DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claim amendments received 12/16/2025. Claims 1-9 and 21-29 are pending, with claims 1-3 currently amended, claims 10-20 cancelled, and claims 21-29 newly added.
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 1-9 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant invention encompasses two automated wager gaming credit management computer systems in claims 1-9 and 21-29 (i.e., machines). So claims 1-9 and 21-29 are directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the requirements of step 1.
Step 2A
Prong One
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-9 and 21-29 recite the rules and steps for “use with loan and/or warrantying for the warrantying, settling, requesting, approving, processing, and/or managing of credit provided for use in wager gaming and related activities, including one or more of loan transactions, loan warrantying services, operator receivable participation interest, receivable purchase associate with patron's repayment of the receivable, third-party provision of advances to an operator patron limited for use within the operator property or properties for designated gaming activities, associated fees, activity tracking, activity reporting, credit approval throttling, fund advancement throttling, credit account packaging and transfer, automated collections, and responsible wager gaming” [0003].
Claim 1. An automated wager gaming management computer system comprising a processor and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to provide for an operator, in combination and in association with one or more wager games provided by the operator to one or more game players on a plurality of gaming machines:
(1) by the automated wager gaming management computer system, obtaining player-specific information from a game player among the one or more game players in a gaming management app display on a mobile device in electronic communication with the automated wager gaming management computer system;
(2) authenticating, by an authentication service of the automated wager gaming management computer system, the obtained player-specific information with player information from an authentication/user database to verify that the obtained player- specific information corresponds to a valid player, comprising:
(a) generating a session token with the gaming management app on the mobile device;
(b) obtaining, by the authentication service of the automated wager gaming management computer system, a geographical location of the session token from the mobile device, which geographical location is generated in response to the session token; and
(c) determining that the session token and the geographical location are valid: including by verifying that the geographical location corresponds to a specific geolocation; and
(d) setting an authentication status indication if the session token and the geographical location are valid; and
(3) when both (i) the authentication status indication exists and (ii) the game player lacks cashable credit on the plurality of gaming machines, establishing a communication session from the automated wager gaming management computer system to a selected gaming machine of the plurality of gaming machines and transmitting machine control messages via the communication network to place the selected gaming machine in a play-authorized state that accepts wager inputs and disables a payout function of the selected gaming machine.
The bold and underlined portions of claim 1 encompass the abstract idea, which is also encompassed by the dependent claims 2-9, and substantially also encompassed by claims 21-29.
Claims 1 and 21 recite the process for requesting, approving, processing, and/or managing of credit associated with wagering activity for a player based on certain rules, which is fundamental economic principles or practices or commercial or legal interactions that can be implemented with human beings with pen and pencil. Therefore, the claimed invention is grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implement on a computer or mobile device, or merely using a computer or mobile device as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use is not considered integration into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a computer system and a mobile device for credit management, and gaming machines with SMIB card implementing internet communication protocols. Mere computer-based implementation, without more, is not sufficient to render claims directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Here, the claim recites routine data collection and analysis steps for authentication that have been traditionally performed by computer systems (Disraeli [US20140157381], [0016], “The FMFA system reduces or removes the burden on the user by eliminating the additional manual second step (e.g., entry of token, card swipe, etc.) traditionally required by two-factor authentication methods, and replacing the second step with an automated authentication step based on the location of a mobile device that is associated with the user”). The additional of a mobile device, and gaming machines with SMIB card implementing internet communication protocols to carry out these routine steps does not make the claim any less abstract. The claim is drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution. This computer system and gaming machines communicating over a generic network as presented are directed to the generic machines amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to provide computer-based implementation to implement the rules for requesting, approving, processing, and/or managing of credit associated with wagering activity for a player.
Step 2B
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires 'more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words 'apply it."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].'" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a computer system and a mobile device for credit management, and gaming machines with SMIB card implementing internet communication protocols. By failing to explain the details of the computer system and the mobile device, it is reasonable that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the system is limited to a generic computer implementation with generic network connection. And gaming machines with SMIB card implementing internet communication protocols are conventional, well known in the industry (Vancura, [US20030001335], [0041], “Gaming machines such as slot machine 10 are conventionally available and any of a number of such conventional gaming machines could be used. The conventional casinos gaming equipment for accepting wagers, accounting for and displaying credits during the play of the game, activating play of the game, ending the game and delivering pay outs to players, are all well known in the industry. Upon the occurrence of an end-game state in the play of the slot machine 10 a signal is generated and sent on line 300 to the slot machine interface board 200. The slot machine interface board 200 includes a microprocessor-based controller capable of handling timing as well as input/output via a data flow manager with specific protocol. Such a slot machine interface board 200 is sold, under the name SMIB by Mikohn Gaming of Las Vegas, Nev., assignee of this invention”). The “generic computer implementation with generic network connection” are "well understood, routine, conventional activity." The computer implementation merely helps to automate the commercial or legal interactions during wager gaming playing using the applied advance of money or value. The claim fails to improve the recited technological field.
The claims are generally linked to implement an abstract idea on a computer. When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an abstract idea without "significantly more", and thus not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant first cited Ex Parte Guillaume Desjardins to argue that “when claims involve technological improvements rather than mere automation of prior art abstract building blocks, "§§ 102, 103 and 112 are the traditional and appropriate tools to limit patent protection to its proper scope."” (p. 8). Examiner respectfully submits that Ex Parte Guillaume Desjardins is directed to AI innovations involving technological improvement and is distinguishable from the particular facts of the instant invention. Current claims are drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution.
Applicant argues “Amended Claims 1-3 are presented to advance prosecution by further demonstrating how the system changes the operational state of gaming hardware through specific control protocols and interfaces” (p. 9). Examiner respectfully submits that as being illustrated in the rejection, the claim recites routine data collection and analysis steps for authentication that have been traditionally performed by computer systems (Disraeli [US20140157381], [0016], “The FMFA system reduces or removes the burden on the user by eliminating the additional manual second step (e.g., entry of token, card swipe, etc.) traditionally required by two-factor authentication methods, and replacing the second step with an automated authentication step based on the location of a mobile device that is associated with the user”). The additional of a mobile device, the communication session from the computer system to a well-known SMIB coupled to the gaming machine and the well-known communication protocols to carry out these routine steps does not make the claim any less abstract. The claim is drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution. This computer system communicating over a generic network as presented are directed to the generic machines amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to provide computer-based implementation to implement the rules for requesting, approving, processing, and/or managing of credit associated with wagering activity for a player.
Applicant further argues “amended Claim 1 explicitly recites technical machine control operations that cannot be characterized as mere conventional credit management” (p. 11). Examiner respectfully submits that without any technological details, the so-called “technical machine control operations” which setting an authentication status indication based on location check and then determining if a communication session for credit management should be established is merely a generic computer implementation of the rules – which is directed to abstract ideas – that governs the credit management. The claim is drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution.
Applicant then argues “the Claims are drawn to, among other things, technical authentication and distributed device control. Furthermore, the Office's lack of rejections based on novelty under § 102 and non-obviousness under § 103 show that the Claimed process is not a fundamental economic practice” (p. 11-12). Examiner respectfully submits that instead of “the Claims are drawn to, among other things, technical authentication and distributed device control,” the claims are drawn to the process for requesting, approving, processing, and/or managing of credit associated with wagering activity for a player based on certain rules, which is fundamental economic principles or practices or commercial or legal interactions that can be implemented with human beings with pen and pencil. As been analyzed above, the authentication step is achieved by routine data collection and location validation based on rule check. There is no technical details or technological improvement in current claims. The claims are drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution. Further, novelty under § 102 and non-obviousness under § 103 does not bear on whether the claims are directed to a fundamental economic practice. These are distinct analysis under different statuary categories.
Applicant also argues “The Claims cannot practically be performed in the human mind” and “The Claims are not merely a "certain method of organizing human activity."” (p. 12). Examiner respectfully submits that claims are directed to the process for requesting, approving, processing, and/or managing of credit associated with wagering activity for a player based on certain rules, which is fundamental economic principles or practices or commercial or legal interactions that can be implemented with human beings with pen and pencil. Mere instruction to implement on a computer or mobile device, or merely using a computer or mobile device as a tool to perform routine data collection and implement the abstract idea, as presented, are directed to the generic machines amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to provide computer-based implementation to implement the rules for requesting, approving, processing, and/or managing of credit associated with wagering activity for a player.
Applicant argues “The Claims recite an improvement to computer functionality and gaming technology” by citing “the Claim elements of "obtaining player-specific information from a game player...in a gaming management app display on a mobile device" and "comparing...the obtained player-specific information with player information from an authentication/user database" directly implement the specification's disclosure of "faster processing due to the reduction or elimination of manual procedures, reduced system integrations, or both" and "reduced processing and memory demand due, at least in part, to the reduction or elimination of data duplication across systems."” (p. 13). Examiner respectfully submits that “obtaining player-specific information” is merely a conventional function of the generic computer and “faster processing…” is merely achieved by computer-based implementation. There is NO technological solution/improvement. Applicant then argues “the Claims provide security and verification improvements…” and “disables a payout function of the selected gaming machine…” (p. 14). Examiner respectfully submits that these steps are carried out based on the routine data collection and rules governing the credit management, which is directed to abstract ideas. The claims are drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution/improvement.
Applicant then argues “Particular machines are integral to the Claims” and “Analysis of the Claims as a whole” claiming “Amended dependent Claims 2 and 3 further build on this integral machine use by explicitly reciting a SMIB hardware interface and specific communication protocols used for gaming machine control” (p. 14 - 15). Examiner respectfully submits that gaming machines with SMIB card implementing internet communication protocols are conventional, well known in the industry (Vancura, [US20030001335], [0041], “Gaming machines such as slot machine 10 are conventionally available and any of a number of such conventional gaming machines could be used. The conventional casinos gaming equipment for accepting wagers, accounting for and displaying credits during the play of the game, activating play of the game, ending the game and delivering pay outs to players, are all well known in the industry. Upon the occurrence of an end-game state in the play of the slot machine 10 a signal is generated and sent on line 300 to the slot machine interface board 200. The slot machine interface board 200 includes a microprocessor-based controller capable of handling timing as well as input/output via a data flow manager with specific protocol. Such a slot machine interface board 200 is sold, under the name SMIB by Mikohn Gaming of Las Vegas, Nev., assignee of this invention”). The “generic computer implementation with generic network connection” are "well understood, routine, conventional activity." The computer implementation merely helps to automate the commercial or legal interactions during wager gaming playing using the applied advance of money or value. The claim fails to improve the recited technological field.
Applicant cites Berkheimer, BASCOM and some examples to argue “lack of evidence of well-understood, routine, conventional activity” and “Analogy to USPTO Example 35 and BASCOM” (p. 15 - 17). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both Berkheimer and BASCOM were found patent eligible because they claim features that represent an improvement to computer technology. The present claims have been analyzed both individually and in combination thoroughly. In contrast to Berkheimer and BASCOM, the instant claims are directed to the process for requesting, approving, processing, and/or managing of credit associated with wagering activity for a player based on certain rules, which is fundamental economic principles or practices or commercial or legal interactions that can be implemented with human beings with pen and pencil. Mere instruction to implement on a computer or mobile device, or merely using a computer or mobile device as a tool to perform routine data collection and implement the abstract idea, as presented, are directed to the generic machines amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to provide computer-based implementation to implement the rules for requesting, approving, processing, and/or managing of credit associated with wagering activity for a player. The claims are drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution/improvement. The “generic computer implementation with generic network connection” are "well understood, routine, conventional activity." The computer implementation merely helps to automate the commercial or legal interactions during wager gaming playing using the applied advance of money or value. The claim fails to improve the recited technological field.
In light of the above analysis, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YINGCHUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1375. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:30 M-F.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/YINGCHUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715