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
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 12 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative asserts that the claims are not directed non-statutory subject matter identified as a certain method of organizing human activity but recites additional elements such as: “following a receipt of first data associated with a gaming establishment personnel identification device and an establishment, based at least in part on the first data, of a designated mode of a gaming establishment device” which is not generic, conventional, or well-known in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(d). Moreover, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the additional of these elements, which are not extra solution activity because they impose meaningful limits on the claims and thus are not activities incidental to the primary process or product. As asserted by the Applicant’s representative, these elements alter a flow of operation of the claimed system in that “the determination of if any amounts of currency are received in associated with the gaming establishment device, and any communication to a component of a gaming establishment management system of data associated with occurrence of the receipt of the amount of currency and second data associated with the gaming establishment personnel identification device is based on both a receipt of first data associated with a gaming establishment personnel identification device and an establishment based at least in part of the first data, of a designated mode of a gaming establishment device” (see Remarks, pg. 7-8). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites steps associated with a fundamental economic transaction, specifically “determine if any amounts of currency are received” and communicate “data associated with the occurrence of the receipt of the amount of currency and second data associated with the gaming establishment personnel identification device”. Stated differently, the claim recites steps to determine an amount of currency that is received and communicates data associated with the amount of currency associated with the gaming establishment personnel identification device received at a gaming establishment device. This is analogous to tracking currency that is analogous to a fundamental economic transaction and/or commercial or legal interactions that include mitigating settlement risk, rules and regulations for conducting a wagering game, local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods. Furthermore, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(d), well-understood, routine, and conventional activity and/or insignificant extra solution activity includes i) receiving or transmitting data over a network and electronic recordkeeping which is analogous to the claimed subject matter of the instant application. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument that the additional elements impose meaningful limits to the claims is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 102, the Applicant’s representative argues that while Higgins includes responsive to a handpay lockup event (i.e. an intervention event that occurs when an award amount associated with a game outcome obtained during a play of a game at the EGM, such as a jackpot award that exceed the jurisdictional handpay limit, and causes the EGM to lock up awaiting gaming establishment personnel intervention) and following an operator successfully logging into the EGM to pay the player and keyoff the amount of the award won from the credit meter balance of the EGM, the system tracks the actions of the operator and enforces zero, one or more permissions with the identified operator, such an amount is not an amount of currency received in association with the gaming establishment device following a receipt of first data associated with a gaming establishment personnel identification device. In particular, the Examiner is persuaded that the handpay amount which places the system into a designated mode does not determine if any amounts of currency was received after the gaming establishment device operating in the designated mode. For at least these reasons, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/543,270 and over claims 1-8 and 13-20 of co-pending Application No. 17/843,143 [as filed in the most recent amendment on December 29, 2025, at the time of this writing] (reference applications). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the claimed inventions of the present application and the reference applications are substantially overlapping directed as being directed to a process performed on a system following the receipt of first data associated with a gaming establishment personnel identification device and an establishment, based at least in part on the first data, of a designated mode of a gaming establishment device, the process including determining if issuance of an amount of money/ticket vouchers has occurred and if so, communicating to a component of a gaming establishment management system, data associated with including at least one or more of an amount of currency received, the gaming establishment personnel identification data, and/or data associated with occurrence of the ticket voucher being issued. While certain claim language differs, the crux of the claimed invention in each of the above-identified reference application is substantially overlapping to the crux of the claimed invention of the present application, warranting a standing of nonstatutory double patenting. For instance, differences such as an amount of currency as opposed to a ticket voucher do not substantially change the scope of the claimed invention as a ticket voucher is known in the art as a means to represent an amount of currency in gaming systems.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 grouping of abstract without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, recite limitations directed to a grouping of abstract idea such as:
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 and an establishment, based at least in part on the first data, of a designated mode of a gaming establishment device, cause the processor to:
determine if any amounts of currency are received after the receipt of first data associated with the gaming establishment personnel identification device by the gaming establishment device operating in the designated mode, - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process; and
responsive to the determination being that an amount of currency was received by the gaming establishment device operating in the designated mode, communicate, to a component of a gaming establishment device management system, data associated with the occurrence of the receipt of the amount of currency and second data associated with the gaming establishment personnel identification device. – certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite steps and/or instructions directed to a fundamental economic transaction. Moreover, the claims recite a mental process because they recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that is capable of being performed in the human mind. For at least these reasons the claims are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “a processor;” “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 and an establishment, based at least in part on the first data, of a designated mode of a gaming establishment device, cause the processor to:” and “by the gaming establishment device operating in the designated mode, communicate, to a component of a gaming establishment device management system” are found to recite mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited additional elements such as: “a processor”, and “a memory device” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements are not found to amount to an inventive concept. For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses that a conventional gaming system comprises a process and a memory that is known to one of ordinary skill in the gaming arts (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). For at least these reasons, the additional elements are similar to the case in Alice v. CLS, where they are not found to recite an inventive concept but invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, are not found to amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claims 10 and 12, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as analyzed with respect to independent Claim 1. The claims differ in that they are directed are further directed to a mode for clearing a meter of independent claim 10 and the method of operating a system of independent Claim 12. However, these differences do not change or alter the analysis under 35 USC 101. For substantially the same reasons, claims 10 and 12 are directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20, the limitations of the dependent claims have been analyzed and were found to additional recite limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
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 RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715