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 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Vlazny discloses a betting/gaming system (and corresponding methods and tokens) that meets every limitation of the amended independent claims, including the newly added “sole purpose” limitation.
Vlazny explicitly teaches anonymous accounts and anonymous token cards (or house/frequent-player cards issued by the gaming venue) that use a unique identifier whose sole purpose is to identify and access the (anonymous) betting account within the gaming system. See, inter alia:
Paragraph [0035] (and related disclosure in [0029] and [0036]): “In another embodiment, the player may set up an anonymous account with a lottery-type gaming system without a credit instrument. For instance, the player may enter a unique identifier such as, for example, a username into a gaming terminal of a lottery-type gaming system, wherein the lottery-type gaming system associates and identifies the anonymous account with the unique identifier.” In this embodiment the unique identifier has no other purpose—it solely identifies the anonymous betting account.
Paragraph [0029]: The system expressly includes “an anonymous token card” as one form of credit instrument, alongside house/frequent-player cards issued by the lottery-type gaming venue. These venue-issued tokens/cards store or are associated with a unique identifier dedicated exclusively to the player’s betting account (anonymous or otherwise). The use of pre-owned external instruments (e.g., a credit card number) is merely an optional alternative embodiment, not a requirement.
Paragraphs [0034] and [0036]: The anonymous account is identified by its own code/account number (separate from any external financial instrument). The token/card provides access to that account, and the identifier on the token serves solely to identify and transact with the betting account. Security is handled by optional PIN/biometrics, but the identifier itself is tied only to the gaming account.
The “technical benefits” asserted by Applicant (true anonymity outside the betting system, no exposure of credit-card/bank information if the token is lost, no need for a PIN to protect external financial data) are also disclosed by Vlazny in the anonymous-account and venue-issued-token embodiments. Vlazny’s anonymous token card and unique-identifier (username/house-card ID) embodiments provide exactly these advantages: the identifier has no purpose or meaning outside the betting/gaming system, and loss of the token does not expose external financial accounts because no such information is stored on (or required by) the token.
Applicant’s characterization that Vlazny’s “anonymous” token always includes a credit-card number (and therefore the identifier serves dual purposes) is incorrect. That description applies only to one optional embodiment (using a pre-owned credit instrument to set up the account). Vlazny’s primary teachings and other embodiments use a venue-generated or entered unique identifier (username, house-card ID, anonymous token card) whose sole purpose is identifying the betting account—precisely as recited.
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 1-5, 7-21 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 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.
The claims are directed to the abstract idea of managing a betting or gaming account using a unique identifier/token to access, retrieve, and transact with an account value. This falls within the enumerated grouping of abstract ideas under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” (specifically, fundamental economic practices and commercial or legal interactions, including managing personal behavior or relationships).
Representative independent claim 1 recites:
a token storing a unique identity of a betting account (the identity having a sole purpose of identifying the betting account); and
a betting or gaming terminal that reads the token, retrieves account information and value, and permits betting activity in dependence on the account value.
Independent claims 3, 9, 11, and 18 recite substantially similar subject matter (system using a portal/user device, methods of operating the system, and the token itself), with the additional recitation of local/central networks, point-of-sale value transactions, and anonymity.
The “sole purpose” limitation (i.e., the unique identity on the token serves only to identify the betting account) merely narrows the abstract idea of account-based wagering/account management; it does not change the character of the claim as being directed to organizing a betting/gaming transaction. The claims describe the general steps of (1) associating a unique identifier with a betting account, (2) using a token to access that account, (3) retrieving a stored value, and (4) permitting or adjusting the value for betting activity. These steps are the same processes that could be performed mentally, with pen and paper, or using a generic computer.
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)
The additional elements in the claims 1-5, 7-21, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims recite the following additional elements:
a “token” (generic data carrier storing an identifier);
a “betting or gaming terminal,” “user device,” “point-of-sale terminal,” “local servers,” “central server,” and “portal” (all recited at a high level of generality as conventional computing/network hardware);
generic steps of “reading the token,” “retrieving the account information,” “accessing the betting account,” “presenting the betting account on a display,” and performing value transactions (cash/card purchases or payouts).
These elements merely use a computer (or generic token/terminal) as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see Alice); link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (betting/gaming) without improving the technology itself (see Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); and recite insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering, transmission, and display).
No claim improves the functioning of the computer itself, effects a transformation of an article, or applies the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond the ordinary use of generic hardware.
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 additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the betting/gaming field.
Use of tokens/cards storing unique identifiers to access betting accounts, anonymous accounts, and cashless wagering systems was well-known long before the filing date (as evidenced by the Vlazny reference and the specification’s acknowledgment of conventional token technology).
Generic computer functions (reading data from a token, accessing a database/account, updating a value, displaying information) do not provide an inventive concept (Alice; Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
The ordered combination of these elements is also routine and conventional.
Because the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, they are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12–17, and 19–21 add only well-understood, routine, and conventional features (e.g., local/central network communication, POS value transactions, anonymity, and use with terminals or user devices). These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vlazny (US 2006/0052153 A1).
1. Vlazny discloses a betting or gaming system comprising: a token having stored thereon a unique identity of a betting account, the unique identity only identifying the betting account; and a betting or gaming terminal configured to read the token and retrieve the account information, and to access the betting account information to retrieve a value associated with the betting account, and to permit betting activity at the betting or gaming terminal in dependence on the value of the betting account [0029], [0034]-[0035], [0037].
2. Vlazny discloses the betting or gaming system of claim 1 further comprising a plurality of local servers each connected to one or more betting or gaming terminals, wherein each local server communicates with a central server, the token being configured for use at a betting or gaming terminal connected to any local server, each local server communicating with the central server to retrieve the value associated with the betting account (Fig. 1, 6), [0052]-[0053].
3. Vlazny discloses a betting or gaming system comprising: a token having stored thereon an identity of a portal and an identity of a betting account, the identity of the betting account only identifying the betting account; and a user device configured to retrieve the identity of the portal from the token, access the portal, retrieve the identity of the betting account from the token, log onto the betting account using the identity, and present the betting account on a display for use with a value associated with the better account, thereby to enable a user of the user device to engage in betting or gaming activity using the portal [0029], [0034]-[0035], [0037].
4. Vlazny discloses the betting or gaming system of claim 3 having a local network and a central network, wherein the user device connects to the betting or gaming system via one of a local network and a central network, wherein the user device connects to the local network when in proximity of the local network (Fig. 1, 6), [0052]-[0053].
5. Vlazny discloses the betting or gaming system of claim 3 further comprising a point-of-sale terminal configured to retrieve the betting account identity from the token and access the identified betting account, and further configured to operate a value transaction to add value to the betting account associated with the token, and/or to pay a value of the account to a user of the token and decrease the betting account value by a corresponding amount [0032], [0035], [0044].
7. Vlazny discloses the betting or gaming system of claim 5 wherein the separate value transaction to add value is a purchase by cash or card, and the betting account value is increased [0032], [0035], [0044].
8. Vlazny discloses the betting or gaming system of claim 5 wherein the separate value transaction is to pay a value of the betting account to a user by cash or card, and the betting account value is decreased [0042].
9-10. Vlazny discloses a method of operating a betting or gaming system comprising: on a token: storing a unique identity of a betting account, the unique identity only identifying the betting account; and at a betting or gaming terminal: reading the token; retrieving the betting account information; accessing the betting account information to retrieve a value associated with the betting account; and permitting betting activity at the betting or gaming terminal in dependence on the value of the betting account as similarly discussed above.
11-17. Vlazny discloses a method of operating a betting or gaming system comprising: on a token: storing thereon an identity of a portal and an identity of a betting account, the identity of the betting account only identifying the betting account; and at a user device: retrieving the identity of the portal from the token; accessing the portal; retrieving the identity of the betting account from the token; logging onto the betting account using the betting account identity; and presenting the betting account on a display for use with a value associated with the betting account, thereby to enable a user of the user device to engage in betting or gaming activity using the portal as similarly discussed above.
18-20. Vlazny discloses a token for use with a betting or gaming account, the token being configured to store a unique identifier identifying only the betting or gaming account, and to be read by a point-of-sale terminal associated with a betting or gaming system, wherein the point-of sale system adds value to the betting or gaming account in dependence on a monetary transaction at the point- of-sale, the token being used for a betting or gaming transaction in dependence on the value associated with the betting or gaming account, such that the betting or gaming account value is decreased according to a bet value or gaming value, and is increased according to a winning bet value or gaming value, and wherein the point-of-sale terminal removes value from the betting or gaming account in dependence on a value associated with the betting or gaming account in dependence on a monetary transaction at the point of sale to remove value from the card as similarly discussed above.
21. Vlazny discloses the betting or gaming system of claim 1 wherein the unique identity is associated with an anonymous betting account [0029], [0034].
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
