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 Status
After the amendments filed 04/22/2026, claims 1-20 remain pending, of which 1, 10, and 12 were amended.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claim 10, having substantially similar features, was also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
following an establishment of an online wagering session occurring independent of any electronic gaming machine of any gaming establishment and responsive to a receipt, from a remote game server operable to generate game outcomes in association with the online wagering session, of data associated with a funding request for the online wagering session (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity):
automatically cause a transfer of an amount of funds from a gaming establishment cashless wagering account maintained, prior to the establishment of the online wagering session, in association with an identified user to a frequent transaction account maintained, prior to the establishment of the online wagering session, in association with the identified user, the amount of funds being based on an anticipated amount of transactions associated with the remote game server during the online wagering session (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity), and
communicate data that results in a display device of a game presentation device in communication with the remote game server displaying a balance of the frequent transaction account (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 10) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a processor, a memory device, a remote game server, a display device of a game presentation device, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. A fundamental economic practice (e.g., transferring funds between accounts), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. These limitations are interpreted as at least Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims; and/or
B. A method of organizing human activity (e.g., financial transactions between parties), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. These limitations are interpreted as at least Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9 and 11-20:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices and/or Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices and/or Managing of Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
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 (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
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 processor, a memory device, a remote game server, a display device of a game presentation device”, etc. 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. 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. 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.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general purpose structure and general purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of a processor, a memory device, a remote game server, and a display device of a game presentation device are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2004/0204228, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises elements such as a processor, a memory device, a remote game server, a display device of a game presentation device to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶58). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crevelt et al (U.S. 5,902,983) in view of Herrmann et al (U.S. 2009/0170612).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 12, Crevelt discloses:
a system (6:49-65, Fig. 2) comprising:
a processor (4:54-5:5, gaming machine 4 includes a game controller 6 which includes a processor for controlling game play); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (4:54-5:5, game controller 6 typically includes associated memory and software as necessary for controlling the game play.), cause the processor to:
following an establishment of an online wagering session (2:30-49, a system which allows a player who is currently playing a gaming machine to request funds) and responsive to a receipt, from a remote game server, of data associated with a funding request (9:20-29, a transaction request for a preset amount of funds is generated and sent to casino system):
automatically cause a transfer of an amount of funds from a gaming establishment cashless wagering account maintained, prior to the establishment of the online wagering session, in association with an identified user to a frequent transaction account maintained, prior to the establishment of the online wagering session, in association with the identified user (9:36-10:14, 11:10-34, once authorized playing credits are automatically transferred from a remote funds repository to a casino account established in the player’s name), the amount of funds being based on an anticipated amount of transactions associated with the remote game server (2:30-49, the preset amount of credits is based on an anticipated amount of credits needed depending on the denomination associated with the gaming machine (i.e., it is anticipated a player will require more funds for a higher denomination machine than a lower denomination machine), and
communicate data that results in a display device of a game presentation device displaying a balance of the frequent transaction account (3:19-8, a display displays playing credits available for the gaming machine).
However, Crevelt does not specifically disclose that:
the wagering session occurs independent of any electronic gaming machine of any gaming establishment, that a remote game server is operable to generate game outcomes, or that the game presentation device in communication wit h the remote game server.
Herrmann teaches:
a gaming system (abstract), wherein patron management and loyalty systems are used to track player gambling activity (¶6, ¶11, player performance data is collected), wherein an online wagering session occurs independent of any electronic gaming machine of any gaming establishment (¶633, ¶639, ¶642-644, a remote online gaming experience where a player logs into an operators website from a home computer, cell phone, or handheld device to establish a gaming session entirely remote and separate from a land-based casino floor or EGM), wherein responsive to data associated with an online session communicating with a remote game server operable to generate game outcomes in association with the online wagering session (¶638-639, Backoffice Operator (BO) servers coupled via a network to conduct the online gaming experience over a website, wherein the remote web server performs the function of revealing and generating the online game outcomes to the user), and wherein a game presentation device is in communication with the remote game server displaying a balance (¶639, ¶665, the player logs into the website via an internet browser of gaming computer interface which is in communication with the remote server to display the status of the credits and awards available).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate the remote web-server and online wagering environment, as taught by Herrmann, into the gaming system, as taught by Crevelt, in order to incentivize players to use the remote system to wager as often as possible, and encouraging the player to spend as much money in the associated establishments (Herrmann, ¶9, ¶628).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Crevelt discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the funding request is associated with a request for a first play of a game (9:20-29, a transaction request for a preset amount of funds for play of a gaming machine, the examiner interprets the request to be associated with at least a first game which the player anticipates to play with the requested funds); and
the amount of funds is based on an anticipated plurality of requests for a plurality of plays of the game (2:30-49, the preset amount of credits is based on an anticipated amount of credits needed depending on the denomination associated with the gaming machine (i.e., it is anticipated a player will require more funds for a higher denomination machine than a lower denomination machine and is provided a number of credits which is based on a plurality of plays (for example for a quarter slot machine the player is provided twenty dollars of credits)).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Crevelt discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a receipt, from the remote game server, of data associated with a game outcome for the first play of the game, cause the processor to modify the balance of the frequent transaction account based on any award associated with the game outcome (10:15-29, the player’s balance is modified based on credits earned); and
communicating data that results in the display device of the game presentation device displaying the modified balance of the frequent transaction account (3:19-8, a display displays playing credits available for the gaming machine).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 15, Crevelt discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to communicate data to a component of a gaming establishment patron management system that results in a benefit being determined in association with at least one of the plays of the game.
Herrmann teaches:
a gaming system (abstract), wherein patron management and loyalty systems are used to track player gambling activity (¶6, ¶11, player performance data is collected), and based on the tracked activity incentives are determined to be provided to the player (¶6, ¶11, ¶624, tracked activities are used to determine complimentary packages to be provided to a player).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate the wagering activity tracking and reward system, as taught by Herrmann, into the gaming system, as taught by Crevelt, in order to incentivize players to visit the associated casinos as often as possible, and encouraging the player to spend as much money in the associated establishments (Herrmann, ¶9).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Crevelt discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to communicate data to a component of a gaming establishment patron management system that results in a benefit being determined in association with a plurality of online wagering sessions established over a period of time.
Herrmann teaches:
a gaming system (abstract), wherein patron management and loyalty systems are used to track player gambling activity (¶6, ¶11, player performance data is collected), and based on the tracked activity incentives are determined to be provided to the player (¶6, ¶11, ¶624, tracked activities are used to determine complimentary packages to be provided to a player).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate the wagering activity tracking and reward system, as taught by Herrmann, into the gaming system, as taught by Crevelt, in order to incentivize players to visit the associated casinos as often as possible, and encouraging the player to spend as much money in the associated establishments (Herrmann, ¶9).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Crevelt discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the amount of funds comprises a balance of the cashless wagering account (2:30-49, the preset amount of credits is based on an anticipated amount of credits needed depending on the denomination associated with the gaming machine, for example for a quarter slot machine the player is provided twenty dollars of credits and the amount of funds would comprise the balance of the repository if the balance of the repository is twenty dollars).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Crevelt discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
each of the anticipated amount of transactions associated with the remote game server occur independent of any transactions against the cashless wagering account (9:58-1014, the player utilizes the credits transferred for plays of the gaming machine).
Claim(s) 6, 8, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crevelt et al (U.S. 5,902,983) in view of Herrmann et al (U.S. 2009/0170612) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Greenbacker et al (U.S. 2023/0186260).
Claim(s) 6, 8, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crevelt et al (U.S. 5,902,983) in view of
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Crevelt discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
the funding request is associated with a balance of the frequent transaction account reaching a threshold amount of funds.
Greenbacker teaches:
an AI based processing of account transfers (abstract), wherein a funding request is made for a transfer of funds from a first account to a second account (¶68-70, ¶73), and wherein the funding request is associated with a balance of an account reaching a threshold amount of funds (¶12, an account transfer request is generated and sent based on the value of funds in the account exceeding a threshold value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate the threshold automatic transfer, as taught by Greenbacker, into the system as taught by Crevelt in order to provide users greater flexibility in funding (Greenbacker, ¶3)
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Crevelt discloses that which is discussed above, however, does not specifically disclose that:
the balance of the cashless wagering account comprises a plurality of amounts of funds transferred to the cashless wagering account from a plurality of gaming establishment accounts.
Greenbacker teaches:
an AI based processing of account transfers (abstract), wherein a funding request is made for a transfer of funds from a first account to a second account (¶68-70, ¶73), and wherein the balance of the cashless wagering account comprises a plurality of amounts of funds transferred to the cashless wagering account from a plurality of gaming establishment accounts (¶38, transfers are automatically processed from various accounts based on various triggers or rules).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to integrate the threshold automatic transfer, as taught by Greenbacker, into the system as taught by Crevelt in order to provide users greater flexibility in funding (Greenbacker, ¶3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see Remarks, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in light of Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., software claims are not inherently abstract and thus the instant claims are eligible (See Remarks, pg. 7). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The claims in Enfish provided a specific, non-abstract structural improvement to a database framework by providing a self-referential table that inherently improved computer operations by allowing faster data queries and reducing memory allocation. The instant claims do not provide any such improvements, but rather, they recite a business and administrative method of managing transaction account architecture (i.e., bulk-loading a local balance ledger to handle high-frequency wagers) utilizing conventional computers operating in standard configurations. Because the underlying invention is directed to automating a financial ledger workflow, rather than modifying computer operations, the recitation of generic computing components does not change the fact that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, without any additional elements which constitute “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by providing a practical architectural solution to a technological problem, namely, reducing the operation stresses placed on a system when a wagering account is transacted against at a relatively high frequency over a short duration (See Remarks, Pgs. 8-9). The examiner must respectfully disagree. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, an improvement to the functioning of a computer or communication network requires a specific technical modification to the computers underlying architecture. In the instant claims, the computing and network infrastructure remains entirely conventional, utilizing standard processors, memory, and game servers interacting via generic electronic communication protocols. The reduction in operational stresses is achieved completely though an administrative business rule (i.e., calculating a player’s projected session spend and moving those assets in bulk up-front to an interim ledger). The computing system continues to function exactly as it was conventionally designed to do (i.e., transferring standard data packets and updating virtual account database fields). Thus, while automating accounting logic to minimize data transmissions may be an efficient commercial practice, it does not technically improve or transform the underlying processing mechanisms of the computer system itself.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see Remarks, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and necessitated by the newly added limitations, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new combination of the previously applied references, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jason Pinheiro/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights