card, wherein the amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account is backed, independent of the account associated with the credit card, by at least a corresponding amount of funds in a backing financial institution account, and communicating, to the credit card issuer that issued the credit card independent of the gaming establishment, data associated with the determined amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account, wherein a determination of whether to authorize the purchase transaction is based, at least in part, on a dynamic credit limit of the account associated with the credit card which is at least partially determined based on the determined amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account, and responsive to approving, based on the determined amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account, a requested transfer of funds from the cashless wagering account to a credit balance, modifying, by the gaming establishment, the determined amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account based on the approved transfer 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, [0078]. Accordingly, claims 1 and 12 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In view of the above analysis, independent claims 1 and 12 are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-8 and 13-19 do not cure the deficiencies in their respective base claims. Specifically, claims 2-8 and 13-19 merely refine the abstract idea (2A1) by invoking a computer as a tool to perform an existing process (2A2, 2B). Dependent claims 2-8 and 13-19 do not recite further additional elements.
Section 101 Analysis, Step 2, Claim 10
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 10 recites:
10. A gaming establishment fund management system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
maintain an amount of funds in associated with a cashless wagering account that is distinct from an account associated with a credit card, wherein the amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account is backed, independent of the account associated with the credit card, by at least a corresponding amount of funds in a backing financial institution account
when a first amount of funds is maintained in association with the cashless wagering account and data associated with a purchase transaction initiated in association with the credit card at a point-of-sale terminal operating independent of the processor is received from a component of a credit card issuer which is distinct from the processor and which issued the credit card independent of the gaming establishment fund management system, operate with the component of the credit card issuer to authorize the purchase transaction based, at least in part, on a first credit limit of the account associated with the credit card which is determined at least partially based on the first amount of funds, and
when a second, lower amount of funds is maintained in association with the cashless wagering account and data associated with the purchase transaction initiated in association with the credit card at the point-of-sale terminal is received from the component of the credit card issuer, operate with the component of the credit card issuer to decline the purchase transaction based, at least in part, on a second, lower credit limit of the account associated with the credit card which is determined at least partially based on the second, lower amount of funds.
Referring to the limitations above, independent claim 10 recites an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP 2106. Specifically, claim 10 recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, as drafted claim 10 only recites the commercial or legal interaction of mitigating settlement risk that is “authorize the purchase transaction based, at least in part, on a first credit limit of the account associated with the credit card which is determined at least partially based on the first amount of funds”. Please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) listing mitigating settlement risk as an example of a commercial or legal interaction. Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Although a specific legal interaction is not recited in the claims, it is respectfully noted that gaming establishment accounts are stringently regulated, as noted in Applicant’s specification, [0024], [0068], including the movement of funds into or out of gaming accounts.
Although claim 10 has been placed in the commercial or legal interactions subgrouping of the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), claim 10 also falls in the fundamental economic practices or principles subgrouping discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) lists mitigating settlement risk as an example of fundamental economic principles or practices. Here, determining credit based on assets is a fundamental economic practice. Please see Applicant’s specification, [0011].
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 10, this claim only recites the additional elements of a fund management system, processor, memory device, point-of-sale terminal, component to perform maintain an amount of funds in associated with a cashless wagering account that is distinct from an account associated with a credit card, wherein the amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account is backed, independent of the account associated with the credit card, by at least a corresponding amount of funds in a backing financial institution account, when a first amount of funds is maintained in association with the cashless wagering account and data associated with a purchase transaction initiated in association with the credit card is received from a credit card issuer which issued the credit card independent of the gaming establishment, operate with the credit card issuer to authorize the purchase transaction based, at least in part, on a first credit limit of the account associated with the credit card which is determined at least partially based on the first amount of funds, and when a second, lower amount of funds is maintained in association with the cashless wagering account and data associated with the purchase transaction initiated in association with the credit card is received from the credit card issuer, operate with the credit card issuer to decline the purchase transaction based, at least in part, on a second, lower credit limit of the account associated with the credit card which is determined at least partially based on the second, lower amount of funds. 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 10 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 10, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a fund management system, processor, memory device, point-of-sale terminal, component to perform maintain an amount of funds in associated with a cashless wagering account that is distinct from an account associated with a credit card, wherein the amount of funds associated with the cashless wagering account is backed, independent of the account associated with the credit card, by at least a corresponding amount of funds in a backing financial institution account, when a first amount of funds is maintained in association with the cashless wagering account and data associated with a purchase transaction initiated in association with the credit card is received from a credit card issuer which issued the credit card independent of the gaming establishment, operate with the credit card issuer to authorize the purchase transaction based, at least in part, on a first credit limit of the account associated with the credit card which is determined at least partially based on the first amount of funds, and when a second, lower amount of funds is maintained in association with the cashless wagering account and data associated with the purchase transaction initiated in association with the credit card is received from the credit card issuer, operate with the credit card issuer to decline the purchase transaction based, at least in part, on a second, lower credit limit of the account associated with the credit card which is determined at least partially based on the second, lower amount of funds 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, [0078]. Accordingly, claim 10 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In view of the above analysis, independent claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/9/2025 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, Applicant argues “The Office Action rejected Claims 1 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter identified as "certain methods of organizing human activity". Applicant respectfully disagrees for the reasons submitted with the previously filed Responses to Office Actions (not reproduced herein).” It is respectfully submitted there are no arguments to respond to with respect to 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, on page 9 of the remarks, “At the onset and to the extent that the Office considers, as stated on page 5 of the Office Action, the claimed elements of at least "component of a credit card issuer, credit card and point- of-sale terminal to perform responsive to a receipt of data associated with a purchase transaction initiated in association with a credit card, determining an amount of funds associated with a gaming establishment account maintained independent of an account associated with the credit card, and communicating, to the credit card issuer that issued the credit card, data associated with the determined amount of funds associated with the gaming establishment account, wherein a determination of whether to authorize the purchase transaction is based, at least in part, on a dynamic credit limit of the account associated with the credit card which is at least partially determined based on the determined amount of funds associated with the gaming establishment account" as additional elements”. In response, the Applicant’s arguments directed to previous claim language are moot since the Applicant’s amended the claims in the response filed 9/9/2025. A Section 101 analysis for the claims as currently recited is shown above. The Applicant continues to argue “Applicant respectfully submits that the particular manner which the gaming establishment fund management system of representative independent Claim 1 operates provides a solution to the recognized problems associated with accessing funds from a cashless wagering account (which, per regulations, is backed by a corresponding amount of funds in a backing financial institution account, such as a backing bank account) for uses outside of a gaming establishment. Specifically, for a user with funds in a cashless wagering account that previously wanted to access, via a credit card, such funds for purposes other than wagering at electronic gaming machines, the user was required to first make one or more inputs to transfer funds from the cashless wagering account to another account, such as a financial institution checking account, and then make one or more additional inputs to transfer funds from that other account to an account associated with a credit card. This resulted in an increased computational load on different components by requiring multiple transfers between multiple components, required additional bandwidth to complete these multiple transfers, and were time consuming for certain users (e.g., requiring a user to wait for any fund transfer to be completed to use the funds from the gaming establishment account). Contrary to these prior approaches (which where relatively computational intensive and left the user without funds in their cashless wagering account for wagering purposes), the claimed gaming establishment fund management systems enable such access without first having to transfer such funds from the cashless wagering account. That is, utilizing an amount of funds associated with a cashless wagering account to determine a dynamic credit limit used to potentially authorize a purchase transaction while still enabling such funds to be transferred to a credit balance of an electronic gaming machine overcomes the recognized technical problems of prior payment solutions without sacrificing access to such funds for wagering purposes. Accordingly, since the claims are directed to these specific improvements in technology whereby the specific claimed features allow for the improvement to be realized, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and are patent eligible.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s arguments do not quote any technical features from the claims or specification. Regarding the arguments directed to “computational intensive”, the Applicant only argues economic factors rather than technical features. Briefly, referring to MPEP 2106.05(a), the claims do not improve the functioning of the computer itself. 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. Here, the existing process is the determination of credit based on the assets of the user, and transferring assets between accounts. The Examiner respectfully maintains the opinion that transferring funds from a gaming establishment account, now recited as a cashless wagering account, to an “account associated with the credit card” (claim 5) as opposed some other type of “financial institution account” ([0064]) is merely the label applied to the account. The Applicant’s specification, [0064]-[0069], makes it clear that “amounts maintained in the gaming establishment account maintained by the gaming establishment comply with jurisdictional requirements by accounting for the amounts moved to the financial institution account”. MPEP 2106.05(h) notes that for “claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, examiners should explain in an eligibility rejection why they do not meaningfully limit the claim. For example, an examiner could explain that employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more”. In compliance with MPEP 2106.05(h), it is respectfully submitted that the claims recite computer functions to execute the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk and limit the use of the idea to a gaming establishment environment. Limiting the use of the idea to a gaming establishment does not involve significantly more since only non-technical considerations are involved including the business practices of a credit card issuer and compliance with gaming laws and regulations.
Regarding Step 2B, no arguments appear to have been made 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”, “recording a customer’s order”, “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price” and “arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price”, all of which directly correspond to the generically claimed operations of the present claims, which claim mitigating settlement risk by determining whether to authorize a purchase transaction based, at least in part, on a dynamic credit limit at least partially based on the determined amount of funds associated with a gaming establishment account.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes: US 20200265421; US 10692059; US 10685342; WO 2018097904; US 20170200158; US 20150317629; US 20150100442; US 20060131395; and WO 03085581.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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