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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments in the Response dated December 3, 2025 directed to the Non-Final Office Action dated September 3, 2025. Claims 1-5, 9-13, 16-22, and 25-27 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
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 1-5, 9-13, 16-22 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The determination of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, relies on the Mayo/Alice two-step analysis.
In step 1 of the analysis, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In the present case, claims 1-5 and 9-10 are directed to a distributed gaming system (i.e., a machine), claims 11-13 and 16-18 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable memory (i.e., a manufacture), and claims 19-22 and 25-27 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). The claims are, therefore directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner is directed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims are compared to groupings of subject matter that have been found by courts as abstract ideas. These groupings include
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 is considered representative and recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a distributed system, comprising:
a server-side node, including one or more data processors, having access to a distributed ledger, the server-side node configured to:
maintain a crypto-token vault wallet having a unique house identifier and private key to track transactions on the distributed ledger that include the unique house identifier;
maintain user accounts for customers, including unique customer identifiers and private keys to track transactions on the distributed ledger that include the unique customer identifiers;
maintain intermediary accounts, including unique intermediary identifiers and private keys to track transactions on the distributed ledger that include the unique intermediary identifiers;
maintain a redemption wallet having a unique redemption identifier and private key to track transactions on the distributed ledger that include the unique redemption identifier; and
communicate with client-side nodes in a communication network to execute procedures:
to accept crypto-token purchase messages from an identified customer account, indicating confirmation of fiat payment by the identified customer account for crypto-tokens, and in response transfer crypto-tokens in the distributed ledger from the crypto-token vault wallet to the unique customer identifier of the identified customer account, and record a crypto-token purchase;
to accept crypto-token-to-chip exchange messages from an identified intermediary account indicating confirmation of exchange of crypto-tokens for chips, and in response transfer crypto-tokens on the distributed ledger to the redemption wallet to extinguish the crypto-tokens, and record a crypto-token-to-chip exchange;
to accept chip-to-crypto-token exchange messages from an identified intermediary account, indicating confirmation of delivery of chips from a customer having an identified customer account to an intermediary having the identified intermediary account, and in response transfer crypto-tokens in the distributed ledger from the crypto-token vault wallet to the unique customer identifier of the identified customer account, and record a chip-to-crypto-token exchange; and
to accept crypto-token-to-fiat exchange messages from an identified intermediary account indicating confirmation of delivery of fiat currency to a customer having an identified user account, and in response transfer tokens from the customer account, which has no antecedent basis) of the identified user account to the redemption wallet to extinguish, and record a crypto-token-to-fiat exchange on the distributed ledger.
The present claims are directed to a method of administering transactions for a gambling casino in a distributed gaming system (Specification [0006]). These steps fall under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, they are directed to the sub-category of fundamental economic practices. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the examiner considers whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (not considered relevant to the present claims);
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The additional elements in the present claims are a server-side node, one or more data processors, client side nodes, and a communication network. The additional elements do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional elements do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The additional elements do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The examiner considers if the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional, as shown:
a server-side node, client side nodes (Lee, US 2008/0250131 A1, Peer-to-Peer (P2P) network, which is well known as a multi-node file sharing network [0005]);
one or more data processors (Goldstein, US 2010/0169802 A1, a conventional server including processors and storage means, for example databases and memory [0027]); (Goranson, US 2010/0268769 A1, as it is well-known in the art, both servers and clients comprise at least one processor and memory [0087]), and
a communication network (Walker et al., US 7,493,267 B1, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that network 106 can include any of various components well known within the relevant art to provide communications access between nodes of network 106, such as the Internet or wireless networks [C5:52-67]).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As a result, the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Prior Art
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1-5, 9-13, 16-22 and 25-27.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 9-13, 16-22 and 25-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,710,373 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they vary only slightly in terms of claim language.
18/225662
US 11,710,373
1. (currently amended) A distributed gaming system, comprising:
1. A distributed gaming system, comprising:
a server-side node or nodes, including one or more data processors, having access to a distributed ledger, the server-side node or nodes configured to:
a server-side node or nodes, including one or more data processors, having access to a private database and a distributed ledger, the server-side node or nodes configured to:
maintain a crypto-token vault wallet having a unique house identifier and private key to track transactions on the distributed ledger that include the unique house identifier;
maintain a crypto-token vault wallet having a unique house identifier and private key to track transactions on the distributed ledger that include the unique house identifier;
maintain user accounts for customers, including unique customer identifiers and private keys to track transactions on the distributed ledger that include the unique customer identifiers;
maintain user accounts for customers, including unique customer identifiers and private keys to track transactions on the distributed ledger that include the unique customer identifiers;
maintain intermediary accounts, including unique intermediary identifiers and private keys to track transactions on the distributed ledger that include the unique intermediary identifiers;
maintain intermediary accounts, including unique intermediary identifiers and private keys to track transactions on the distributed ledger that include the unique intermediary identifiers;
maintain a redemption wallet having a unique redemption identifier and private key to track transactions on the distributed ledger that include the unique redemption identifier; and
maintain a one-way redemption wallet having a unique redemption identifier and private key to track transactions on the distributed ledger that include the unique redemption identifier; and
communicate with client-side nodes in a communication network to execute procedures:
communicate with client-side nodes in a communication network to execute procedures:
to accept crypto-token purchase messages from an identified customer account, indicating confirmation of fiat payment by the identified customer account for crypto-tokens, and in response transfer crypto-tokens in the distributed ledger from the crypto-token vault wallet to the unique customer identifier of the identified customer account, and record a crypto-token purchase;
to accept crypto-token purchase messages from an identified customer account indicating confirmation of fiat payment by the identified customer account for crypto-tokens, and in response transfer crypto-tokens in the distributed ledger from the crypto-token vault wallet to the unique customer identifier of the identified customer account, and record the crypto-token purchase in the private database;
to accept crypto-token-to-chip exchange messages from an identified intermediary account indicating confirmation of exchange of crypto-tokens for chips, and in response transfer crypto-tokens on the distributed ledger to the redemption wallet to extinguish the crypto-tokens, and record a crypto-token-to-chip exchange;
to accept crypto-token-to-chip exchange messages from an identified intermediary account indicating confirmation of exchange of crypto-tokens for chips, and in response transfer crypto-tokens on the distributed ledger to the redemption wallet to extinguish the crypto-tokens, and record the crypto-token-to-chip exchange in the private database;
to accept chip-to-crypto-token exchange messages from an identified intermediary account, indicating confirmation of delivery of chips from a customer having an identified customer account to an intermediary having the identified intermediary account, and in response transfer crypto-tokens in the distributed ledger from the crypto-token vault wallet to the unique customer identifier of the identified customer account, and record a chip-to-crypto-token exchange; and
to accept chip-to-crypto-token exchange messages from an identified intermediary account indicating confirmation of delivery of chips from a customer having an identified customer account to an intermediary having the identified intermediary account, and in response transfer crypto-tokens in the distributed ledger from the crypto-token vault wallet to the unique customer identifier of the identified customer account, and record the chip-to-crypto-token exchange in the private database; and
to accept crypto-token-to-fiat exchange messages from an identified intermediary account indicating confirmation of delivery of fiat currency to a customer having an identified user account, and in response transfer tokens from the customer account, which has no antecedent basis) of the identified user account to the redemption wallet to extinguish, and record a crypto-token-to-fiat exchange on the distributed ledger.
to accept crypto-token-to-fiat exchange messages from an identified intermediary account indicating confirmation of delivery of fiat currency to a customer having an identified user account, and in response transfer tokens from the identified user account to the redemption wallet to extinguish, and record the crypto-token-to-fiat exchange in the private database and on the distributed ledger.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, under prong 1 of step 2A, applicant states “claim 1 does not recite a Fundamental Economic Practice or Principle.” (Response [p. 12]).
The examiner disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) states:
The courts have used the phrases "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Fundamental economic principles or practices include hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks.
The maintaining of crypto-wallets and the tracking of fiat payments, exchange of crypto-tokens for chips, delivery of chips, and delivery of fiat currency are all considered fundamental economic practices that relate to the economy and commerce. Rather than merely describing an abstract idea, the claims are clearly directed to the maintenance of crypto wallets and transactions relating to crypto-tokens, chips, and fiat currency. The presence or absence of the words “casino” or “gaming” do not preclude the identification of a fundamental economic practice.
With respect to prong two of step 2A, applicant states “The claim is eligible under Prong Two because the Office Action's analysis only considers limitations in a vacuum and because when the claim limitations are considered as a whole, at least six of the seven Prong Two factors favor eligibility” (Response [p. 13]).
The examiner disagrees.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It is important to evaluate the significance of the additional elements relative to the invention, and to keep in mind the ultimate question of whether the exception is integrated into a practical application. If the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application based upon evaluation of these considerations, the additional limitations impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and the claim is eligible at Step 2A.
In the present case, the additional elements do not:
• reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than using generic computing components to apply the judicial exception, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Furthermore, applicant’s arguments appear to be solely directed to the abstract idea, without considering the role of the additional elements.
With respect to step 2B, applicant states “The claim elements are not well-understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the record lacks evidence that any limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Therefore, no claim limitation can be found to be well-understood, routine, or conventional” (Response [p. 15]).
The examiner disagrees.
As stated above, as well as in the previous office action, list the additional elements and provide references showing that they are well-understood, routine, or conventional, as shown:
a server-side node, client side nodes (Lee, US 2008/0250131 A1, Peer-to-Peer (P2P) network, which is well known as a multi-node file sharing network [0005]);
one or more data processors (Goldstein, US 2010/0169802 A1, a conventional server including processors and storage means, for example databases and memory [0027]); (Goranson, US 2010/0268769 A1, as it is well-known in the art, both servers and clients comprise at least one processor and memory [0087]), and
a communication network (Walker et al., US 7,493,267 B1, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that network 106 can include any of various components well known within the relevant art to provide communications access between nodes of network 106, such as the Internet or wireless networks [C5:52-67]).
Applicant appears to rely solely on the abstract idea with not reference to the additional elements, which are at issue in step 2 of prong 2A and step 2B.
The examiner maintains that there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
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 WERNER G GARNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7147. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-15:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/WERNER G GARNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715