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 08/07/2025, claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 and responsive to a receipt, from a remote game server, of data associated with a funding request (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 (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity), and
communicate data that results in a display device of a game presentation device 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 § 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) 1-3, 7, 9-10, 12-14, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crevelt et al (U.S. 5,902,983).
Regarding claims 1 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).
Regarding claims 2, 10 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 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 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) 4-5, 11 and 15-16 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 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).
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 Greenbacker et al (U.S. 2023/0186260).
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, see Remarks, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Crevelt does not teach an online gaming session or a remote game server (See Remarks, pg. 7). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Crevelt discloses that a plurality of gaming machines are connected via a casino communication network (6:49-7:50, casino communication network 20 which includes slot machines 22, 24, 26 which are connected to a local area network 44) and that the gaming machines communicate accounting data to a front end controller for processing (8:18-35, data and events from the gaming machines on the floor processors are provided to front end controller 46). Therefore, it is clear that Crevelt discloses gaming sessions which are online within the local area network of a casino. Further, Crevelt discloses that a request from a gaming machine for playing credits is sent to the casino’s local area network (9:9-20, a transaction request for a preset amount of playing credit is automatically generated and sent to a casino system such as the casino's local area network at a step 106 (i.e., a server receives a request from a gaming machine) and that the request is then forwarded to the EFT system for processing (9:36-48, after the request for an electronic funds transfer is sent to the casino local area network step 108 forwards the request to an EFT system (i.e., the EFT system receives a request from a remote gaming server)). Therefore, it is clear that Crevelt discloses that the EFT system receives a request for funds from a remote server.
Applicant argues that Crevelt does not disclose a frequent transaction account or a gaming establishment cashless wagering account (See Remarks, pg. 8). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Crevelt discloses that a player may have a cashless account from which the player requests funds for a gaming session (3:29-42, 6:41-48, a player requests playing credit from a cashless remote funds repository (i.e., a gaming establishment cashless wagering account), wherein a request for funds causes a transfer from the cashless account to a frequent transaction account (9:36-10:14, 11:10-34, once authorized playing credits are automatically transferred from the cashless remote funds repository to a casino account established in the player’s name).
Conclusion
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