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 .
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 December 29, 2025, at the time of this writing] & over claims 1-8 & 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 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.
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