DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A gaming monetary instrument system for detecting a fraudulent activity, the gaming monetary instrument system comprising: a first device operable to perform a monetary transaction occurring at the first device based on a first monetary instrument received; and at least one server coupled to the first device, and having at least one processor and memory storing a plurality of fraudulent activity patterns and a plurality of instructions, which, when executed, cause the at least one processor to at least: receive data indicative of activity information associated with the monetary transaction received, analyze the data indicative of activity information received for one or more trigger criteria, in response to one or more trigger criteria having been detected, access one or more of the plurality of fraudulent activity patterns in the memory, and assign a plurality of probability values for the fraudulent activity patterns accessed based on the data indicative of activity information received, the first monetary instrument received, and the first device, and in response to at least one of the probability values exceeding a predefined minimum threshold, transmit a notification of the fraudulent activity being associated with the monetary transaction” (Claim 1); “A method for detecting a fraudulent activity in a gaming monetary instrument system, the gaming monetary instrument system having at least one server, and the at least one server having at least one processor and memory storing a plurality of fraudulent activity patterns, the method comprising: detecting a monetary transaction occurring at a first device based on a first monetary instrument received; retrieving data indicative of activity information associated with the monetary transaction; analyzing the data indicative of activity information received for one or more trigger criteria; in response to one or more trigger criteria having been detected, accessing the memory for one or more of the plurality of fraudulent activity patterns, and assigning a plurality of probability values for the fraudulent activity patterns accessed based on the data indicative of activity information received, the first monetary instrument received, and the first device; and in response to at least one of the probability values exceeding a predefined minimum threshold, transmitting a notification of the fraudulent activity being associated with the monetary transaction” (Claim 8); and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a plurality of suspicious activity patterns and a plurality of instructions, for detecting a fraudulent activity in a monetary instrument transaction on a gaming monetary instrument system including at least one server having at least one processor, the instructions, which, when executed, cause the at least one processor to perform the steps of: controlling a first device to receive a first monetary instrument; receiving data indicative of activity information associated with the first monetary instrument from the first device; detecting trigger criteria from the data indicative of activity information received; retrieving a first suspicious activity pattern associated with the fraudulent activity in response to one or more trigger criteria having been detected; analyzing the data indicative of activity information received based on the first suspicious activity pattern retrieved with respect to a plurality of probability values assigned for the suspicious activity pattern; and in response to at least one of the probability values exceeding a predefined minimum threshold, transmit a notification of the fraudulent activity being associated with the first monetary instrument” (Claim 15). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity particularly fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions for detecting a fraudulent activity for a monetary instrument transaction). The steps of detecting, retrieving, analyzing, accessing, assigning, and/or transmitting pertain to fundamental economic principles or practices and/or following rules or instructions pertaining to organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of a “system”, “first device”, “monetary instrument”, “server”, “processor”, “memory”, and/or “medium”) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the system, method, and/or medium to which a computer performs/implements the system, method, and/or medium. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Furthermore, the applicant discloses (US 2023/0419779) the “The processor 510 may include any conventional processor or logic device” (¶ 309); “The gaming system 500 also includes memory 516 which may include, for example, volatile memory (e.g., RAM 509), non-volatile memory 519 (e.g., disk memory, FLASH memory, EPROMs, etc.), unalterable memory (e.g., EPROMs 508), etc.” (¶ 312); “Those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that any of the systems and methods of the disclosure may include various computer and network related software and hardware, such as programs, operating systems, memory storage devices, data input/output devices, data processors, servers with links to data communication systems, wireless or otherwise, and data transceiving terminals, and may be a standalone device or incorporated in another platform, such as an existing electronic gaming machine, portable computing device or electronic platforms with multiple player positions. In addition, the system of the disclosure may be provided at least in part on a personal computing device, such as home computer, laptop or mobile computing device through an online communication connection or connection with the Internet. Those skilled in the art will further appreciate that the precise types of software and hardware used are not vital to the full implementation of the methods of the disclosure so long as players and operators thereof are provided with useful access thereto or the opportunity to play the game as described herein.” (¶ 698), and “Computer readable medium can be any data storage device that can store data which can thereafter be read by a computer system.” (¶ 699). Such disclosure suggests that components required by the claims are no more than generic components operating in their ordinary capacity.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of DNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
Nor do the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts relating to fundamental economic principles or practices and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions (particularly, game rules or instructions) under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chun (US 2015/0279155).
Claims 1 and 8: Chun teaches a gaming monetary instrument system for detecting a fraudulent activity, the gaming monetary instrument system comprising: a first device (¶ 218, 233-234, 242-244, 248) operable to perform a monetary transaction occurring at the first device based on a first monetary instrument received (¶ 41-63, 188-189, 244); and at least one server coupled to the first device, and having at least one processor (¶ 387, 412-413) and memory (¶ 387, 412-413) storing a plurality of fraudulent activity patterns and a plurality of instructions, which, when executed, cause the at least one processor to at least (the method of at least): receive data indicative of activity information associated with the monetary transaction received (¶ 68, 190), analyze the data indicative of activity information received for one or more trigger criteria (¶ 68-75, 536-570, 619-642), in response to one or more trigger criteria having been detected, access one or more of the plurality of fraudulent activity patterns in the memory, and assign a plurality of probability values for the fraudulent activity patterns accessed based on the data indicative of activity information received, the first monetary instrument received, and the first device (¶ 536-570, 619-642), and in response to at least one of the probability values exceeding a predefined minimum threshold, transmit a notification of the fraudulent activity being associated with the monetary transaction (¶ 14, 117-130, 142-143, 388-422 (transmission of alert/notification), 619-642, emphasis on ¶ 638-642).
Claim 15: Chun discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (¶ 387, 412-413) comprising a plurality of suspicious activity patterns and a plurality of instructions, for detecting a fraudulent activity in a monetary instrument transaction on a gaming monetary instrument system including at least one server having at least one processor (¶ 387, 412-413), the instructions, which, when executed, cause the at least one processor to perform the steps of: controlling a first device to receive a first monetary instrument (¶ 68-69, 169-189, 222, 257, 263-265, 285, 536); receiving data indicative of activity information associated with the first monetary instrument from the first device (¶ 68, 190); detecting trigger criteria from the data indicative of activity information received; retrieving a first suspicious activity pattern associated with the fraudulent activity in response to one or more trigger criteria having been detected; analyzing the data indicative of activity information received based on the first suspicious activity pattern retrieved with respect to a plurality of probability values assigned for the suspicious activity pattern (¶ 536-570, 619-642); and in response to at least one of the probability values exceeding a predefined minimum threshold, transmit a notification of the fraudulent activity being associated with the first monetary instrument (¶ 14, 117-130, 142-143, 388-422 (transmission of alert/notification), 619-642, emphasis on ¶ 638-642).
Claims 2, 9, and 16: Chun discloses wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the at least one processor to retrieve from the memory for assigning the probability values including at least one of additional information of the monetary transaction including historical transaction activities associated with a player identified at the first device submitting the first monetary instrument, and wager-based information occurred at the first device (¶ 25, 190, 266, 536-570, 619-642).
Claims 4 and 11: Chun discloses wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the at least one processor to log at least one of the monetary transaction and the first monetary instrument received when one or more trigger criteria are met (¶ 69, 143, 558).
Claims 5, 12, and 18: Chun discloses wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the at least one processor to analyze the data indicative of activity information received based on at least one of a time interval between transactions, a frequency of consecutive transactions, a total consecutive amount transacted in a given time, a difference between a cash-in amount and a cash-out amount, and statistical information relating to one or more groups of devices over a period time and types of financial transactions occurred over a period of time (¶ 560-562).
Claims 6, 13, and 19: Chun discloses wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the at least one processor to establish a relative baseline of a transaction at the first device (¶ 561-565).
Claims 7, 14, and 20: Chun discloses wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the at least one processor to recognize at least one pattern of a group of devices that are within a predefined proximity to each other and exhibit fraudulent activities, a group of devices that exhibit fraudulent activities over a period of time, and a group of devices that exhibit high cash-in follow by minimal activities and a cash out transaction (¶ 75-76, 79, 110-114, 561, 565-566).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (US 2015/0279155) in view of Friedman (US 8,821,255).
Claims 3, 10, and 17: Chun teaches the above, in addition to wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the at least one processor to analyze the first monetary instrument (¶ 220, 222, 263-265, 524, 536), however, fails to suggest the first monetary instrument including a first monetary value and a first data structure linking the first device to transactions occurred at one or both the first device and a second device. Chun at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 643). Furthermore, an analogous art of Friedman teaches a similarly structured system, wherein the processor thereof analyzes a first monetary instrument that includes a first monetary value and a first data structure linking the first device that received the first monetary instrument to transactions occurred at one or both the first device and a second device (Abstract, Col. 1:55-Col. 2:12, 27-31, Col. 3:42-Col. 4:67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first monetary instrument means of Chun with the linking data structure means of Friedman to provided personalized messages or bonus offers to non-carded players (Friendman – Col. 1:40-54, Col. 2:36-Col. 3:23) e.g. provides a means of providing comp points to players that are not members of the casino or gaming establishment; thereby making the gaming system more enjoyable to varying players.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715