DETAILED ACTION
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 Status
After the amendments filed 12/29/2025, claims 1-20 remain pending, of which, 1, 10 and 12 were amended.
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. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, 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 Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 10 and 12, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following a receipt of first data associated with a gaming establishment personnel identification device (Mental Processes) and an establishment, based at least in part on the first data, of a designated mode of a gaming establishment device (Mental Processes), cause the processor to:
determine any issuance of any ticket vouchers after the receipt of first data associated with the gaming establishment personnel identification device by the gaming establishment device operating in the designated mode (Mental Processes), and
responsive to the determination being that an issuance of a ticket voucher by with the gaming establishment device operating in the designated mode occurred, communicate, to a component of a gaming establishment device management system, data associated with the occurrence of the issuance of the ticket voucher and second data associated with the gaming establishment personnel identification device (Mental Processes).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 10 and 12) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Mental Processes, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a processor, a memory, a ticket printer, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., “determine any issuance of any ticket vouchers in association with the gaming establishment device”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Mental Processes. These limitations are interpreted as at least Mental Processes insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the concepts in the human mind, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, 11 and 13-20:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Mental Processes. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Mental Processes to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, 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 claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amount to significantly more than one or more judicial exception, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “a processor, a memory, a ticket printer etc.” used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general purpose structure and general purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of a processor, a memory and a ticket printer are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2004/0204228, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises a processor and a memory (¶58) and U.S. 2008/0254854, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises a ticket printer (¶24) to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶2). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 12 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weiss (U.S. 2003/0051971).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Weiss discloses:
a system (¶45-46, cashless gaming system 10) comprising:
a processor (¶347, processor P); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (¶46, Fig. 1, real-time gaming account system 20 which comprises software for controlling the cashless gaming system 10), following a receipt of first data associated with a gaming establishment personnel identification device (¶10, ¶215, ¶231, a system withdrawal being placed requires logging of information such as an employee identification associated with the withdrawal) and an establishment, based at least in part on the first data, of a designated mode of a gaming establishment device (¶208, an authorized person (i.e., employee) accessing features which are restricted to authorized personnel), cause the processor to:
determine any issuance of any ticket vouchers after the receipt of first data associated with the gaming establishment personnel identification device by the gaming establishment device operating in the designated mode (¶16, ¶180-195, ¶318, ¶339, ¶369-370, printer 128 prints a voucher for a specified amount, meters are used to track wagering transfers to and from gaming machines (i.e., a determination is made that a wagering transfer (i.e., printed voucher) occurred and said transfer is tracked via said meter), all transactions are recorded and include the date, time and employee identification for the transaction), and
responsive to the determination being that an issuance of a ticket voucher by with the gaming establishment device operating in the designated mode occurred, communicate, to a component of a gaming establishment device management system, data associated with the occurrence of the issuance of the ticket voucher and second data associated with the gaming establishment personnel identification device (¶215, ¶225, ¶231, ¶369-370, when a withdrawal is performed the wagering system 20 documents all transaction details including a history of account transactions and the employee identification information).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Weiss discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the ticket voucher comprises a virtual ticket voucher (¶348, ¶351, memory card 140 may be used to track the player’s status including funds and related awards).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Weiss discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the ticket voucher is associated with a potentially illegal ticket voucher state (¶209-212, a ticket voucher associated with a player whose account is suspended due to fraudulent activity (i.e., the player’s account (and the vouchers which are associated with the player’s account) are associated with a potentially illegal state (i.e., fraud)).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Weiss discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the second data associated with the gaming establishment personnel identification device comprises a subset of the first data associated with the gaming establishment personnel identification device (¶215, ¶225, ¶231, ¶369-370, when a withdrawal is performed the wagering system 20 documents all transaction details including the employee identification (i.e., the subset of the first data includes all the elements of the set of first data)).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Weiss discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the second data associated with the gaming establishment personnel identification device comprises an identifier of gaming establishment personnel (¶215, ¶225, ¶231, ¶369-370, when a withdrawal is performed the wagering system 20 documents all transaction details including the employee identification).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Weiss discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the gaming establishment device comprises an electronic gaming machine (¶261, withdrawals are made at gaming machines G).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Weiss discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the data communicated to the component of the gaming establishment device management system results in at least one of: a redemption limitation associated with the ticket voucher (¶210, ¶215, ¶218, when a withdrawal is performed the wagering system 20 documents all transaction details including player account status, wherein a player status being suspended denies the player access to any funds associated with the account (e.g., funds associated with the voucher)), a revocation of access to the designated mode of the gaming establishment device in association with the gaming establishment personnel identification device (¶210, ¶215, ¶218, when a withdrawal is performed the wagering system 20 documents all transaction details including player account status, wherein a player status being suspended revokes the player’s ability to access the account without the assistance of casino personnel), and a generation of a report inclusive of the issuance of the ticket voucher (¶210, ¶215, ¶218, ¶236, when a withdrawal is performed the wagering system 20 documents all transaction details including player account status and a record of total withdrawals (e.g., printed voucher)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 10-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (U.S. 2003/0051971) in view of LeStrange et al (U.S. 5,470,079).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 13, Weiss discloses:
a system (¶45-46, cashless gaming system 10) comprising:
a processor (¶347, processor P); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (¶46, Fig. 1, real-time gaming account system 20 which comprises software for controlling the cashless gaming system 10) following enabling an identified electronic gaming machine operator access to service an electronic gaming machine (¶208, an authorized person (i.e., employee) accessing features which are restricted to authorized personnel), cause the processor to:
determine any printing of any ticket vouchers by a ticket printer of the electronic gaming machine (¶16, ¶318, ¶339, ¶369-370, printer 128 prints a voucher for a specified amount, meters are used to track wagering transfers to and from gaming machines (i.e., a determination is made that a wagering transfer (i.e., printed voucher) occurred and said transfer is tracked via said meter)), and
responsive to a printing of a ticket voucher, communicate, to a component of a gaming establishment device management system, data associated with each of the occurrence of the printing of the ticket voucher and the identified electronic gaming machine operator (¶215, ¶225, ¶231, ¶369-370, when a withdrawal is performed the wagering system 20 documents all transaction details including a history of account transactions and the employee identification).
However, Weiss does not specifically disclose that:
the performance of the determining and the communication steps follows a determined clearing of a meter of the electronic gaming machine.
LeStrange teaches:
a gaming machine accounting system (abstract), including non-resettable meters (3:20-38, accumulative non-resettable “drop” meters), which provide a complete record of all gaming activity, for the purposes of ensuring accounting data integrity (3:57-4:3, 5:65-6:20, monetary flows are tracked by drop meters 38 for each different form of monetary value accepted by gaming machine 10), wherein following determined meter event of the electronic gaming machine, accounting data associated with the meter event is logged in association with the event which causes the meter event (2:39-3:3, 4:67-5:12, when meter values are updated the event which caused the changes are also recorded (i.e., if a meter clearing event occurred the meter clear and the associated event would be recorded) and used to allow game operators to perform an complete audit of the gaming machine).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to determine the printing of the ticket vouchers and communicating the data, as taught by Weiss, in order to facilitate a full accounting to allow for a complete audit of the gaming meters, as taught by LeStrange, in order to automate the gaming machine accounting in order to improve reliability and reduce costs (See LeStrange, 1:10-27).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 14, Weiss discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the issuance of the ticket voucher occurs following manufactured funds being added to a credit balance of the gaming establishment device (¶16, ¶48, ¶339, a casino may deposit promotional (i.e., manufactured) credits into an account associated with a player and then requests a withdrawal from the funds and printer 128 prints a voucher for said funds).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitations of the claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind or performed by a human using a pen and paper (See Remarks, pgs. 7-8). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The complexity or speed of an operation does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. While a processor may perform the steps faster than a human, the underlying steps (e.g., receiving data, establishing a designated mode, determining issuance of ticket vouchers, communicating data, etc.), are fundamentally mental steps which can easily be performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. For example, a human could mentally determine any ticket vouchers have been made (i.e., by seeing vouchers being issued). The claims simply use generic computer components to perform these mental steps, without any additional elements which are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Weiss does not include issuance of any ticket vouchers in association with a gaming establishment dev ice following receipt of first data associated with a gaming establishment personnel identification device (See Remarks, pg. 8). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Weiss discloses that the system records a history of account transactions which include date, time and employee identification information (¶180-195). For the system to record the employee identification for the transaction, the system must inherently first receive the identification (i.e., to be capable of recording said information).
The remainder of the applicant's arguments are substantially directed to newly added limitations. The Examiner respectfully submits that the prior art of record discloses these limitations, as discussed in the updated rejections as set forth above. Accordingly, the Applicant is directed to the rejection of the claims above for a detailed response to Applicant's arguments as to the applicability of the prior art.
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 JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/Jason Pinheiro/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights