DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Remarks and Amendments filed 03/09/2026.
Claims 3, 5, 13, 15 are canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17 are amended.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-20 have been examined and are pending.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1 and 11 have each been amended in part to recite the following: “…wherein the Supplier Interface ensures compliance with licensure requirements based on an updated employee application for the Gaming Operation…”. However, respectfully, this feature is not clear; i.e. the term “ensure”1 means to ensure means to make certain, guarantee, or secure a specific outcome. However, it is not clear what action is being taken to make certain, guarantee, or secure the stated specific outcome of “compliance with licensure requirements based on an updated employee application for the Gaming Operation”. For example, the recited “Supplier Interface” is not an action which is being performed. Furthermore, merely providing an Interface is not an action which would, by itself, appear to secure the outcome attributed to its provision – i.e. it is not clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art how provision of an interface secures and guarantees compliance with licensure requirements regarding Gaming Operations. Therefore, it appears applicant’s feature is some type of colloquial expression by which the applicant intends to imply some additional action is being performed or enabled by which this guaranteed is achieved – e.g. perhaps applicant intends for the feature in question to mean something like the following: wherein the Supplier Interface allows a user to check employee’s updated application information against current licensure requirements to help ensure the user that the employee is in compliance with licensure requirements, e.g. based on the updated employee application for the Gaming Operation. Nonetheless, as currently recited, the feature is unclear and leads to ambiguity and confusion to the proper interpretation of the feature. For this reason, the claim is considered indefinite.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14, 16-20 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
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 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, as follows:
Per Independent claims 1 and 11 (exemplified in limitations of method claim 11):
Managing the updated employee application.
Ensuring compliance with licensure requirements based on the updated employee application
Maintaining employee application through end of life
Notifying of non-compliance
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
That is, these steps as drafted, are merely business decisions to manage employee data and check for compliance or non-compliance of the employee with business license requirements and a business decision to notify interested parties if there is non-compliance (e.g. for the purpose of mitigating risk to the business regarding employees not complying with license requiredment) thus falling into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components to facilitate the abstract idea does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated grouping. Also, there is no technical problem being solved. Instead, only a business problem is apparently being solved. Furthermore, the steps (i.e. solution to the problem) are not technical in nature but instead are merely business decisions. Thus, the claims recite and are directed towards an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts or, link them to a field of use (i.e. in this case managing employee license application data to mitigate risk of non-compliance) or, serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data-gathering, data transmittal, and generic data storage). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations are as follows: “A method comprising the steps of: storing, in a database, data associated with a Gaming Supplier and a Gaming Operation; providing a Supplier Interface residing on a computing system that allows the Gaming Supplier to use and manage their licensure and shipping rules; executing an application by a processor of a computing device to communicate with the computing system, wherein the application is configured to have the processor execute instructions: transmitting, by a computing system, data from most recent employee application to the Gaming Operation; accessing the computing system, by the Gaming Supplier, to update the employee application with any changes; transmitting […], by the computing system, the updated employee application…; sending, by the computing system, notification to the Gaming Operation and the Gaming Supplier of non-compliance; wherein the Supplier Interface ensures compliance with licensure requirements based on an updated employee application for the Gaming Operation.”
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a technique nor technical solution for “storing, in a database…” nor a technique nor technical solution for “transmitting… data, etc…” nor of “accessing… to update data…” nor is it a particular technique of sending business information (i.e. the notification of non-compliance). The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts or, link them to a field of use or, are insignificant extra-solution activity to the already identified abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components (e.g. by a computing system, etc…) and “link” them to a field of use (e.g. managing employee license application data to mitigate risk of non-compliance), or as insignificant extra-solution activity as noted supra. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. a server) and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claims 2 and 12 recite the following: “logging into the computing system by a user of the computing device.” Or “…a user of the computing device logs into the computing system with the computing device.” However, an action taken by a user to log into a device (e.g. to authenticate oneself or to access secure data) is ubiquitous and is an abstract idea when recited at this high-level of generality. Note, there is not technical solution for “logging into” the system. Instead, this idea is a business decision (e.g. to mitigate risk of non-authorized users from accessing the system or perhaps to simply maintain and manage data entry associated with the logged-in person, etc…). This is an activity which is apparently performed manually and Applicant’s invention is not a particular technique of logging in. Therefore, this feature is merely part of the abstract idea or is insignificant pre-solution activity akin to data-gathering and as such is not significantly more than the already noted abstract idea.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Blatt et al. (U.S. 8,364,604 B1; hereinafter, "Blatt").
Claims 1, 11 (currently amended):
Pertaining to claims 1, 11 exemplified in the limitations of method claim 1, Blatt as shown teaches the following:
A system comprising:
a database configured to store data from a Gaming Supplier and a Gaming Operation (Blatt, see at least Figs. 1-2 e.g. “Global database 58” which is a “Global database of licensed supply chain members, etc…” residing on “Vendor’s [supplier’s] computer system 50”; the information is supplied in part by “license management system 16” [Gaming operation]);
a computing system configured to communicate with the database (Blatt, see citations noted supra e.g. Figs. 1-2 “computer system 12” communicates with “Global database 58” and per at least [3:40-54]: e.g.: “…FIGS. 1A-1B. Specifically, the topology includes a client site 10, a vendor site 50, and a regulatory authority site 60. The sites are in communication with each other via a network 30…Client site 10 includes an end-user or client computer system 12, and a license management system 16. The end-user and license management systems are coupled via a network 14, and may be implemented by any conventional or other computer systems…”;);
a Supplier Interface residing on the computing system that allows the Gaming Supplier to use and manage their licensure (Blatt, see citations noted supra, including e.g. Figs. 1B and note [4:12-32] regarding “Vendor [Supplier] Site 50” with interface to system and per [5:1-35]: “…the vendor computer system may further provide electronic mail notifications to alert users of the changes… users may receive electronic mail notifications about changes in laws and regulations, license status [i.e. an aspect of licensure], license forms and other relevant compliance activity from vendor computer system 52 [supplier] (or authority computer system 62 [regulator]) as described herein…”; each “vendor” has an interface with the system to supply/manage their gaming license requirements) and shipping2 rules (Blatt, see citations noted supra also in view of at least [7:20-25] e.g.: “…the forms collector may be in the form of a user contacting the licensed manufacturer and authority, where the license forms may be received manually by the user, or electronically via ( e.g., forms collector module 78 of) license management system 16…”; Applicant’s rules as relates to shipping is broad and reads on the teachings of Blatt)
and,
an application executable by a processor of a user computing device and to communicate with the computing system (Blatt, see at least Fig. 1A-1B and Fig. 3 and per at least [17:19-32]: “…The computer systems of the present invention embodiments may alternatively be implemented by any type of hardware and/or other processing circuitry. The various functions of the computer systems may be distributed in any manner among any quantity of software modules or units, processing or computer systems and/or circuitry, where the computer or processing systems may be disposed locally or remotely of each other and communicate via any suitable communications medium (e.g., LAN, WAN, Intranet, Internet, hardwire, modem connection, wireless, etc .). For example, the functions of the present invention embodiments may be distributed in any manner among any quantity of end-user, vendor, authority, and license management systems…”), wherein the application is configured to have the processor execute an algorithm of instructions to:
transmit data from most recent employee application3 to the Gaming Operation (Examiner interprets this feature, in view of the Specification, e.g. at least per Applicant’s Specification [0003], [0028], and [0046]-[0048] to mean the following: transmit data, which is received from an employee through the employee’s population of form fields on a most recently submitted application form regarding renewal of a license, to the Gaming Operation4. Blatt, teaches transmitting such data to a “license management system 16” [gaming operation] as follows: see at least Figs. 1A in view of Figs. 11A-11B and [5:25-35], regarding “example license forms” which are filled out by an employee of a gaming operation, the contents [form field data] of which are transmitted to the “license management system 16” [a Gaming Operation]; e.g.: “…License management module 24 may archive completed license forms [receive transmitted data] in a searchable and retrievable format. Further, the license management module may include a calendar module 95 that provides a compliance calendar to inform users of upcoming requirements to renew licenses…”; see Figs. 2-3 and [4:54-5:46] in view of [13:13-25] teaching, e.g.: “…Example gaming license forms 240, 245 generated by the license management system for the Nevada and New Jersey gaming authorities are illustrated in FIGS. 11A-11B. In addition, the generated form may be electronically submitted to the regulatory authority at step 178 (e.g., electronic mail, web services, etc.). Alternatively, the generated form may be printed and submitted to the regulatory authority in paper or hardcopy form (e.g., facsimile, ground delivery, etc.). The generated form may further be stored in the license management system (e.g., forms library 22)….”;
PNG
media_image1.png
768
904
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
access the system by the Gaming Supplier to update the employee application with any changes (Blatt, see citations noted supra, including e.g. Figs. 1-3, [3:40-6:40], e.g.: “…The vendor [Supplier] computer system may receive the notifications, and retrieve the updated information from the regulatory authority… License management module 24 may archive completed license forms in a searchable and retrievable format... If a file signature changes (or is not present in information database 18 and/or forms library 22 in the case of a new form), the spider module downloads the new file (e.g., into forms library 22), updates the signature, and transmits an electronic mail notification to a system administrator using a pre-configured electronic mail address…”;
PNG
media_image2.png
628
846
media_image2.png
Greyscale
);
transmit and manage the updated employee application by the system (Blatt, again see citations noted supra, e.g. [5:35-35], teaching: the employees “completed license forms”, including updated information, are transmitted to and “archived” in a “searchable and retrievable format” [i.e. they are managed] by the system);
ensure compliance with licensure requirements based on the updated employee application (Blatt, again see citations noted supra, e.g. [5:30-35] teaching: “…Notices may occur
within the user calendar, and/or users may receive electronic mail notifications about changes in laws and regulations, license status, license forms and other relevant compliance activities from vendor computer system 52 ( or authority computer system 62) as described above…”);
maintain employee application through end of life (Blatt, see again citations noted supra, e.g. per [5:35-40]: “…In this case, the license management system enables automatic identification of licenses that are set to expire [end of life], and measures the workload of license project managers in order to most efficiently assign and track license projects…”; see also [14:23-35]);
send notification to the Gaming Operation and the Gaming Supplier of noncompliance (Blatt, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least Fig. 1B and [5:25-35], teaching: “…users [Gaming operation and Gaming supplier] may receive electronic mail notifications [sent notification(s)] about changes in laws and regulations, license status… and other relevant compliance [e.g. compliance or non-compliance] activities from vendor computer system 52 (or authority computer system 62) as described above…”; Examiner notes that the only difference between the claim feature and the limitation in question is that Blatt may not explicitly teach “noncompliance”. However, Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that Blatt’s teachings regarding “other relevant compliance activities” implies and suggests identification of activities which are noncompliant as one type of “other relevant compliance activities” and therefore would have tried sending electronic mail notifications, from authority computer system 62, to users [Gaming operation and Gaming supplier] about such noncompliance because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.); and
wherein the Supplier Interface ensures5 compliance with licensure requirements based on the updated employee application for the Gaming Operation (Blatt, see citations noted supra, including again at least per [5:40-45]: “…the license management system may enable users to research [e.g. for purpose of ensuring compliance with] regulatory requirements [licensure requirements] (e.g., via communication with vendor computer system [supplier interface] 52 and law library 54), and check [e.g. for ensuring compliance with] licensing requirements for banned entities (e.g., via communication with vendor computer system 52 and database 58)…” also note per [14:23-35], e.g.: “…the license management system (e.g., via calendar module 95) may provide a compliance calendar that tracks renewal dates of licenses, and provides information to users. The compliance calendar typically alerts users in advance of requirements to renew licenses [e.g. to help ensure user stays in compliance with requirements], and is integrated with commercially available or other electronic mail and calendar packages (e.g., Microsoft Outlook, Lotus Notes, etc.). However, the license renewal form is generated by the license management system in substantially the same manner described above. The compliance calendar enables the user to link to the project management functions described above (e.g., step 180 and FIGS. 12A and 12B) that allows users to track the license application and/or renewal process…”; the calendar is based on the most recent/updated employee information as received by the system, e.g. from forms 11A-11B; Applicant’s claims do not set forth any particular action which fulfills the meaning of the verb “ensure” and therefore, this desired outcome of “ensure” reads on all of Blatt’s described functionalities which also help ensure Blatt’s user is in compliance with licensure requirements based on updated employee application information.)
Claims 2, 12: (Currently amended)
Blatt teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Blatt teaches the following: …wherein a user of the computing device logs into the computing system with the user computing device (Blatt, see citations noted supra, including Figs. 3 and 4, e.g. per Fig. 4 note “use login” and “USERID” under “Field Name” and “Description” the data is received from user’s computing device).
Claims 4, 14: (dependency amended)
Blatt teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Blatt teaches the following: …wherein the Supplier Interface manages licensure and shipping rules compliance for the Gaming Operation (Blatt, see citations noted supra, including e.g. Figs. 1B and note [4:12-32] regarding “Vendor [Supplier] Site 50” with interface to system and per [5:1-35]: “…the vendor computer system may further provide electronic mail notifications to alert users of the changes… users may receive electronic mail notifications about changes in laws and regulations, license status, license forms and other relevant compliance activity from vendor computer system 52 [supplier] (or authority computer system 62 [regulator]) as described herein…”).
Claims 6, 16: (dependency amended)
Blatt teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Blatt teaches the following: …wherein the Gaming Supplier will maintain a record of the employee application through their end of life for the Gaming Operation (Blatt, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least [4:12-31]: “Vendor site [supplier] 50 includes… Database 58 [storage of records] is preferably a global database of 30 licensed supply chain members, including lists of banned entities…”; and per [5:35-40]: “…In this case, the license management system enables automatic identification of licenses that are set to expire [end of life], and measures the workload of license project managers in order to most efficiently assign and track license projects…”; and per [13:15-25]: “…the generated form [record of employee application] may be electronically submitted to [therefore, maintained by] the regulatory authority at step 178…”; and per [4:54-56]: “…Authority computer system 62 may communicate with vendor computer system 52 and license management system 16 via network 30…”; at least by virtue of being in communication with Authority computer system, the “vendor site” [supplier] also maintains a record of “the generated form [record of employee application]” which “may be electronically submitted to the regulatory authority at step 178”).
Claims 7, 17: (dependency amended)
Blatt teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Blatt teaches the following: …including a Gaming Regulator that receives licensure information from the Supplier Interface and communicates with the Gaming Supplier (Blatt, see citations noted supra, in view of at least Figs. 1-2 and [3:40-45], e.g.: “…FIGS. 1A-1B. Specifically, the topology includes a client site 10, a vendor site 50 [Supplier], and a regulatory authority site 60 [Regulator]. The sites are in communication with each other via a network 30…”; and per [13:15-25]: “…the generated form [record of employee application is licensure information] may be electronically submitted to the regulatory authority at step 178…”; Applicant’s “supplier interface” as noted per his drawings, Fig. 1 “supplier interface module 114”, is an interface for supplier computer device 102 and regulatory computing device 102; therefore, applicant’s feature reads on the teachings of Blatt as shown in the citations already provided supra; e.g. Blatt see Figs 1A-1B, etc…).
Claims 8, 18: (Original)
Blatt teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Blatt teaches the following: …wherein the Gaming Supplier is allowed to access the system to ensure employees have compliance and approval by the Gaming Regulator for the Gaming Operation (Blatt, see citations noted supra, in view of at least Figs. 1-2 and [3:40-45], e.g.: “…FIGS. 1A-1B. Specifically, the topology includes a client site 10, a vendor site 50 [Supplier],…”; i.e. vendor [supplier] is allowed to access the system via vendor site 50. Applicant’s intended action – “to ensure…” appears to be non-functional descriptive language; i.e. the intended use of the system by the supplier is not recited as taking any particular action but instead is stated as a general idea of use of the system; note there is no action recited in the claim by which the supplier “ensure(s)” employees have compliance.).
Claims 9, 19: (Original)
Blatt teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Blatt teaches the following: …wherein the Gaming Regulator approves employee compliance for the Gaming Operation (Blatt, see citations noted supra, again, e.g. per [4:42-56], teaching: “…Regulatory authority site 60 includes an authority computer system 62. The regulatory authority may be any suitable authority providing licenses (e.g., Federal, State, Province, Tribal, Municipal, etc.). The authority computer system may be implemented by any conventional or other computer system…”).
Claims 10, 20: (Original)
Blatt teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Blatt teaches the following: …wherein if the employee application is revoked or determined non-compliant by the Supplier Interface, the Gaming Operation and Gaming Regulator will receive automated notices of the action, allowing them to take immediate action (Blatt, see citations noted supra, including at least [5:1-35], e.g.: “…Notices may occur within the user calendar, and/or users may receive electronic mail notifications [automated notice] about changes in laws and regulations, license status, license forms and other relevant compliance activities [e.g. non-compliant] from vendor computer system 52 ( or authority computer system 62) as described above…”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant canceled claims 3, 5, 13, 15 and amended claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17 on 3/9/2026. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 3/9/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Note the new 101, 112, and 103 rejections with citations to Blatt teaching applicant’s amended features.
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
1 Merriam-Webster dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ensure): “Ensure” (verb) – to make sure, certain, or safe : Guarantee. To ensure means to make certain, guarantee, or secure a specific outcome. It is an action taken to make sure something happens or is true.
2 Specification [0004]: “Gaming Suppliers… are responsible for… regulatory concerns… These regulatory concerns include licensure [and]… jurisdiction pertaining to shipping of new software, hardware, and gaming machines to these clients…”
3 Specification at [0028]: “…the server 104 includes a Supplier Interface module 114 that can retrieve applications for license renewal, licensure rules, and shipping rules for a particular jurisdiction from the database 110. For example, the Supplier Interface module 114 may receive a single application for multiple employees from a Gaming Operation in a single application and determine whether each employee complies with local licensure rules for the particular jurisdiction, and/or any other suitable statistic…”
4 Specification at [0003]: “It is known that a Gaming Operation such as a casino has one or more gaming machines to allow patrons to gamble…”
5 Per Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “ensure” (verb) - To ensure means to make certain, guarantee, or secure a specific outcome. It is an action taken to make sure something happens or is true.
Prosecution Insights