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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 5th, 2026 has been entered.
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 system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
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 an identified user and responsive to a request, received from the identified user, to pledge the cryptocurrency as collateral in association with a line of credit:
responsive to the cryptocurrency being associated with a first property, determine a first amount of available funds associated with the line of credit, and
responsive to the cryptocurrency being associated with a second, different property, determine a second, different amount of available funds associated with the line of credit, and
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, 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 and a memory 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 a processor and a memory 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 and a memory 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 § 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 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, cause the processor to:
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 an identified user and responsive to a request, received from the identified user, to pledge the cryptocurrency as collateral in association with a line of credit (Higgins Figures 2A-2B; Paragraphs [0003], [0018], [0060], [0064]):
responsive to the cryptocurrency being associated with a first property, 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 cryptocurrency being associated with a second, different property, 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 cryptocurrency being pledged as collateral in association with any lines of credit, responsive to a received request to transfer the cryptocurrency from the gaming establishment controlled custodian account to the external cryptocurrency account, determine, independent of the identified user, whether to authorize the requested transfer (-wherein account transfers are only limited based on use of outstanding credit tied to the escrowed crypto and accordingly is understood as independent of the user authorization- Higgins Figures 3; Paragraphs [0054]-[0055], [0064], [0135]).
Claim 2: Higgins teaches the 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 system, the method comprising:
following a cryptocurrency being transferred, via an external cryptocurrency blockchain network operating independent of a processor of the system (Higgins Paragraph [0018]),
from an external cryptocurrency account to a gaming establishment controlled custodian account associated with an identified user and responsive to a request, received from the identified user, to pledge the cryptocurrency as collateral in association with a line of credit (Higgins Figures 2A-2E; Paragraphs [0003], [0018], [0060]):
responsive to the cryptocurrency being associated with a first property, determining, by a processor, 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 cryptocurrency being associated with a second, different property, determining, by the processor, 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 cryptocurrency being pledged as collateral in association with any lines of credit, 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 the identified user, whether to authorize the requested transfer (-wherein account transfers are only limited based on use of outstanding credit tied to the escrowed crypto and accordingly is understood as independent of the user authorization- Higgins Figures 3; Paragraphs [0054]-[0055], [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 February 5th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on pages 7 through 8 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 response dated August 26th, 2026 (Applicant’s Remarks page 7);
ii. that the claimed invention involves the provides an improvement that was not previously possible with a mental process or a human operator by transferring crypto-currency through use of an external blockchain network based on an identified user but determined independent of the authorized user in a manner that is proposed as being analogous to the court’s determination in McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Applicant’s Remarks page 7); and
iii. that the claimed invention integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application, by providing a proposed unconventional technical improvement by allowing a user to pledge crypto-currency that remains in a casino custodial account to secure a line of credit based thereon in manner that is proposed as being analogous to improvements upheld by the court in BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&TMobility LLC, 827 F .3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Applicant’s Remarks page 8).
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 dated August 26th, 2026 were previously addressed as presented in the subsequently mailed office action dated November 7th, 2025 and will not be repeated herein;
ii.a) Response to the Applicant’s remarks of this section directed to McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., it is noted that the court specifically addressed “an improvement in computer-related technology” wherein the same is not limited to improvements in the operation of a computer or a computer network per se, but may also be claimed as a set of "rules" (basically mathematical relationships) that improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer. In McRO the court found that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology embodied in allowing computers to produce "accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters" that previously could only be produced by human animators, and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. While the claims of the instant invention define a set of rules for transferring crypto-currency through use of an external blockchain network based on an identified user but determined independent of the authorized user, these rules do not improve the functionality of the computer by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer in a manner similar to McRO but instead define the use of computers and associated networks to store and transfer information. Proposed improvements to the computer communication and/or data storage that do not result in an improvement of the hardware which they are practiced on are not sufficient to improve the functionality of the computer but instead result in the mere operation or practice of these rules and algorithms on a computer in a manner specifically caution against in Alice, “[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). Accordingly, the decision in McRO does not support the presence of patent eligible subject matter in the claimed invention as proposed.
iii.a) In BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&TMobility LLC, the court agreed that the additional elements were generic computer, network, and Internet components that did not amount to significantly more when considered individually, but explained that the district court erred by failing to recognize that when combined, an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements. Specifically, when considered as an ordered combination the court identified the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user as representing a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements wherein such merged the benefits of remote based filtering tools and personal based filtering tools to create a unique beneficial arrangement that was not separately available with either of these known arrangements for filter tools previously. With relation to the preceding the presented arguments do not identify how the claimed invention when considered as an ordered combination provides significantly more than a conventional or generic arrangement of known hardware executing algorithm or how such provide for a unique beneficial arrangement that was not separately available with the claimed elements previously and in a manner that would separate the claimed invention from the specific arrangement as cautioned against in Alice, “[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).
Further improvements to the abstract idea alone cannot constitute the inventive concept itself. 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.”).
Continuing on pages 9 through 10 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. 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 a 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. As the proposed features 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
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715