DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the RCE and amended claims filed on 7/21/2023, wherein:
Claims 1 and 13 are amended;
Claims 2-7, 9-12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are cancelled;
Claims 8, 14, 17, 18, and 21-29 remain as original or previously presented;
Claims 21-29 are new; and
Claims 1, 8, 13-14, 17-18, and 21-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendment of claim 13 resolves the previous objections to claims 13, 14, and 17, and the previous objections are withdrawn.
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, 13-14, 17-18, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system and method for extending credit which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts and business relations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
This rejection follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed Reg 4, January 7, 2019, pp. 50-57 (“2019 PEG”).
Analysis
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) – 2019 PEG pg. 53 (See MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1, 8, 13-14, 17-18, and 21-29 are directed to the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c))
For independent claim 1, the claim recite an abstract idea of: extending credit. The steps of independent claim 1 of: A method of electronically managing a dynamic credit pool for a patron of a gaming establishment to facilitate seamless gameplay across multiple gaming tables while preventing inadvertent over-extension, the method comprising: receiving, by an electronic marker management computing system, identifying information about the patron that uniquely identifies the patron and distinguishes the patron from other patrons; electronically storing, by the electronic marker management computing system, the identifying information in a patron database; electronically storing, by the electronic marker management computing system, financial information about the patron in the patron database, wherein the financial information comprises a credit limit for the patron, an issued marker amount for the patron, and a current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron representing funds extended during active gameplay that are pending conversion to a marker; receiving, by the electronic marker management computing system from a mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a first gaming table of the gaming establishment, a first request for an extension of credit from the patron for a first requested amount of credit extension, wherein the patron is physically located at the first gaming table at the time of the first request for the extension of credit; dynamically determining, by the electronic marker management computing system in real-time, whether to approve the first request for the extension of credit based on a comparison of the credit limit for the patron to a cumulative outstanding credit including (i) the issued marker amount for the patron and (ii) the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron, the dynamic determination preventing inadvertent over-extension of credit to the patron; when the first request for the extension of credit is approved, responsively updating in real-time, by the electronic marker management computing system, the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron by the first requested amount of credit extension; receiving, by the electronic marker management computing system, from another mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a second gaming table of the gaming establishment, a second request for an extension of credit from the patron for a second requested amount of credit extension, wherein the patron is physically located at the second gaming table at the time of the second request for the extension of credit, and wherein the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron includes the first requested amount of credit extension; dynamically determining, by the electronic marker management computing system in real- time, whether to approve the second request for the extension of credit based on a comparison of the credit limit for the patron to a cumulative outstanding credit including (i) the issued marker amount for the patron and (ii) the updated current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron, the dynamic determination preventing inadvertent over-extension of credit to the patron by ensuring the cumulative outstanding credit does not exceed the credit limit; when the second request for the extension of credit is approved, responsively updating in real-time, by the electronic marker management computing system, the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron by the second requested amount of credit extension; receiving, by the electronic marker management computing system, a request to convert the current aggregated extension of credit amount to a single marker; increasing, by the electronic marker management computing system, the issued marker amount by the current aggregated extension of credit amount; and decreasing, by the electronic marker management computing system, the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron to zero, when considered collectively as an ordered combination, recite the abstract idea of extending credit.
For independent claim 8, the claim recites an abstract idea of: extending credit. The steps of: A system for electronically managing a dynamic credit pool for a patron of a gaming establishment to facilitate seamless gameplay across multiple gaming tables while preventing inadvertent over-extension, the system, comprising: an electronic marker management computing system comprising at least one processor and memory configured to maintain a real-time aggregated credit ledger for patrons; a plurality of mobile attendant devices, each positioned proximate to a respective gaming table of the gaming establishment, and in networked communication with the electronic marker management computing system, each mobile attendant device configured to receive input regarding a patron at the gaming table; wherein the electronic marker management computing system is configured to: receive, via one of the plurality of mobile attendant devices, identifying information about the patron that uniquely identifies the patron and distinguishes the patron from other patrons; electronically store the identifying information in the patron database; electronically store financial information about the patron in the patron database; wherein the financial information comprises a credit limit for the patron, an issued marker amount for the patron, and a current real-time aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron representing funds extended during active gameplay that are pending conversion to a marker; receive, via the mobile attendant device proximate to a first gaming table, a first request for an extension of credit from the patron for a first requested amount of credit extension, wherein the patron is physically located at the first gaming table at the time of the first request for the extension of credit; dynamically determine, in real-time, whether to approve the first request for the extension of credit by comparing the credit limit for the patron to a cumulative outstanding credit including (i) the issued marker amount for the patron and (ii) the current real-time aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron, the dynamic determination preventing inadvertent over-extension of credit to the patron by ensuring the cumulative outstanding credit does not exceed the credit limit; when the first request for the extension of credit is approved, responsively update in real-time the current real-time aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron by the first requested amount of credit extension; receive via the mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a second gaming table of the gaming establishment, a second request for an extension of credit from the patron for a second requested amount of credit extension, wherein the patron is physically located at the second gaming table at the time of the second request for the extension of credit, and wherein the current real-time aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron includes the first requested amount of credit extension; dynamically determine, in real-time, whether to approve the second request for the extension of credit based on a comparison of the credit limit for the patron to a cumulative outstanding credit including (i) the issued marker amount for the patron and (ii) the updated current real-time aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron, the dynamic determination preventing inadvertent over-extension of credit to the patron; when the second request for the extension of credit is approved, responsively update in real-time the current real-time aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron by the second requested amount of credit extension; receive a request from the mobile attendant device to convert the current real-time aggregated extension of credit amount to a single marker; increase the issued marker amount by the current real-time aggregated extension of credit amount; and decrease the current real-time aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron to zero, when considered collectively as an ordered combination, recite the abstract idea of extending credit.
For independent claim 13, the claim recites an abstract idea of: extending credit. The steps of: A method of electronically managing a dynamic credit pool for a patron of a gaming establishment to facilitate seamless gameplay across multiple gaming tables while preventing inadvertent over-extension and enabling flexible repayment, the method comprising: receiving, by an electronic marker management computing system, identifying information about the patron that uniquely identifies the patron and distinguishes the patron from other patrons; electronically storing, by the electronic marker management computing system, the identifying information in a patron database; electronically storing, by the electronic marker management computing system, financial information about the patron in the patron database, wherein the financial information comprises a credit limit for the patron, an issued marker amount for the patron, and a current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron representing funds extended during active gameplay that are pending conversion to a marker; receiving, by the electronic marker management computing system, from a mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a first gaming table of the gaming establishment, a first request for an extension of credit from the patron for a first requested amount of credit extension, wherein the patron is physically located at the first gaming table at the time of the first request for the extension of credit; dynamically determining, by the electronic market management computing system in real-time, whether to approve the first request for the extension of credit based on a comparison of the credit limit for the patron to a cumulative outstanding credit including (i) the issued marker amount for the patron and (ii) the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron the dynamic determination preventing inadvertent over-extension of credit to the patron by ensuring the cumulative outstanding credit does not exceed the credit limit; when the first request for the extension of credit is approved, responsively updating in real-time, by the electronic marker management computing system, the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron by the first requested amount of credit extension; receiving, by the electronic marker management computing system, from a mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a second gaming table of the gaming establishment, a second request for an extension of credit from the patron for a second requested amount of credit extension, wherein the patron is physically located at the second gaming table at the time of the second request for the extension of credit, and wherein the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron includes the first requested amount of credit extension; dynamically determining, by the electronic marker management computing system in real-time, whether to approve the second request for an extension of credit based on a comparison of the credit limit for the patron to a cumulative outstanding credit including (i) the issued marker amount for the patron and (ii) the updated current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron, the dynamic determination preventing inadvertent over-extension of credit to the patron by ensuring the cumulative outstanding credit does not exceed the credit limit, even when the patron is rapidly moving between gaming tables; when the second request for the extension of credit is approved, responsively updating in real-time, by the electronic marker management computing system, the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron by the second requested amount of credit extension; receiving, by the electronic marker management computing system, an indication of partial repayment of the current aggregated credit extension by the patron the partial repayment reducing the current aggregated extension of credit amount; receiving, by the electronic marker management computing system, a request to convert an amount of credit extension that is remaining subsequent to the partial repayment of the current aggregated credit extension to a single marker; and increasing, by the electronic marker management computing system, the issued marker amount by the remaining amount of credit extension converted to the single marker, when considered collectively as an ordered combination, recite the abstract idea of extending credit.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 13, as drafted, are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, since they recite commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts and business relations. For independent claim 1, the steps of: receiving identifying information about the patron that uniquely identifies the patron and distinguishes the patron from other patrons; electronically storing the identifying information; electronically storing financial information about the patron, wherein the financial information comprises a credit limit for the patron, an issued marker amount for the patron, and a current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron representing funds extended during active gameplay that are pending conversion to a marker; receiving from a mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a first gaming table of the gaming establishment, a first request for an extension of credit from the patron for a first requested amount of credit extension, wherein the patron is physically located at the first gaming table at the time of the first request for the extension of credit; dynamically determining in real-time, whether to approve the first request for the extension of credit based on a comparison of the credit limit for the patron to a cumulative outstanding credit including (i) the issued marker amount for the patron and (ii) the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron, the dynamic determination preventing inadvertent over-extension of credit to the patron; when the first request for the extension of credit is approved, responsively updating in real-time, the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron by the first requested amount of credit extension; receiving from another mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a second gaming table of the gaming establishment, a second request for an extension of credit from the patron for a second requested amount of credit extension, wherein the patron is physically located at the second gaming table at the time of the second request for the extension of credit, and wherein the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron includes the first requested amount of credit extension; dynamically determining in real-time, whether to approve the second request for the extension of credit based on a comparison of the credit limit for the patron to a cumulative outstanding credit including (i) the issued marker amount for the patron and (ii) the updated current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron, the dynamic determination preventing inadvertent over-extension of credit to the patron by ensuring the cumulative outstanding credit does not exceed the credit limit; when the second request for the extension of credit is approved, responsively updating in real-time the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron by the second requested amount of credit extension; receiving a request to convert the current aggregated extension of credit amount to a single marker; increasing the issued marker amount by the current aggregated extension of credit amount; and decreasing the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron to zero, considered collectively as an ordered combination, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts and business relations. Based on similar reasoning and rationale, the steps of Independent claims 8 and 13 also recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Determining whether to grant an extension of credit to a patron is creating contractual agreements for participants in a business relationship. Hence all the steps of the claim, considered collectively as an ordered combination, fall under the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, but for the recitation of computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the independent claims recite additional elements including generic computer components such as “an electronic marker management computing system, a patron database, a mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a first gaming table of the gaming establishment, another mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a second gaming table of the gaming establishment, an electronic marker management computing system comprising at least one process and memory, a plurality of mobile attendant devices in networked communication with the electronic marker management computing system”, and nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 14, 17, 18, and 21-29 recite similar limitations as independent claims 1, 8, and 13; and when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further. For instance, in claims 14, and 18, the limitations of: wherein the received indication of partial repayment is based on a repayment transaction by the patron at the first gaming table; and wherein the indication of partial repayment of the credit extension by the patron is based on the tendering of chips to a dealer at the first gaming table by the patron, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts and business relations because these steps further describe the intermediate steps regarding the partial repayments of the extended credit.
In claim 17, 23, and 27, the additional limitations of: storing historical information concerning the time and amounts of markers previously approved for the patron; and storing historical information concerning the time and amounts of extensions of credit previously approved for the patron; automatically updating the current aggregated extension of credit amount in the patron database as the patron moves between different gaming tables, thereby maintaining a unified real-time credit pool irrespective of the patron's physical location within the gaming establishment; and wherein the electronic marker management computing system comprises a relational database specifically structured to enable real-time querying and instantaneous updating of the current real-time aggregated extension of credit amount for patrons engaging in concurrent transactions across multiple gaming tables, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts and business relations, because these steps further describe updating the financial information stored by the system for the patrons.
In claim 21, 25, 26, and 29, the limitations of: wherein the first request for the extension of credit is initiated by input received via a touch-sensitive display of the mobile attendant device, the touch-sensitive display configured to present a user interface for selecting a requested amount of credit and confirming terms; wherein at least one of the plurality of mobile attendant devices further comprises a patron identification reader configured to capture patron identifying information via a magnetic stripe card or a barcode scan, the captured information being transmitted to the electronic marker management computing system; wherein each mobile attendant device is configured with a touch-sensitive display to facilitate the patron's input for credit extension requests and for capturing a digital signature or biometric data for authorization; wherein each mobile attendant device is equipped with a wireless communication interface configured for secure, real-time data exchange with the electronic marker management computing system, enabling the update and evaluation of the aggregated credit amount regardless of the specific gaming table location, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts and business relations because these further describe the mobile attendant devices.
In claims 22, 24, and 28, the limitations of: verifying the identity of the patron by comparing a live input of biometric data or a digital signature captured via the mobile attendant device to stored identifying information for the patron in the patron database; generating an electronic report by the electronic marker management computing system, wherein the electronic report summarizes all requests for extensions of credit by the patron, their corresponding approval statuses, and their contribution to the current aggregated extension of credit amount; wherein the electronic marker management computing system is further configured to transmit the patron's current real-time aggregated extension of credit amount to an external player tracking system or casino accounting system via a secure application programming interface (API), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts and business relations because these steps further describe the steps for verifying the patron identities and presenting reports to the patrons.
Other than reciting the abstract idea, the dependent claims recite similar additional elements as the independent claims including generic computer components, such as “the electronic marker management computer system, the first gaming table, a touch sensitive display of the mobile attendant device, the patron database, different gaming tables, mobile attendant device comprises a patron identification reader and a wireless communication interface, a relational database, an external player tracking system or casino accounting system, and a secure application programming interface (API)”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, but for the recitation of computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(d)-(c))
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claims 1, 8, and 13 only recite the additional elements of “an electronic marker management computing system, a patron database, a mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a first gaming table of the gaming establishment, another mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a second gaming table of the gaming establishment, an electronic marker management computing system comprising at least one process and memory, a plurality of mobile attendant devices in networked communication with the electronic marker management computing system”. A plain reading of Figures 7-13, and 73, and associated descriptions in the specification in at least: para. 00134 stating “embodiments described herein can be implemented in many different embodiments of software, firmware, and/or hardware. The software and firmware code can be executed by a processor or any other similar computing device…it is clearly understood that artisans of ordinary skill would be able to design software and control hardware to implement the embodiments based on the present description with no more than reasonable effort and without undue experimentation”, para. 00135 of the specification stating “processes described herein can be executed by programmable equipment, such as computers or computer systems and/or processors”, para. 00137 of the specification stating “A "computer," "computer system," "host," "server," or "processor" can be, for example and without limitation, a processor, microcomputer, minicomputer, server, mainframe, laptop, personal data assistant (PDA), wireless e-mail device, cellular phone, pager, processor, fax machine, scanner, or any other programmable device configured to transmit and/or receive data over a network”, and para. 0048 of the specification stating “requestor provides a magnetic stripe card which is passed through the magnetic stripe reader of an electronic device…comprised of a digital display and can be a hand-held device…Examples of suitable hand-held devices include personal digital assistants (PDA’s), tablet computers, and especially tablet computers with touch sensitive screens”, reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements of “an electronic marker management computing system, a patron database, a mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a first gaming table of the gaming establishment, another mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a second gaming table of the gaming establishment, an electronic marker management computing system comprising at least one process and memory, a plurality of mobile attendant devices in networked communication with the electronic marker management computing system” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Furthermore, the additional limitations of “a first and second gaming table of the gaming establishment” are insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claims 1, 8, and 13 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 14, 17, 18, and 21-29, recite similar additional elements as the independent claims including generic computer components, such as “the electronic marker management computer system, the first gaming table, a touch sensitive display of the mobile attendant device, the patron database, different gaming tables, mobile attendant device comprises a patron identification reader and a wireless communication interface, a relational database, an external player tracking system or casino accounting system, and a secure application programming interface (API)”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the dependent claims are also recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Furthermore, the additional limitations of “the first gaming table and different gaming tables” are insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they also do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement of the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) – 2019 PEG pg. 56 (See MPEP 2106.05)
Independent claims 1, 8, and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “an electronic marker management computing system, a patron database, a mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a first gaming table of the gaming establishment, another mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a second gaming table of the gaming establishment, an electronic marker management computing system comprising at least one process and memory, a plurality of mobile attendant devices in networked communication with the electronic marker management computing system” to perform the steps of independent claim 1 for: receiving identifying information about the patron that uniquely identifies the patron and distinguishes the patron from other patrons; electronically storing the identifying information; electronically storing financial information about the patron, wherein the financial information comprises a credit limit for the patron, an issued marker amount for the patron, and a current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron representing funds extended during active gameplay that are pending conversion to a marker; receiving from a mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a first gaming table of the gaming establishment, a first request for an extension of credit from the patron for a first requested amount of credit extension, wherein the patron is physically located at the first gaming table at the time of the first request for the extension of credit; dynamically determining in real-time, whether to approve the first request for the extension of credit based on a comparison of the credit limit for the patron to a cumulative outstanding credit including (i) the issued marker amount for the patron and (ii) the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron, the dynamic determination preventing inadvertent over-extension of credit to the patron; when the first request for the extension of credit is approved, responsively updating in real-time, the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron by the first requested amount of credit extension; receiving from another mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a second gaming table of the gaming establishment, a second request for an extension of credit from the patron for a second requested amount of credit extension, wherein the patron is physically located at the second gaming table at the time of the second request for the extension of credit, and wherein the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron includes the first requested amount of credit extension; dynamically determining in real-time, whether to approve the second request for the extension of credit based on a comparison of the credit limit for the patron to a cumulative outstanding credit including (i) the issued marker amount for the patron and (ii) the updated current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron, the dynamic determination preventing inadvertent over-extension of credit to the patron by ensuring the cumulative outstanding credit does not exceed the credit limit; when the second request for the extension of credit is approved, responsively updating in real-time the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron by the second requested amount of credit extension; receiving a request to convert the current aggregated extension of credit amount to a single marker; increasing the issued marker amount by the current aggregated extension of credit amount; and decreasing the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron to zero, and based on similar reasoning and rationale for the steps of independent claims 8 and 13, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of computers (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that receiving and transmitting data over a network (see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)); are well-understood routine and conventional, similar to the independent claims which recite: “receive input regarding a patron…, receiving identifying information about the patron…, receiving a first request for an extension of credit from the patron…, receiving a second request for an extension of credit from the patron…, receiving a request to convert the current aggregated extension of credit amount to a marker…, receive a request to convert the current real-time aggregated extension of credit amount to a single marker, receiving an indication of partial repayment of the current aggregated credit extension by the patron, and receiving a request to convert an amount of credit extension that is remaining subsequent to the partial repayment of the current aggregated credit extension to a single marker”. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that performing repetitive calculations (see Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values), and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”)) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity, similar to the claimed limitations of the independent claims for: “dynamically determining whether to approve the first request for the extension of credit based on a comparison of the credit limit for the patron to…, responsively updating the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron by the first requested amount of credit extension, dynamically determining whether to approve the second request for the extension of credit based on a comparison…, responsively updating the current aggregated extension of credit amount…, increasing the issued marker amount by the current aggregated extension of credit amount; decreasing the current aggregated extension of credit amount for the patron to zero, and increasing the issued marker amount by the remaining amount of credit extension converted to the single marker”. MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) provides that electronic recordkeeping (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)), and storing and retrieving information in memory (see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity, similar to the claimed limitations of the independent claims for: “electronically storing the identifying information; and electronically storing financial information about the patron”. Furthermore, the additional elements of “a first gaming table and different gaming tables” that was considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Therefore, independent claims 1, 8, and 13 are not patent eligible.
In addition, the dependent claims 14, 17, 18, and 21-29 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the dependent claims of: “the electronic marker management computer system, the first gaming table, a touch sensitive display of the mobile attendant device, the patron database, different gaming tables, mobile attendant device comprises a patron identification reader and a wireless communication interface, a relational database, an external player tracking system or casino accounting system, and a secure application programming interface (API)” to perform the claimed limitations, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similar to the independent claims, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, for the same reasoning as the independent claims, the additional elements of the limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone and the dependent claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent claim 17 recites limitations for: “storing…historical information…markers previously approved for the patron, storing…historical information…extensions of credit previously approved for the patron, records information…”, which are electronic record keeping, storing and retrieving information in memory that are well understood and conventional functions (see MPEP 2106(d)(ll)). Dependent claims 21, and 25-29 also recite limitations for: “input received via a touch sensitive display of the mobile attendant device…, capturing a digital signature or biometric data for authorization, enable real time querying and instantaneous updating…, captured information being transmitted…, transmit the patron’s current real-time aggregated extension of credit amount…, and real time data exchange”, which are well understood and conventional functions for receiving or transmitting data over a network (see MPEP 2106(d)(ll)). Dependent claims 22, 23, 27, and 29 also recite limitations for: “verifying the identity of the patron…, automatically updating the current aggregated extension of credit…, enable real time querying and instantaneous updating…, enabling the update and evaluation of the aggregated credit amount…”, which are akin to performing repetitive calculation which are well understood and conventional functions (see MPEP 2106(d)(ll)). Furthermore, the steps in dependent claim 24 for “generating an electronic report…” is merely presenting results of an analysis akin to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and is only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For these reasons, dependent claims 14, 17, 18, and 21-29 also are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Subject Matter Overcoming 35 USC §102/§103
Claims 1, 8, 13-14, 17-18, and 21-29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
Examiner’s statement of reasons for subject matter of independent clams 1, 8, and 13 overcoming the prior art rejections under 35 USC §102/§103 was previously given in the final rejection dated 8/25/2025, and is hence not repeated here.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, 13-14, 17-18, and 21-29 have been fully considered by the Examiner. Applicant’s arguments and amended claims have been considered with respect to objections of claims 13, 14, and 17, and the previous objections are withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 8, 13-14, 17-18, and 21-29 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered by the Examiner. However, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments persuasive, and therefore the rejections of claims 1, 8, 13-14, 17-18, and 21-29 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
The Applicant argues that under Prong 2 of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, that the claimed limitations do not merely recite the abstract idea of extending credit because the claims solve a technical problem rooted in data-concurrency and synchronization latency within a high speed geographically distributed environment by maintaining a dynamic credit pool utilizing a dual state ledger to track and aggregate markers and credit extensions across networked mobile devices. Applicant further states that the claims solve a technical problem of the risk of data inconsistency that occurs when multiple asynchronous requests are made from multiple gaming tables before a centralized database is updated and a formal credit instrument is executed. The system solves this problem by comparing a credit limit extension against a cumulative outstanding credit value that includes pending game play extensions from a first table before approving a request at a second table. Applicant further argues on pages 11 and 12 of their Remarks, that under Step 2B the claims, when considered as an ordered combination, provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the exception. Applicant further states on page 12 of their remarks that the lack of a prior art rejection of the claims further supports that the claimed limitations are not well understood, routine, or conventional under Step 2B.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the claimed limitations are indicative of integration into a practical application under Prong 2 of Step 2A. Using a computer system to: receive patron information, store the patron information in a database, receive requests for credit extensions, determine whether to approve the credit extensions, updating the patron credit amounts, and converting the credit extension to a marker; is nothing more than executing instructions to apply the exception to a computer. This is interpreted by the Examiner as using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “an electronic marker management computing system, a patron database, a mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a first gaming table of the gaming establishment, another mobile attendant device positioned proximate to a second gaming table of the gaming establishment, an electronic marker management computing system comprising at least one process and memory, a plurality of mobile attendant devices in networked communication with the electronic marker management computing system” are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). There is no improvement to the claimed computer elements, or to any other technology or technical field. The non-technological process that the computer is performing to maintain a credit pool may have been improved, but according to Alice, improving the process without any technological innovation is not statutory. The claimed computer system still operates according to its known and standard capabilities and using a computer to compare credit extensions against pending game play extensions, is an improvement to a business process and not an improvement in technology. Therefore, the claimed limitations do not meet the criteria or considerations as indicative of integration into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s further argument under Step 2B of the PEG, that the amended claim limitations recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept that renders the claims patent eligible because the claims, when considered as an ordered combination, are not well understood, routine, or conventional. As stated previously, Applicant’s claimed use of the electronic marker management computing system, is nothing more than executing instructions to apply the exception to a computer and the claimed additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, as indicated further in the non-final rejection above, the claimed limitations under MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii) amount to well-understood routine and conventional activities of: receiving and transmitting data over a network, the performance of repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting results of an analysis. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s further argument that the lack of a prior art rejection supports that the claims are not are not well understood, routine, or conventional under Step 2B. Just because claims may be novel under § 103 over a number of prior art rejections does not mean they are not directed to an abstract idea. Cf. Intellectual Ventures ILLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Indeed, “[t]he ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188—89 (1981) (emphasis added); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303—04 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101”). Here, the jury’s general finding that Symantec did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that three particular prior art references do not disclose all the limitations of or render obvious the asserted claims does not resolve the question of whether the claims embody an inventive concept at the second step of Mayo/Alice.
Therefore, the rejections of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Schwarzenberg whose telephone number is (313) 446-6611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (7:30-6:30).
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, Christine Behncke, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/PAUL S SCHWARZENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695 3/27/2026