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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a system (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-11, and a computer implemented method (i.e., a process) in claims 12-20.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. 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 following a cryptocurrency being transferred, via an external cryptocurrency blockchain network operating independent of the processor, from an external cryptocurrency account to a gaming establishment controlled custodian account associated with the identified user and distinct from a cashless wagering account associated with the identified user, cause the processor to:
responsive to a request, received from the identified user, to pledge the cryptocurrency as collateral in association with a line of credit accessible by the identified user and responsive to the cryptocurrency being associated with a first property, interface with a server of a gaming establishment credit system to determine a first amount of available funds associated with the line of credit,
responsive to the request, received from the identified user, to pledge the cryptocurrency as collateral in association with the line of credit accessible by the identified user and responsive to the cryptocurrency being associated with a second, different property, interface with the server of the gaming establishment credit system to determine a second, different amount of available funds associated with the line of credit, and
independent of any portion of the cryptocurrency being pledged by the identified user as collateral in association with any lines of credit accessible by the identified user, and responsive to a received request to transfer the cryptocurrency from the gaming establishment controlled custodian account to the external cryptocurrency account;-
determine, independent of any input to authorize the requested transfer received from the identified user, independent of any input not to authorize the requested transfer received from the identified user and independent of any authorization received from the server of the gaming establishment credit system, whether to authorize the requested transfer, and
responsive to the determination being to authorize the requested transfer, interface with the external cryptocurrency blockchain network to cause, independent of any inputs received from the identified user, a transfer of the cryptocurrency from the gaming establishment controlled custodian account to the external cryptocurrency account.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract idea of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for evaluating collateral and providing a line of credit or repayment period for a line of credit based thereon.
The claim elements underlined above, additionally concern the court enumerated abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles, including book keeping, hedging/insurance, and collateralized credit, commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, sales activities and business relations, because the claims set forth the issuance of a credit line to a player by a establishment wherein the funds associated with the credit line is based on the location of the collateral and the determination of a repayment period based on the value of the collateral with respect to a threshold amount,
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on a processor, a memory, and a server it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other devices such as generic computers, smart/mobile phones, tablet computers, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0020], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0030], [0101], [0112]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0020], [0022], [0024], [0026], [0030], [0101], [0112]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-20 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of a processor, a memory, a server, a housing, an access door, and security monitoring circuit as respectively presented that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B for the reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 and further present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and therefore are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically claims 10 and 11 as amended on June 10th, 2026 include the features of a housing, an access door, a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing, and the use of the same to restrict the transfer of funds associated with a line of credit when the access door is open that were not described in the specification as originally filed. The Applicant’s response proposes on page 9 that no new matter has been added through amendment on page 9 but does not identify where support for these items is believed to exist in the application as filed. Additionally, the review of the application did not readily identify the description of these features or their particular use as now claimed using the particular terms presented in the amended claims
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for Variable lines of credit based on crypto currency held in a casino controlled custodian account, does not reasonably provide enablement for a housing, an access door, a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing, and the use of the same to restrict the transfer of funds associated with a line of credit when the access door is open. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Specifically, the application as filed doesn’t describe the now included features and the intended operation of the same and considering the factors set forth by In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1998), would not have provided one of ordinary skill in the art any guidance on the inclusion of a housing, an access door, a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing and would does not describe the specific use of these features to limit the transfer of funds from the line of credit to the credit meter based on the door state without undue experimentation because the nature of the invention, and the lack of direction provided by the specification do not set forth these specific functionalities or relationships either explicitly or through the description of working examples that would provide reasonable guidance to make and/or use the invention as now claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higgins et al (US 2020/0152005)
Claim 1: Higgins teaches a gaming establishment fund management system comprising:
a processor(Higgins Figure 4; Element 1010); and
a memory device (Higgins Figure 4; Element 1016) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, following a cryptocurrency being transferred, via an external cryptocurrency blockchain network operating independent of the processor, from an external cryptocurrency account to a gaming establishment controlled custodian account associated with the identified user and distinct from a cashless wagering account associated with the identified user (Higgins Figures 2A-2B; Paragraphs [0003], [0018], [0060], [0064]), cause the processor to:
responsive to a request, received from the identified user, to pledge the cryptocurrency as collateral in association with a line of credit accessible by the identified user (Higgins Figures 2A-2B; Paragraphs [0003], [0018], [0060], [0064]) responsive to the cryptocurrency being associated with a first property, interface with a server of a gaming establishment credit system to determine a first amount of available funds associated with the line of credit (-wherein the line of credit conversion rate is based on the exchange rate of the respective crypto currency ETH/BTC the amount of crypto currency, fees, and volatility- Higgins Figures 2D, 2E; Paragraphs [0013], [0018], [0052], [0062]),
responsive to the request, received from the identified user, to pledge the cryptocurrency as collateral in association with the line of credit accessible by the identified user and responsive to the cryptocurrency being associated with a second, different property, interface with a server of a gaming establishment credit system to determine a second, different amount of available funds associated with the line of credit (-wherein the line of credit conversion rate is based on the exchange rate of the respective crypto currency ETH/BTC the amount of crypto currency, fees, and volatility- Higgins Figures 2D, 2E; Paragraphs [0013], [0018], [0052], [0062]); and default
independent of any portion of the cryptocurrency being pledged by the identified user as collateral in association with any lines of credit, accessible by the identified user and responsive to a received request to transfer the cryptocurrency from the gaming establishment controlled custodian account to the external cryptocurrency account;
determine, independent of any input to authorize the requested transfer received from the identified user, independent of any input not to authorize the requested transfer received from the identified user and independent of any authorization received from the server of the gaming establishment credit system, whether to authorize the requested transfer, and
responsive to the determination being to authorize the requested transfer, interface with the external cryptocurrency blockchain network to cause, independent of any inputs received from the identified user, a transfer of the cryptocurrency from the gaming establishment controlled custodian account to the external cryptocurrency account. (-wherein account transfers are only limited/authorized based on use of outstanding credit tied to the escrowed crypto and accordingly is understood as independent of the user authorization & Additionally encompasses the imposition of establishment or blockchain network fees & Further encompasses the establishment sale of escrowed assets to cover player losses - Higgins Figures 3; Paragraphs [0054]-[0055], [0057], [0063]-[0064], [0135]).
Claim 2: Higgins teaches the gaming establishment fund management system of Claim 1, wherein the first property comprises a first type of cryptocurrency and the second, different property comprises a second, different type of cryptocurrency (-Bitcoin/BTC or ether/ETH - Higgins Figures 2D, 2E; Paragraphs [0013], [0018]).
Claim 3: Higgins teaches the gaming establishment fund management system of Claim 2, wherein the first amount of available funds associated with the line of credit comprises a first percentage of a current value of the first type of cryptocurrency and the second, different amount of available funds associated with the line of credit comprises a second, different percentage of a current value of the second, different type of cryptocurrency (-wherein the line of credit conversion rate is based on the exchange rate of the respective crypto currency ETH/BTC the amount of crypto currency, fees, and volatility- Higgins Figures 2D, 2E; Paragraphs [0013], [0018], [0052], [0062]).
Claim 4: Higgins teaches the gaming establishment fund management system of Claim 1, wherein the first property comprises a first gaming establishment controlled custodian account holding the cryptocurrency and the second, different property comprises a second, different gaming establishment controlled custodian account holding the cryptocurrency (-Different establishment wallets for at least different types of cryptocurrency BTC/ETH - Higgins Paragraph [0018]).
Claim 5: Higgins teaches the gaming establishment fund management system of Claim 4, wherein the first gaming establishment controlled custodian account holds a first cryptocurrency and the second, different gaming establishment controlled custodian account holds a second, different cryptocurrency (-Different establishment wallets for at least different types of cryptocurrency BTC/ETH - Higgins Paragraph [0018]).
Claim 6: Higgins teaches the gaming establishment fund management system of Claim 1, wherein the first property comprises a first amount of the cryptocurrency and the second, different property comprises a second, different amount of the cryptocurrency (-wherein the exchange rate establishes the per unit conversion rate for each amount and type of cryptocurrency- Higgins Figures 2D, 2E; Paragraphs [0013], [0018], [0052], [0062]).
Claim 7: Higgins teaches the gaming establishment fund management system of Claim 1, wherein the first property comprises a first transfer limitation associated with the cryptocurrency and the second, different property comprises a second, different transfer limitation associated with the cryptocurrency (-understood to encompass differing exchange rates and fees and/or volatility hedging for differing cryptocurrencies - Higgins Figures 2D, 2E; Paragraphs [0013], [0018], [0052], [0062], [0068]).
Claim 8: Higgins teaches the gaming establishment fund management system of Claim 1, wherein the first property comprises a first price of the cryptocurrency and the second, different property comprises a second, different price of the cryptocurrency (-wherein the exchange rate establishes the per unit conversion rate for each amount and type of cryptocurrency- Higgins Figures 2D, 2E; Paragraphs [0013], [0018], [0052], [0062]).
Claim 9: Higgins teaches the gaming establishment fund management system of Claim 1, wherein the first property comprises a first fee to hedge against price fluctuations of the cryptocurrency and the second, different property comprises a second, different fee to hedge against price fluctuations of the cryptocurrency. (-volatility adjustments are respectively determined for each cryptocurrency- Higgins Paragraphs [0062], [0068]).
Claim 12: Higgins teaches a method of operating a gaming establishment fund management system, the method comprising:
following a cryptocurrency being transferred, via an external cryptocurrency blockchain network operating independent of a processor of the gaming establishment fund management system (Higgins Paragraph [0018]), from an external cryptocurrency account to a gaming establishment controlled custodian account associated with an identified user and distinct from a cashless wagering account associated with the identified user;
responsive to a request, received from the identified user, to pledge the cryptocurrency as collateral in association with a line of credit accessible by the identified user and (Higgins Figures 2A-2E; Paragraphs [0003], [0018], [0060]), responsive to the cryptocurrency being associated with a first property, interfacing, by a processor with a server of a gaming establishment credit system to determine, a first amount of available funds associated with the line of credit (-wherein the line of credit conversion rate is based on the exchange rate of the respective crypto currency ETH/BTC the amount of crypto currency, fees, and volatility- Higgins Figures 2D, 2E; Paragraphs [0013], [0018], [0052], [0062]), and
responsive to the request, received from the identified user, to pledge the cryptocurrency as collateral in association with the line of credit accessible by the identified user and responsive to the cryptocurrency being associated with a second, different property, interfacing, by the processor, with the server of the gaming establishment credit system to determine a second, different amount of available funds associated with the line of credit (-wherein the line of credit conversion rate is based on the exchange rate of the respective crypto currency ETH/BTC the amount of crypto currency, fees, and volatility- Higgins Figures 2D, 2E; Paragraphs [0013], [0018], [0052], [0062]); and
independent of any portion of the cryptocurrency being pledged by the identified user as collateral in association with any lines of credit, accessible by the identified user and responsive to a received request to transfer the cryptocurrency from the gaming establishment controlled custodian account to the external cryptocurrency account;
determining, by the processor and independent of any input to authorize the requested transfer received from the identified user, independent of any input not to authorize the requested transfer received from the identified user and independent of any authorization received from the server of the gaming establishment credit system, whether to authorize the requested transfer, and
responsive to the determination being to authorize the requested transfer, interfacing, by the processor and with the external cryptocurrency blockchain network to cause, independent of any inputs received from the identified user, a transfer of the cryptocurrency from the gaming establishment controlled custodian account to the external cryptocurrency account. (-wherein account transfers are only limited/authorized based on use of outstanding credit tied to the escrowed crypto and accordingly is understood as independent of the user authorization & Additionally encompasses the imposition of establishment or blockchain network fees & Further encompasses the establishment sale of escrowed assets to cover player losses - Higgins Figures 3; Paragraphs [0054]-[0055], [0057], [0063]-[0064], [0135]).
Claim 13: Higgins teaches the method of Claim 12, wherein the first property comprises a first type of cryptocurrency and the second, different property comprises a second, different type of cryptocurrency (-Bitcoin/BTC or ether/ETH - Higgins Figures 2D, 2E; Paragraphs [0013], [0018]).
Claim 14: Higgins teaches the method of Claim 13, wherein the first amount of available funds associated with the line of credit comprises a first percentage of a current value of the first type of cryptocurrency and the second, different amount of available funds associated with the line of credit comprises a second, different percentage of a current value of the second, different type of cryptocurrency (-wherein the line of credit conversion rate is based on the exchange rate of the respective crypto currency ETH/BTC the amount of crypto currency, fees, and volatility- Higgins Figures 2D, 2E; Paragraphs [0013], [0018], [0052], [0062]).
Claim 15: Higgins teaches the method of Claim 12, wherein the first property comprises a first gaming establishment controlled custodian account holding the cryptocurrency and the second, different property comprises a second, different gaming establishment controlled custodian account holding the cryptocurrency (-Different establishment wallets for at least different types of cryptocurrency BTC/ETH - Higgins Paragraph [0018]).
Claim 16: Higgins teaches the method of Claim 15, wherein the first gaming establishment controlled custodian account holds a first cryptocurrency and the second, different gaming establishment controlled custodian account holds a second, different cryptocurrency (-Different establishment wallets for at least different types of cryptocurrency BTC/ETH - Higgins Paragraph [0018]).
Claim 17: Higgins teaches the method of Claim 12, wherein the first property comprises a first amount of the cryptocurrency and the second, different property comprises a second, different amount of the cryptocurrency (-wherein the exchange rate establishes the per unit conversion rate for each amount and type of cryptocurrency- Higgins Figures 2D, 2E; Paragraphs [0013], [0018], [0052], [0062]).
Claim 18: Higgins teaches the method of Claim 12, wherein the first property comprises a first transfer limitation associated with the cryptocurrency and the second, different property comprises a second, different transfer limitation associated with the cryptocurrency (-understood to encompass differing exchange rates and fees and/or volatility hedging for differing cryptocurrencies - Higgins Figures 2D, 2E; Paragraphs [0013], [0018], [0052], [0062], [0068]).
Claim 19: Higgins teaches the method of Claim 12, wherein the first property comprises a first price of the cryptocurrency and the second, different property comprises a second, different price of the cryptocurrency (-wherein the exchange rate establishes the per unit conversion rate for each amount and type of cryptocurrency- Higgins Figures 2D, 2E; Paragraphs [0013], [0018], [0052], [0062]).
Claim 20: Higgins teaches the method of Claim 12, wherein the first property comprises a first fee to hedge against price fluctuations of the cryptocurrency and the second, different property comprises a second, different fee to hedge against price fluctuations of the cryptocurrency (-volatility adjustments are respectively determined for each cryptocurrency- Higgins Paragraphs [0062], [0068]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 10th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on pages 9 through 13 of the Applicant’s response, the Applicant presents various arguments concerning the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more including:
i. for the reasons previously submitted in the Applicant previously filed responses dated August 26th, 2026 (Applicant’s Remarks page 9);
ii. that the claimed invention does not involve organizing human interactions but instead is focused on server operations and as such should fall outside the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (Applicant’s Remarks pages 9-10);
iii. that the claimed invention when considered as a whole provides significantly more than the recited abstract idea embodied in a proposed technological improvement by providing the transfer of cryptocurrency between an external and custodian accounts not provided by the recited components individually (Applicant’s Remarks pages 10-11); and
iv. that claim 10 additionally recites the inclusion of additional elements including a housing, an access door, a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing, and the use of the same to restrict the transfer of funds associated with a line of credit when the access door is open, that have not been established as being well known or conventional following the guidance of guidance of Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. 881 F.3d 1360, 125 U.S.P.Q.2d 1649 (Fed Cir. 2018) and are not extra solution activity incidental to the crypto currency operations as particularly claimed (Applicant’s Remarks pages 11-13)
Responsive to the Applicant’s arguments, the following is respectfully noted in corresponding enumeration and order as summarized herein above:
i.a) The Applicant’s previously presented arguments were previously addressed as presented in the subsequently mailed office actions and similar to the Applicant’s referenced arguments will not be repeated herein;
ii.a) The claimed invention is additionally directed court enumerated abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles, including book keeping, hedging/insurance, and collateralized credit, commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, sales activities and business relations, because the claims set forth the issuance of a credit line to a player by a establishment wherein the funds associated with the credit line is based on the location of the collateral and the determination of a repayment period based on the value of the collateral with respect to a threshold amount. The mere application of the recited judicial exception utilizing a computer merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea would not exclude the recited abstract idea from this grouping consistent with MPEP 2106.05(f).
iii.a) The extension of credit in exchange for the receipt of collateral is not an improvement in technology as defined by MPEP 2106.05(a), but instead represents part of the abstract idea itself; as such, these features cannot constitute the “inventive concept.” See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring) (“It is clear from Mayo that the ‘inventive concept’ cannot be the abstract idea itself, and Berkheimer . . . leave[s] untouched the numerous cases from this court which have held claims ineligible because the only alleged ‘inventive concept’ is the abstract idea.”); see also BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”).
iv.a) The newly amended elements including a housing, an access door, a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing, and the use of the same to restrict the transfer of funds associated with a line of credit when the access door is open, are not disclosed by the applicant’s specification as being new or tied to the argued improvement. Additionally following the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71, and the lack of description concerning the same in the Applicant’s specification, these elements are understood as being are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art and as such the rejection meets the requirements of MPEP 2106.05(d); MPEP 2106.07(a); Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018) as argued.
The applicant’s proposal that the inclusion of these features is not extra-solution activity are respectfully non-persuasive, because they are not disclosed component of the invention as disclosed in the applicant’s specification and further because they are not directly tied to the extension of credit in exchange for the receipt of collateral as particularly claimed but instead represent activity performed in addition there to.
Continuing on pages 13 through 16 of the Applicant’s response, the Applicant as best understood, proposes that the applied prior art of U.S. 2020/0152005 to Higgins et al. ("Higgins"), while teaching the transfer of crypto currency between a player account and a custodial player account does not teach the transfer as occurring without the authorization by the player. Specifically, the Applicant appears to equate a player request for a transfer as a player authorization of a transfer. Additionally, the Applicant does not identify what party they believe is responsible for authorizing the transfer or that manner in which this authorization occurs and it is not immediately clear what alternative party is believed to be specified by these claim limitations, this clarification is particularly given the commonality of inventors and disclosures between the instant application and the applied prior art. The Applicant additionally proposes that these features further distinguish the remaining claims 2-9, and 12-20 based on either direct recitation or incorporation through claimed decency.
Responsive to the preceding Applicant presented arguments summarized above, in Higgins the player may request a transfer of crypto-currency not subject to being held as collateral or escrow against a line of credit but they do not authorize the transfer. Instead, the casino must authorize transfers of crypto-currency from the custodial account after requested by the user based on the determination that the crypto-currency is being held as collateral or escrow for an active credit line. Alternatively stated, in both the claimed invention and the applied prior art the casino system authorizes the transfer of crypto-currency and not the player and accordingly this feature does not support he proposed separation as best understood. Further it is noted that transfers resultant of the establishment redeeming the crypto collateral as well as the fees associated with each transaction are additional limitations that are understood to read on this feature as particularly claimed. As the proposed features respectfully do not support the separation of the claimed invention from the prior art as applied, it does not support the separation of the claimed invention of remaining claims 2-9, and 12-20 from the applied prior art of Higgins as proposed.
In view of the preceding the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above.
Conclusion
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 ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights