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 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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite systems and methods for accounting of funds by managing redemption limitations of issued funds. These are fundamental economic practices of long standing and are methods of organizing human activities. In addition, the method can be performed by a human without the aid of a computer. Thus, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
(a) It does not improve the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field;
(b) Applying the judicial exception does not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
(c) Do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine;
(d) It does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
(e) It does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the systems and methods utilize generic computing elements as shown by Applicant’s specification at paragraphs 0089.
The system includes gaming establishment devices, ticket printers, processors, and memory, each of which appear to be generic computers performing generic computing functionality (e.g. data communication, storage, display, voucher issuance, etc.).
Regarding exemplary claim 1, the functionality of the system is a process of identifying when a service mode is enabled, determining if a voucher is issued and responsive to, managing the assignment of a redemption limitation to the voucher. The process is abstract and merely implemented by generic computing. The abstract idea can be carried out by a person without the aid of aid generic computing. A human can perform functions responsive to identifying that a gaming establishment device is in a service mode. A human can identify or observe the issuance of a voucher associated with an amount of funds. And, a human can communicate that the voucher is to be assigned a redemption limitation. The computing elements, as claimed are generic, per Applicant’s specification, as such the communication between generic computing elements (e.g. data storage, communication, and the like) is the conventional use of generic computers to carry out the abstract idea.
The dependent claims merely describe the data more specifically or specify the form the data takes. Data is abstract. Or, the dependent claims set forth specificities of the redemption limitations and further funds management (e.g. timing or basis of funds voucher issuance), each of which are similarly abstract. Therefore, the dependent claims cannot add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. Adding abstraction to abstraction cannot make the claims less abstract.
Currently, implementation of an abstract idea on generic computers is not patent-eligible without “significantly more.” Neither the abstract idea itself nor parts of the abstract idea can supply “significantly more” than the abstract idea. As written, current claims are drawn to an abstract idea with essentially the words “implement it” on a generic computer appended thereto. As such, the claims are not patent-eligible.
A thorough analysis or each and every limitation of each and every claim, both individually and as a part of an ordered combination shows that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101, as none of the claims, provide a technological improvement over existing/conventional technology or a technical solution to a technical problem in order to set forth the abstract idea with the significantly more required.
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)(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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shepherd et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0282064; hereinafter “Shepherd”).
Claims 1, 10, & 12: Shepherd discloses a system comprising:
a processor (paragraphs 0003, 0013, 0044-0051); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions (paragraphs 0003, 0013, 0044-0051) that, when executed by the processor following an establishment of a service mode of a gaming establishment device and an occurrence of a ticket voucher request (paragraph 0027, wherein Shepherd discloses before issuance of a ticket upon a cashout request (a ticket voucher request) at an electronic gaming machine (a gaming establishment device), the ticket voucher system interfaces with an anti-money laundering system, interpreted as the establishment of a service mode of the EGM as the anti-money laundering system is providing an anti-money laundering service to the EGM), cause the processor to:
cause a ticket voucher associated with an amount of funds to be issued (paragraph 0027, wherein Shepherd discloses upon interfacing with the anti-money laundering system, a ticket voucher is issued or printed), and
communicate, to a component of a gaming establishment device management system, data associated with the issued ticket voucher, wherein the communication of data results in the issued ticket voucher being associated with a redemption limitation (paragraph 0027, wherein Shepherd discloses that after issuing the ticket voucher, data indicative of a redemption limitation as an update is communicated to, and stored at, the ticket voucher system (gaming establishment device), the update causing communication of data that results in the issued voucher being associated with the redemption limitation; additionally, Applicant is directed to paragraphs 0021-0043 that further detail relevant specific processes performed by the system pertaining to the anti-money laundering service mode that causes the EGM, ticket voucher system, and the anti-money laundering systems to interface with one another and communicate data that ultimately results in issued ticket vouchers being associated with redemption limitations).
Regarding claim 10, all of the above with respect to claim 1 applies, such that Shepherd discloses the system of claim 1 similarly performs the functions of: following enabling an identified gaming machine operator access to service the EGM (i.e. interfacing with the anti-money laundering system is interpreted as identified gaming machine operator access to service the EGM), determining any printing of any ticket voucher by the ticket printer of the EGM and responsive to the printing of a ticket voucher associated with an amount of funds, communicating, to a component of a gaming establishment device management system (the ticket voucher system), data associated with the printed voucher and a redemption limitation associated with the printed ticket voucher (at least paragraph 0027, and further detailed in the specificity disclosed in at least paragraphs 0021-0043).
Regarding claim 12, all of the above with respect to claim 1 applies, such that Shepherd clearly discloses the same method which substantially corresponds to the functionality of the system as detailed above.
Claims 2-4, 11, & 13-15: Shepherd discloses that the redemption limitation comprises (i) a location where the issued ticket voucher may be redeemed for the amount of funds, (ii) a device that the issued ticket voucher may be redeemed at for the amount of funds, or (iii) an entity whom may redeem the issued ticket voucher for the amount of funds (paragraphs 0022-0023).
Claims 5 & 16: Shepherd discloses that the establishment of the service mode of the gaming establishment device occurs in association with gaming establishment personnel and the communicated data comprises data identifying the gaming establishment personnel (paragraph 0027, wherein a query to the anti-money laundering system, interpreted as the establishment of the service mode, includes identifiers such as an EGM identifier or an EGM asset number, interpreted as “gaming establishment personnel” and communicates the data comprising the information in the query).
Claims 6 & 17: Shepherd discloses that the ticket voucher is caused to be issued following manufactured funds being added to a credit balance of the gaming establishment device (paragraphs 0011 & 0014, wherein Shepherd discusses money laundering activities such as large quantities of bills being added to a credit balance of the EGM, the large quantities of bills interpreted as “manufactured funds”).
Claims 7 & 18: Shepherd discloses that the ticket voucher is caused to be issued following a meter of the gaming establishment device being reset (paragraph 0027, i.e. a ‘cashout event’ is interpreted as a ticket voucher being issued following a meter of the EGM being reset).
Claims 8 & 19: Shepherd discloses that the ticket voucher comprises a virtual ticket voucher (paragraphs 0019, 0033).
Claims 9 & 20: Shepherd discloses that the gaming establishment device comprises the EGM or electronic gaming machine as discussed above (figure 1[EGM 108]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILAP SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30-6PM.
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.
/MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715