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 performing a mental process. 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, cause the processor to:
determine if any non-volatile memory clearing events occur in association with a gaming establishment device operating in a designated mode at least partially based on a receipt of first data associated with a gaming establishment personal identification device, and
responsive to an occurrence of a non-volatile memory clearing event in association with the gaming establishment device, communicate, to a component of a gaming establishment device management system, data associated with the occurrence of the non-volatile memory clearing event and second data associated with the gaming establishment personnel identification device.
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, cause the processor to:
responsive to enabling an identified electronic gaming machine operator to access to service an electronic gaming machine:
determine any resetting of a meter of the electronic gaming machine that tracks fund transactions, and
responsive to an occurrence of a resetting of the meter of the electronic gaming machine, communicate, to a component of a gaming establishment device management system, data associated with each of the occurrence of the resetting of the meter of the electronic gaming machine and the identified electronic gaming machine operator.
Claims 12-20 recite a method of operating a system, the method comprising:
determining, by a processor, if any non-volatile memory clearing events occur in association with a gaming establishment device operating in a designated mode at least partially based on a receipt of first data associated with a gaming establishment personal identification device, and
responsive to an occurrence of a non-volatile memory clearing event in association with the gaming establishment device, communicating, to a component of a gaming establishment device management system, data associated with the occurrence of the non-volatile memory clearing event and second data associated with the gaming establishment personnel identification device.
The underlined limitations recite an abstract idea of performing a mental process.
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: receipt data amounts and communicating data to mere data gathering and transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant post solution or extra-solution activity.
The processor and memory is recited at a high level of generality and therefore acts as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea.
For the reasons discussed above, 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 1-20 recite a processor, memory configured to receipt of data, and communicate data.
Chen (US 2006/0116208) discloses it is well known of electronic gaming machine to comprise a processor, and memory device (paragraph 5).
The steps of communicating, transmitting data over a network is well known, routine and conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
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 performing a mental process 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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, cause the processor to: determine if any non-volatile memory clearing events occur in association with a gaming establishment device operating in a designated mode at least partially based on a receipt of first data associated with a gaming establishment personal identification device.
The claim is indefinite because it is not clear if the determination step occurs at least partially based on a receipt of first data or if the operation of the gaming establishment device occurs at least partially based on a receipt of first data.
Claims 1-9 are rejected by dependency.
Claims 12-20 incorporate similar limitations and are rejected for the same reason as discussed above.
Claim 1 recites, cause the processor to: determine if any non-volatile memory clearing events occur in association with a gaming establishment device operating in a designated mode at least partially based on a receipt of first data associated with a gaming establishment personal identification device.
The claim indefinite because it is not clear when infringement would occur. It is not clear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system comprising a processor and a memory that stores instructions to cause the processor the determine if any non-volatile memory clearing event occurs, or whether infringement occurs when once creates the system and a gaming establishment device operates in a designated mode.
Claims 1-9 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 10 recites: responsive to enabling an identified electronic gaming machine operator to access to service an electronic gaming machine:
determine any resetting of a meter of the electronic gaming machine that tracks fund transactions.
The claim is indefinite because it is not clear if the memory device is required to store instructions that enables an identified electronic gaming machine operator to access to service an electronic gaming machine or if the claim is claiming a step that occurs.
In addition, the claim indefinite because it is not clear when infringement would occur. It is not clear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system comprising a processor and a memory that stores instructions to cause the processor the determine any resetting of a meter, or whether infringement occurs when once creates the system and the step of enabling an identified electronic gaming machine operator to access to service an electronic gaming machine occurs.
Claim 11 is rejected by dependency.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/26 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental process. Applicant argues that that the human mind is not capable of: determining if any non-volatile memory clearing events occur in association with a gaming establishment device operating in a designated mode at least partially based on a receipt of first data associated with a gaming establishment personnel identification device, and responsive to an occurrence of a non- volatile memory clearing event in association with the gaming establishment device, communicating, to a component of a gaming establishment device management system, data associated with the occurrence of the non-volatile memory clearing event and second data associated with the gaming establishment personnel identification device cannot practically be performed in the human mind or performed by a human using a pen and paper.
However, the step of determining if any non-volatile memory clearing events occur in association with a gaming establishment device operating in a designated mode at least partially based on a receipt of first data associated with a gaming establishment personnel identification device, and responsive to an occurrence of a non- volatile memory clearing event in association with the gaming establishment device is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind. The determination step is made at least partially based on data. The data is associated with a gaming establishment personnel identification device. Such determination can be performed mentally by observing or evaluating the data and making a judgment.
Applicant further submits that the system of Claim 1 recites additional elements including "responsive to an occurrence of a non-volatile memory clearing event in association with the gaming establishment device, communicate, to a component of a gaming establishment device management system, data associated with the occurrence of the non-volatile memory clearing event and second data associated with the gaming establishment personnel identification device". Such elements are not generic, conventional, or well-known. Applicant argues that the additional elements do not qualify as extra solution activity because they impose meaningful limit on the claim.
However the step of communicating data that was determined electronically is a step of transmitting data, which is well known routine and conventional. The claim limitations do not impose meaningful limitation since it is simply transmitting data based on the determination.
Applicant argues that the claim as a whole contains additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims provide a technical improvement over prior system. More specifically and as explained in the present application, while gaming establishment regulators and gaming establishment equipment providers have introduced various security measures to make it relatively difficult for gaming establishment personnel to steal from a gaming establishment, certain malicious gaming establishment personnel frequently attempt to overcome these security measures with an aim of embezzling funds from the gaming establishment. For example, while gaming establishments have implemented an accounting audit process in which a gaming establishment device management system (e.g., a slot accounting system) periodically reads one or more meters from various gaming establishment devices (e.g., EGMs on a casino floor) and compares those meters to the actual cash obtained from the gaming establishment devices during an audit/drop process, certain gaming establishment personnel utilize gaps in this process to embezzle gaming establishment funds. In view of these security gaps and the activities undertaken by gaming establishment personnel to take advantage of these security gaps, the claimed systems track certain activities associated with potential embezzlements (i.e., a non-volatile clearing event occurring in association with a gaming establishment device established to be in a designated mode). The claimed systems further utilize such tracked activities to take zero, one or more preventive actions (i.e., communicate data associated with the occurrence of the non-volatile memory clearing event and data associated with a gaming establishment personnel identification device to a component of a gaming establishment device management system) to combat the security concerns. Such a technical combination of elements introduces an unconventional functionality beyond the previous capabilities of prior systems to realize specific enhanced security measurements aimed at minimizing (or eliminating) potential embezzlement activities of malicious gaming establishment personnel.
However, the step of auditing data as claimed by making a determination partially based on data is an abstract idea. The claim requires the determination if a memory clearing event occurs in associating a gaming establishment device partially based on a receipt of first data, and the determination of resetting a meter of the electronic gaming machine that tracks fund transactions (claims 10-11). These determinations can be performed mentally.
Prior Art
The prior art rejection has been withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
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
Prosecution Insights