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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues that the claims recite a technical solution to a technical problem, specifically by encouraging ticket voucher redemption over cash-based transactions, thereby reducing computational resources and energy use associated with sorting, counting, and processing physical cash (Remarks, pp. 1-2). Applicant further contends that the claims are not directed to "rules for conducting a wagering game" but rather to the management of ticket vouchers, and that the amendments emphasizing actions occurring "prior to any play of any game" and "independent of any play of any game" distinguish the claims from abstract gaming rules (Remarks, pp. 2-3).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments do not overcome the rejection for the following reasons:
First, under Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the claims recite an abstract idea. The claims are directed to managing funds in a gaming environment through determining whether to trigger a bonus event upon ticket voucher redemption and allocating non-cashable funds based on cashable funds. This constitutes certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial interactions (e.g., fund management and bonus incentives in a casino setting) and following rules or instructions. Additionally, the determination steps can be performed as mental processes (e.g., evaluating conditions for bonus triggering). See 2019 PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The recitation of timing limitations ("prior to any play" and "independent of any play") does not remove the claims from the abstract idea; these are merely part of the rules governing when and how the fund management occurs, similar to rules in gaming contexts found abstract in cases like In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (rules for conducting a wagering game are abstract).
Second, under Step 2A Prong Two, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements (processor, memory device, database, ticket voucher system, electronic gaming machine) are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality and merely used as tools to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The alleged improvement of “reducing computational resources and energy for cash handling by promoting ticket vouchers” is a business or operational improvement in the field of gaming fund management, not an improvement to computer functionality or another technology. Courts have held that automating manual processes or improving business efficiencies through generic computers does not constitute a practical application. See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (financial data analysis abstract despite claims to efficiency); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting, analyzing, and displaying data abstract). Here, the claims automate fund allocation rules using standard gaming systems, without technological details on how resources are reduced (e.g., no specific algorithms or hardware improvements). The timing limitations specify when the abstract steps occur but do not reflect an improvement in technology; they are extra-solution activity limiting the idea to a particular field (pre-game redemption). See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Finally, under Step 2B, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the gaming industry (e.g., using processors and databases for voucher redemption and fund transfer). See MPEP § 2106.05(d); see also Palermo (cited prior art) describing similar generic components for ticket handling. No inventive programming or unconventional arrangement is claimed.
Thus, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1), please review updated rejection below addressing arguments relating to newly added/amended limitations.
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 1-7, 9-19 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 the abstract idea of mental processes and/ or certain methods of organizing human activity. 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
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a machine, process, and/or an article of manufacturer, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a – Prong 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. A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following a database of a ticket voucher system storing data comprising a first amount of cashable funds associated with an issued ticket voucher and responsive to a validated redemption, via the ticket voucher system, of the issued ticket voucher, cause the processor to:
determine, prior to any play of any game using the first amount of cashable funds associated with the issued ticket voucher, whether to trigger a bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher;
responsive to the determination being to trigger the bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher and prior to any play of any game using the first amount of cashable funds associated with the ticket voucher, cause data associated with a first amount of non-cashable funds, determined independent of any play of any game, to be communicated to an electronic gaming machine, wherein the first amount of non-cashable funds is based on the first amount of cashable funds associated with the issued ticket voucher; and
responsive to the determination being not to trigger any bonus event in association with the redemption of the ticket voucher, cause data associated with the first amount of cashable funds to be communicated to the electronic gaming machine.
Claim 1 is exemplary to each of the independent claims, as claims 9 & 13 recite similar invention.
The underlined limitations in claim 1 recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of mental processes and/or method of organizing human activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, specifically "certain methods of organizing human activity" in the form of commercial interactions (managing financial transactions and promotions in gambling) and fundamental economic practices (exchanging and resolving wagers or funds based on rules). The core of Claim 1 involves redeeming a ticket voucher associated with cashable funds, determining whether to trigger a "bonus event" prior to any gameplay, and then communicating either non-cashable (promotional) funds or the original cashable funds to an electronic gaming machine (EGM). This is analogous to rules for conducting a wagering game or managing bingo/security in gambling, which courts have repeatedly held abstract. For example: In Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014), claims for a computer-aided system to manage bingo games (tracking numbers and verifying winners) were directed to the abstract idea of solving tampering problems without technological innovation. In In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), a method for a blackjack variation with specific wagering rules was an abstract idea of "rules for conducting a wagering game." In In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V. (Fed. Cir. 2018), claims for a dice game with wagering on die outcomes were ineligible as "rules for playing a game," akin to exchanging financial obligations based on probabilities.
Here, the claims essentially recite rules for fund management in a casino setting: check for a bonus trigger upon redemption and allocate promotional credits accordingly. This is a business or gaming rule, not a technological concept.
Regarding dependent claims, each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from at least one of the independent claims 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 claims further describe additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e. additional aspects to the mental processes and/ or certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2a – Prong 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 1-7, 9-19 do not improve the functioning of a computer nor do integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements (processor, memory storing instructions, database, and communication to an EGM) are generic computer components used in their conventional manner to automate the rule-based decision-making. There is no improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, the EGM, or any underlying technology—such as enhanced data processing, novel hardware interfaces, or solving a specific technical problem in gaming systems (e.g., real-time data synchronization or security protocols).
The "bonus event" determination is not tied to any specific, non-abstract mechanism (e.g., it could be random, time-based, or promotional, but the claims do not specify an inventive implementation). Instead, the claims merely apply the abstract idea using off-the-shelf technology, which does not constitute a practical application.
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.
Considering the claims as an ordered combination, the elements do not add "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. The processor, memory, database, and data communication are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the gaming industry (e.g., standard ticket-in/ticket-out systems and credit meters in EGMs). Courts have dismissed similar implementations as mere automation of manual processes (e.g., casino staff manually issuing bonuses) without invention. The claims lack any unconventional arrangement or extra-solution activity that transforms the idea.
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 provides additional rules to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims.
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 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) 1-7, 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palermo (US 2017/0011593 A1).
1. Palermo discloses a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following a database of a ticket voucher system storing data (Fig. 2 & 7) comprising a first amount of cashable funds associated with an issued ticket voucher and responsive to a validated redemption, via the ticket voucher system, of the issued ticket voucher [0066], cause the processor to:
determine, prior to any play of any game using the first amount of cashable funds associated with the issued ticket voucher, whether to trigger a bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher (upon reading/scanning the cash ticket, determine if feature triggering indicia present, if yes, trigger feature providing non-monetary credits or promotional credits; this is prior to play), [0066]-[0071], [0101];
responsive to the determination being to trigger the bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher and prior to any play of any game using the first amount of cashable funds associated with the issued ticket voucher, cause data associated with a first amount of non-cashable funds, determined independent of any play of any game, to be communicated to an electronic gaming machine (provide additional or promotional credits upon triggering; independent of play as upon redemption), [0066]-[0071],
wherein the first amount of non-cashable funds is based on the first amount of cashable funds associated with the issued ticket voucher, as can be seen in at least the following paragraphs:
[0019], (one or more feature triggering indicia are associated with a cash or monetary value ticket (which when presented to a gaming machine causes monetary value or credits to be associated with the machine) or an additional non-cash value or promotional ticket. The feature triggering indicia may comprise an award or promotion, such as for engaging in a transaction),
[0068], (the feature trigger might provide for additional or promotional credits which can be used at a gaming machine. These credits might be useable just like normal monetary value credits, or might only be usable for certain games (including versions of monetary wagering games having different pay tables or features), or only be usable at certain times.),
[0081], (a player might seek redemption of a monetary value ticket at a kiosk. Upon reading the ticket, the kiosk might be configured to present an offer to the player. As one example, the offer might be for the player to play a certain amount of funds at a particular gaming machine. If the player accepts, the funds associated with the ticket which is being redeemed by the player might be transferred to a new ticket which includes a feature trigger and that ticket may be dispensed to the player. The remaining funds belonging to the player (if any) might then be dispensed to the player. In this configuration, the particular feature, including the value of the feature, etc., might be determined or selected in conjunction with the value of the offer. Further, a player might be offered more than one offer. For example, a player might seek to redeem a monetary value ticket having a value of $200. The player might be offered a feature trigger which offers 4x bonus pay if the player elects to play or associate the entire $200 with the feature ticket, or 2x bonus pay if they elect to play $50),,
[0101], (a first player who obtains a ticket having an associated monetary value of $100 may receive a lower value feature triggering indicia than a second player who obtains a ticket having an associated value of $1000), thus, the bonus is associated with the amount of cashable funds associated with the tissued ticket voucher;
responsive to the determination being not to trigger any bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher, cause data associated with the first amount of cashable funds to be communicated to the electronic gaming machine (if no indicia, just redeem the cash value), [0066]-[0071], [0101].
2. Palermo discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the memory devices stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the determination to trigger the bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher, cause the processor to cause data associated with a second amount of non-cashable funds to be communicated to the electronic gaming machine, the second amount of non-cashable funds corresponding to the first amount of cashable funds, Palermo [0066]-[0071].
3. Palermo discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the processor comprises a component of the ticket voucher system, Palermo (Fig. 4 & 10).
4. Palermo discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the determination to trigger the bonus event is based on at least one of a random determination, the first amount of cashable funds associated with the issued ticket voucher, an identity of a holder of the issued ticket voucher, and gaming activity associated with the issued ticket voucher (i.e. upon insertion/redemption, reader scans ticket for feature-triggering indicia and validates via processor/server prior to play; determination based on indicia presence, validity, and criteria like time or randomness triggers bonus event/feature, Palermo [0066]-[0071] or trigger is based on detecting the outcome of the base game, Palermo [0020], [0088]).
5. Palermo discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the determination to trigger the bonus event is based on a satisfaction of a condition associated with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher (i.e. upon insertion/redemption, reader scans ticket for feature-triggering indicia and validates via processor/server prior to play; determination based on indicia presence, validity, and criteria like time or randomness triggers bonus event/feature, Palermo [0066]-[0071] or trigger is based on detecting the outcome of the base game, Palermo [0020], [0088]).
6. Palermo discloses the system of Claim 5, wherein the condition comprises at least one of a location of the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher, a time of the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher, and an identity of a holder of the issued ticket voucher (i.e. upon insertion/redemption, reader scans ticket for feature-triggering indicia and validates via processor/server prior to play; determination based on indicia presence, validity, and criteria like time or randomness triggers bonus event/feature, Palermo [0066]-[0071] or trigger is based on detecting the outcome of the base game, Palermo [0020], [0088]).
7. Palermo discloses the system of Claim 5, wherein the satisfaction of the condition comprises a receipt of data associated with an input made at the electronic gaming machine to receive the first amount of cashable funds associated with the issued ticket voucher as non-cashable funds (i.e. upon insertion/redemption, reader scans ticket for feature-triggering indicia and validates via processor/server prior to play; determination based on indicia presence, validity, and criteria like time or randomness triggers bonus event/feature, Palermo [0066]-[0071] or trigger is based on detecting the outcome of the base game, Palermo [0020], [0088]).
9-12. Palermo discloses system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following a database of a ticket voucher system storing data comprising a first amount of cashable funds associated with an issued ticket voucher and any bonus event associated with the issued ticket voucher, cause the processor to: determine, prior to any play of any game using the first amount of cashable funds associated with the issued ticket voucher, whether to trigger any bonus event associated with the issued ticket voucher in association with a validated redemption, via the ticket voucher system, of the issued ticket voucher; responsive to the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher and the determination being to trigger a bonus event associated with the issued ticket voucher in association with validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher, cause data associated with a first amount of non-cashable funds, determined independent of any play of any game, and the first amount of cashable funds to be communicated to an electronic gaming machine, wherein the first amount of non-cashable funds is based on the first amount of cashable funds associated with the issued ticket voucher, and responsive to the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher and the determination being not to trigger any bonus event associated with the issued ticket voucher in association with validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher, cause data associated with the first amount of cashable funds to be communicated to the electronic gaming machine as similarly discussed above.
13-19. Palermo discloses a method of operating a system, the method comprising: following a database of a ticket voucher system storing data comprising a first amount of cashable funds associated with an issued ticket voucher, and responsive to a validated redemption, via the ticket voucher system, of the issued ticket voucher: determining, by a processor and prior to any play of any game using the first amount of cashable funds associated with the issued ticket voucher, whether to trigger a bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher, responsive to the determination being to trigger the bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher and prior to any play of any game using the first amount of cashable funds associated with the issued ticket voucher, causing data associated with a first amount of non-cashable funds, determined independent of any play of any game, to be communicated to an electronic gaming machine, wherein the first amount of non-cashable funds is based on the first amount of cashable funds associated with the issued ticket voucher, and responsive to the determination being not to trigger any bonus event in association with the validated redemption of the issued ticket voucher, causing data associated with the first amount of cashable funds to be communicated to the electronic gaming machine as similarly discussed above.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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 L. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715