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 automatically created on behalf of a user, cause the processor to:
determine, based on a limit associated with a gaming establishment cashless wagering account linked to the integrated bank account, whether to proceed with the requested transaction against the integrated bank account, wherein the limit is unenforceable by a computing component of a banking institution that maintains the integrated bank account and operates distinct from the processor,
responsive to the determination being that the requested transaction against the integrated bank account complies with the limit associated with the gaming establishment cashless wagering account, operate with the computing 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 cashless wagering 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 automatically 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 cashless wagering account linked to the integrated bank account, wherein the limit is unenforceable by a computing component of a banking institution that maintains the integrated bank account and operates distinct from the processor,
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 gaming establishment cashless wagering account, communicate data to the computing of the 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 cashless wagering 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 cashless wagering account linked to the integrated bank account, whether to proceed with the requested transaction against the integrated bank account, wherein the limit is unenforceable by a computer component of a banking institution that maintains the integrated bank account and operate distinct from the processor
responsive to the determination being that the requested transaction against the integrated bank account complies with the limit associated with the gaming establishment cashless wagering account, causing the processor to operate with the computing component of the 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 cashless 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “an integrated bank account automatically created on behalf of a user”. Applicant’s specification fails to describe that an integrated bank account is automatically created on behalf of a user.
Paragraph 15 of specification discloses that upon an enrollment event, such as a user requesting a creation of a gaming establishment patron management account (e.g., a gaming establishment player tracking account) and/or the user requesting a creation of a gaming establishment fund management account (e.g., a cashless wagering account), the system of the present disclosure operates with a banking institution to potentially create an integrated bank account (e.g., a checking account). In these embodiments, following a validation of the user as eligible to participate, the system interfaces with a component of a banking institution, such as a bank server, to create an integrated bank account that is dedicated to the user and associated with the system of the present disclosure.
There is no description that an integrated bank account is automatically created. Although the specification discloses that the system create an integrated bank account, there is no description that this is done automatically. The specification discloses that a suer can request a creation of an account. However, there is no description the creation of an account occurs without any user’s or operator’s intervention or input.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by dependency. Claims 10-20 incorporate similar limitations and are rejected for the same reason as discussed above.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein the limit is unenforceable by a computing component of a banking institution that maintains the integrated bank account and operates distinct from the processor”. Applicant’s specification fails to discloses that the limit is unenforceable by a computing component of a banking institution that maintains the integrated bank account.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by dependency. Claims 10-20 incorporate similar limitations and are rejected for the same reason as discussed above.
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 system employs an integrated bank account to enable users real-time access to funds in the gaming establishment account with sacrificing various security measures in a way not previously achieved integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. In addition, the claimed system acts as a bridge between non integrated computing systems integrates gaming establishment funds management systems with computing components of banking institutions. The claimed invention enables access to the benefits of employing an automatically created integrated bank account while accounting for different regulator obligations that apply to gaming establishment cashless wagering accounts.
However, employing an integrated bank account to enable users to access funds is an abstract idea of organizing human activity. In addition, bridging or communicating funds or data between different account or financial institutions and creating a cashless wagering account is also an abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claim limitations are not an improvement to a computer or any other technology.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights