CTFR 18/541,453 CTFR 91075 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding patent eligibility, Applicant argues that the financial services that are only functionally recited integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant cites an operation of the disclosed invention that is unclaimed to support this assertion. Applicant’s argument that the arrangement of accounts saves time, removes a player’s manual funding of accounts, provides for operations efficiencies, removes the use of cash and overcomes previous regulatory barriers do not have a basis in the claims. The claimed invention’s integration into a practical application appears to rely on the claim language “reconciling the integrated bank account against at least a backing bank account” which is exactly the type of activity that was denied patent eligibility in Alice . All of the technical problems that are noted in arguments are the same or similar issues discussed in Alice and because the guidance in the MPEP does not overturn Alice the claims remain patent ineligible. Regarding prior art, Applicant argues that Newsom does not include an integrated account created on behalf of a user and that the banking account is not associated with a cashless wagering account. Examiner disagrees with this reading of Newsom and notes that the Newsom does disclose an integrated account created on behalf of a user as noted below. Examiner also notes that while Applicant argues that no cashless account is recited by Newsom in the description of the invention, the functionality of the accounts and purpose of Newsom as indicated in the abstract and other areas noted below meet the definition of a cashless wagering account. The dual wagering and retail purposes disclosed by Newsom are the same high level abstract functions that are claimed. Accordingly, the claims remain rejected by Newsom . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-6, 8-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception. The claims will be analyzed with respect to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test at MPEP§2106. Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 1 (see MPEP§2106.03) The claims recite one of the four statutory categories of subject matter. Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 1 (see MPEP§2106.04(a-c)) The claims recite abstract ideas in the following categories; Methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and commercial or legal interactions; (MPEP§2106.04(a)(2)II) (hereinafter “MOHA”). The abstract ideas have been noted in the claims below. Regarding claim 1, following an occurrence of a settlement event, determine a transaction against an integrated bank account created on behalf of a user (MOHA – this being the triggering event of an economic, commercial or legal interaction), wherein the integrated bank account is linked to a gaming cashless wagering account establishment account associated with that user (MOHA – this being a status of a party within an economic, commercial or legal interaction), and communicate, to a component of a banking institution, data that is based on the determined transaction against the integrated bank account and that results in the component of the banking institution reconciling the integrated bank account against at least a backing bank account associated with the gaming establishment cashless wagering account (MOHA – this being identification of parties, communication to parties and effectuation of an economic, commercial or legal interaction). Regarding claims 2-6 and 8-9, these claims recite additional details of the economic, commercial or legal interaction. Regarding claims 10, 12-17 and 19-20, these claims recite abstract ideas as noted above regarding claims 1-6 and 8-9. Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 2 (see MPEP§2106.04(d)) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a memory, processor and other generic computer hardware; insignificant extra solution activity such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data; and the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. These additional elements individually and in combination provide for limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements (1) add “insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) and (2) generally link “the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I). These additional elements individually and in combination are not limitations that provide for “improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) apply or use the “judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) implement the “judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) effect “a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) or apply or use “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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I). As such the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2B (see MPEP§2106.05) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional generic computer hardware and insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP§2106.05). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 12-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2022/0147957 by Newsom . Regarding claim 1, Newsom discloses a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (abstract) following an occurrence of a settlement event (para. 40; Table 2A – see settlement initiation), cause the processor to: determine a transaction against an integrated bank account created on behalf of a user, wherein the integrated bank account is linked to a gaming establishment cashless wagering account associated with that user (abstract; para. 26-28, 40; Table 2A – see the bank account associated with the user for the transaction), and communicate, to a computing component of a banking institution, data that is based on the determined transaction against the integrated bank account and that results in the computing component of the banking institution reconciling the integrated bank account against at least a backing bank account associated with the gaming establishment cashless account (abstract; para. 26-28, 40; Table 2A – see debit provided by the bank based on the requested transaction). Regarding claim 2, Newsom discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the transaction against the integrated bank account comprises an amount of funds to deposit into the integrated bank account (para. 48; Table 2I – see transfer to bank). Regarding claim 3, Newsom discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the transaction against the integrated bank account comprises an amount of funds to transfer from the integrated bank account (para. 47; Table 2H – see transfer from bank). Regarding claim 4, Newsom discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the integrated bank account is associated with a payment instrument (para. 44; table 2E – see debit card). Regarding claim 5, Newsom discloses the system of Claim 4, wherein the payment instrument comprises a debit card issued by the banking institution and usable at a retail point-of-sale terminal (para. 29 – see point of sale terminal). Regarding claim 6, Newsom discloses the system of Claim 4, wherein the data results in the computing component of the banking institution reconciling the integrated bank account against a bank account associated with the retail point-of-sale terminal (para. 29 – see point of sale terminal at retail location). Regarding claim 8, Newsom discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the reconciliation occurs responsive to an input received, via an input device, from an operator (para. 50; table 2K – see cage operator inputs). Regarding claim 9, Newsom discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the settlement event automatically occurs based on an amount of time since a prior settlement event (para. 92 -see time limit). Regarding claims 10, 12-17 and 19-20, these claims are rejected as noted above regarding claims 1-6 and 8-9, mutatis mutandis. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 PETER J IANNUZZI whose telephone number is (571)272-5793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM EST. 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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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. /PETER J IANNUZZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/541,453 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/541,453 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/541,453 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/541,453 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/541,453 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/541,453 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/541,453 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights