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. 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 (MOHA – this being the triggering event of an economic, commercial or legal interaction), wherein the integrated bank account is associated with a user and linked to a gaming 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 account (MOHA – this being identification of parties, communication to parties and effectuation of an economic, commercial or legal interaction).
Regarding claims 2-9, these claims recite additional details of the economic, commercial or legal interaction.
Regarding claims 10-20, these claims recite abstract ideas as noted above regarding claims 1-9.
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
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)(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) 1-20 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, wherein the integrated bank account is associated with a user and linked to a gaming establishment account associated with that user (para. 40; Table 2A – see the bank account associated with the user for the transaction), 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 account (para. 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 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 7, Newsom discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the gaming establishment account comprises a cashless wagering account (see at least para. 26-27 - wagering accounts).
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 10-20, these claims are rejected as noted above regarding claims 1-9, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
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