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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea of organizing of human activity. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application and 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 drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2a1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-9 recite a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following a requested transaction against an integrated bank account created on behalf of a user, cause the processor to:
determine, based on a limit associated with a gaming establishment account linked to the integrated bank account, whether to proceed with the requested transaction against the integrated bank account,
responsive to the determination being that the requested transaction against the integrated bank account complies with the limit associated with the gaming establishment account, operate with a component of a banking institution to attempt to complete the requested transaction against the integrated bank account, and
responsive to the determination being that the requested transaction against the integrated bank account does not comply with the limit associated with the gaming establishment account, terminate the requested transaction into the integrated bank account.
Claims 10-11 recite a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following a requested deposit of funds into an integrated bank account created on behalf of a user, cause the processor to:
determine, based on a deposit limit relative to an amount of funds deposited over a tracked period of time, whether to proceed with the requested deposit of funds into the integrated bank account, the deposit limit being determined in association with a gaming establishment account linked to the integrated bank account,
responsive to the determination being that the requested deposit of funds into the integrated bank account complies with the deposit limit determined in association with the integrated bank account, communicate data to a component of a banking institution to complete the requested deposit of funds into the integrated bank account, and
responsive to the determination being that the requested transaction does not comply with the deposit limit determined in association with gaming establishment account, terminate the requested deposit of funds into the integrated bank account.
Claims 12-22 recite a method of operating a system, the method comprising: following a requested transaction against an integrated bank account created on behalf of a user:
determining, by a processor and based on a limit associated with a gaming establishment account linked to the integrated bank account, whether to proceed with the requested transaction against the integrated bank account,
responsive to the determination being that the requested transaction against the integrated bank account complies with the limit associated with the gaming establishment account, causing the processor to operate with a component of a banking institution to attempt to complete the requested transaction against the integrated bank account, and
responsive to the determination being that the requested transaction against the integrated bank account does not comply with the limit associated with the gaming establishment account, terminating, by the processor, the requested transaction against the integrated bank account.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of organization of human activity). The claimed limitations of a fundamental economic principle or a commercial interaction.
Step 2a2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration of whether the claim recites additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
An additional element or combination of additional elements that are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-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
Additional element or combination of additional elements that are not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application include:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claims 1-20 are not directed to an improvement to a function of a computer. There is no improvement to a technical field. In addition, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way.
The additional elements of : a system comprising a processor and a memory is recited at a high level of generality and therefore acts as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
The additional elements identified above considered alone and in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims a system comprising a processor and a memory device. As indicated in Applicant’s specification discloses the processor and memory device are well known, conventional components (paragraphs 91-93 of the specification).
The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims further recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The dependent clams merely include limitations that further define the abstract idea and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claim limitations individually and as a whole do not amount to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nguyen (US 2019/0122492).
Claim 1. Nguyen discloses a system (Fig. 7) comprising:
a processor (763 in Fig. 7); and a memory device (761 in Fig. 7) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following a requested transaction (financial transactions, paragraphs 44-57) against an integrated bank account created on behalf of a user (In the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim limitation of “integrated bank account” is interpreted a bank account that is linked to the system. Nguyen discloses a bank account or an account by a financial institution that is integrated or linked to the system; paragraphs 312, 423, 424, 434), cause the processor to:
determine, based on a limit (threshold value, paragraphs 73-77, 79, 431, 549-551) associated with a gaming establishment account linked to the integrated bank account (Transfer to player’s account; paragraphs 43, 56-57, 177, 228. In addition, when a person exchanges money to and from gaming chips at a gaming table or at a cage, a gaming establishment account is created or modified since the system monitors the money/chips the player has to play at the table or at the casino; paragraphs 188-189, 413-479, 483-502, 504-507), whether to proceed with the requested transaction (paragraphs 44-57) against the integrated bank account,
responsive to the determination being that the requested transaction against the integrated bank account complies with the limit associated with the gaming establishment account, operate with a component of a banking institution to attempt to complete the requested transaction against the integrated bank account (transaction that are “normal” or within the standard deviation or within the limit/threshold are not flagged therefore processed; accept transaction; accept wager, paragraphs 111-112, 256, 260, 548-549, 554-555), and
responsive to the determination being that the requested transaction against the integrated bank account does not comply with the limit associated with the gaming establishment account, terminate the requested transaction against the integrated bank account (Nguyen discloses that the transaction is delayed or on hold, pending additional verifications and/or actions; paragraphs 131, 572. It is inherent that the transaction process is terminated when additional verification fails or the additional action results in an unlawful transaction). Nguyen also discloses that accounts are associated with banking institutions (paragraphs 44, 312, 423, 424, 434),
Claim 2. Nguyen discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the requested transaction against the integrated bank account comprises a deposit of an amount of funds into the integrated bank account (money deposit transaction paragraph 51).
Claim 3. Nguyen discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the requested transaction against the integrated bank account comprises a transfer of an amount of funds from the integrated bank account to an electronic gaming machine (paragraphs 53, 59, 62, 70, 223).
Claim 5. Nguyen discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the limit is associated with at least one of: an identity of the user, an amount of funds associated with the requested transaction against the integrated bank account, and the amount of funds associated with the requested transaction against the integrated bank account relative to a total amount of funds associated with a quantity of transactions over a period of time (amount for transaction, or total amount with a quantity of transaction over a period of time; paragraphs 72-112).
Claim 6. Nguyen discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the integrated bank account is associated with a payment instrument (credit card, debit card, casino card; ticket voucher, paragraphs 71, 189, 312).
Claim 7. Nguyen discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the payment instrument comprises a debit card issued by the banking institution (credit card, debit card, casino card; ticket voucher, paragraphs 71, 189, 312).
Claim 8. Nguyen discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the gaming establishment account comprises a cashless wagering account (credit card, debit card, casino card; ticket voucher, paragraphs 71, 189, 312).
Claim 9. Nguyen discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the requested transaction against the integrated bank account occurs responsive to data associated with a user input being received (input is required to make a wager, buy or sell voucher, cash in, voucher, etc.; paragraph 242).
Claims 10-11. See rejection for claims 1-2 above. Nguyen also discloses a gaming establishment account and game accounting managed by a financial server system (casino account, gaming account; paragraphs 43, 177, 180, 223, 424, 505).
12-14, 16-20. See rejections above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (US 2019/0122492).
Claims 4, 15. Nguyen discloses the method and system as discussed above but fails to teach that the requested transaction against the integrated bank account comprises a transfer of an amount of funds from the integrated bank account to bank account maintained independent of the component of the banking institution. Nevertheless, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. Nguyen discloses that various fanatical transactions are detected and determined if the transaction does not comply with the limit (paragraph 44) including money transfer transaction (paragraph 56). A transfer of an amount of funds from an integrated bank account to a bank account maintained independent of the component of the banking institution is a money transfer transaction with a bank account. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nguyen’s invention and determine if a transfer of an amount of funds from the integrated bank account to a bank account maintained independent of the component of the banking institution complies with the limit since Nguyen discloses that the transaction can be a money transfer transaction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant argues that the claims provide a solution by setting limits with a gaming account against an integrated and ensure that certain transactions remain in compliance with gaming establishment account regulations as well as bank account regulations. The claims provides a benefit of employing ant integrated bank account in association with certain transactions and enable suer to access funds in real time, without the use of a bank account that is established outside the casino. The utilization of an integrated bank account enables a user to maintain their funds in a gaming establishment account and therefore have faster access to the account compared to an account of a bank outside casino. The claim also reduces or eliminates the use of cash, and therefore provide a cashless ensure environment.
However, ensuring a transaction is within a limit is an abstract idea. The benefit having funds accessible with an integrated bank account is a benefit for having an account with particular establishment. It is not an improvement to a computer or technology. Money held in one particular establishment should be more accessible within that particular establishment compared to money held in another establishment. In addition, the claim does not specify how the bank account is integrated or what makes the bank account integrated. Using a cashless account such as an electronic account, credit card, mobile wallet, etc., inherently eliminates the use of cash. This is not an improvement to a computer or any other technology. The claim limitations are not an improvement to a computer or any other technology.
Prior art
Applicant argues that Nguyen fails to teach a limit associated with the casino account and a transaction against an integrated bank account or any bank account.
However, Nguyen discloses a limit (threshold value, paragraphs 73-77, 79, 431, 549-551) associated with financial transactions (paragraphs 44-57). The transactions are associated with a gaming establishment account. More specifically, Nguyen transactions associated with player’s account (paragraphs 43, 56-57, 177, 228). In addition, when a person exchanges money to and from gaming chips at a gaming table or at a cage, a gaming establishment account is created or modified since the system monitors the money/chips the player has to play at the table or at the casino (paragraphs 188-189, 413-479, 483-502, 504-507). The limit is against an integrated bank account. In the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim limitation of “integrated bank account” is interpreted a bank account that is linked to the system. Nguyen discloses a bank account or an account by a financial institution that is integrated or linked to the system (paragraphs 312, 423, 424, 434).
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).
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 Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571 270-7625. 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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715