DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed June 10, 2026. The Examiner acknowledges that no claims were amended, canceled, or added. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
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. 18/543,229 [as filed in the most recent amendment on June 11, 2026, at the time of this writing] & over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/543,143 [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 to performing a process 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 ticket vouchers has occurred and if so, communicating to a component of a gaming establishment management system, data associated with parameters including one or more 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.
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 ideas.
Claim 1 recites:
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 currency is received in association with the gaming establishment device, and
responsive to an amount of currency being received in association with the gaming establishment device:
determine any issuance of any ticket vouchers in association with the gaming establishment device, and
responsive to an issuance of a ticket voucher in association with the gaming establishment device, communicate, to a component of a gaming establishment device management system, data associated with the receipt of the amount of currency, the occurrence of the issuance of the ticket voucher and second data associated with the gaming establishment personnel identification device.
The limitations of claim 1 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. That is, a human is capable of performing a monitor process that watches when a gaming establishment personnel access a gaming machine, insert currency, and cause issuing of ticket vouchers as an observation, and perform a judgement or responsive evaluation of such including the recordation of information pertaining to the currency, occurrence of the ticket voucher being issued, and the gaming establishment personnel. 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 “in association with the gaming establishment device, 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 a substantially similar process as analyzed with respect to independent Claim 1 for analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 purposes. The claims differ in certain wording that does not appear to amount to materially different process. Thus, 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.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previously presented provisional double patenting rejection, the rejection is maintained and reproduced above as Applicant chose to hold any requirement for a terminal disclaimer in abeyance until the claims are found allowable. The rejection has been updated to reflect corrected application number and claims in response to the typographical error in the previous Office Action as noted by Applicant in the remarks field June 10, 2026.
Regarding the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant’s arguments filed June 10, 2026 were fully considered but they were not found persuasive, and therefore the rejection is maintained for at least the following reasons.
As explained in the prior Office action, independent claim 1 (and similarly claims 10 and 12) is directed to least (i) a “certain method of organizing human activity” and (ii) a “mental process”, as those groups are described in MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim recites using personnel identification data to establish a designated mode of a gaming establishment device, monitoring when currency is received and ticket vouchers are issued during that mode, and correlating those events with particular personnel and an establishment for the purposes of control and audit.
This is an administrative/business scheme for managing personnel behavior and financial transactions in a gaming operation, such as who may put a device in a designated mode, what cash and vouchers flow while the mode is active, and how that information is recorded and used to enforce access and redemption policies. Such “commercial or legal interactions” and “managing personal behavior” fall squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category.
The prior Office action also explained that a human can, in principle, perform the same logical monitoring process: observe when an identified attendant activates a designated mode or key switch, watch whether currency is inserted and vouchers are issued while the mode is active, and record or evaluate those events for supervisory action. The fact that the claims implement this scheme with electronics does not remove them from the “mental process” grouping, which includes observation, judgement, and evaluation capable of being conceptualized as human-administered rules, even if a computer is used for scale and/or speed.
Applicant’s reliance on Enfish and SRI appears misplaced. Those cases found claims non-abstract because they were directed to specific improvements in computer or network technology (i.e. self-referential tables in Enfish, network-traffic analysis to improve network security in SRI), not to business/organizational policies implemented with generic computers. The presents claims do not recite any improvement to processors, memory, gaming machine hardware, or network technology, but instead automate an audit/control procedure in a gaming establishment. The abstract idea identified in the previous Office action and reiterated above here is appropriately tied to the claim language and not an impermissible overgeneralization.
Applicant points to limitations such as receiving first data associated with personnel IDs and an establishment, establishing a “designated mode” based on that data, determining currency receipt and ticket voucher issuance, and communication data to a management system, and asserts that these “entirely alter a flow of operation” and impose meaningful limits.
However, as explained in the maintained rejection, these additional limitations are mere instructions to apply the abstract control/audit scheme in a particular technological environment (i.e. gaming establishment devices and a gaming establishment device management system) and with generic computer components (i.e. “a processor”, “a memory device”, etc.). The amount to input, state-setting, monitoring, and output of the very business rules that constitutes the abstract idea. Under MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h), such generic input/output, state-detection, and communication steps are classic “insignificant extra-solution activity” and “field of use / technological environment” limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims do not effect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, an improvement to another technology or technical field, or a particular machine transformation beyond using conventional gaming devices and management systems as tools to implement the judicial exception.
Applicant also argues that elements such as “following a receipt of first data…based on at least in part of the first data, of a designated mode” are not generic or conventional and that the Office has not provided sufficient factual basis, such as under Berkheimer.
The prior Office action identified a processor and memory device as generic computer components and cited Vancura as evidence that conventional gaming systems includes processors and memory for implementing gaming functions. Vancura confirms that such architectures were well understood in the gaming arts at the time of filing. The present claims use those conventional components for their ordinary purpose of receiving data, storing instructions, detecting events, and communication data to a management or host system.
The “designated mode” tied to personnel data are claimed functionally as a logical state and access-control rule, not as any new hardware, firmware, or software structure. There is no indication, either in the claims or the disclosure, of any unconventional hardware architecture or non-routine operation of these specific computing elements. When the abstract idea is set aside, the remaining elements and their combination do not amount to more than the application of that abstract idea using generic computer and gaming machine components in a conventional manner. As in Alice, “merely requiring generic computer implementation” to perform an abstract business/audit process fails to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
For at least these reasons, the Examiner must respectfully maintain the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection to claims 1-20 as previously presented and reproduced above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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.
/MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights