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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 02/05/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below.
New rejections are made under 35 USC 112(b) in view of amendments, see detailed analysis below.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
Claims 1-20 are now pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 12 recites that the electronic gaming machine "operating independent of the device." The metes and bounds of "operating independent" cannot be ascertained from the claim language. It is unclear whether "independent" requires (i) physical separation in distinct housings, (ii) execution by separate processors, (iii) operation on separate power supplies, (iv) operation under different control software, (v) operation without any shared electrical or data connection, or (vi) some combination thereof. The specification does not appear to recite a definition that resolves the ambiguity as the claims themselves recite a communication interface (and, in Claim 10, a second communication interface) between the claimed device and the master gaming controller of the electronic gaming machine, indicating that the two are not fully "independent" in any ordinary sense. Appropriate clarification is required.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20 inherit this discrepancy by nature of their dependencies.
Claim 12 recites “responsive to a receipt, via the communication interface…” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 13-20 inherit this discrepancy by nature of their dependencies.
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 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1 to 20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved. The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html).
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a device in Claims 1-11, and a method of operating a device in Claims 12-20. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram. Under this step, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception and does the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. .
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Here, representative claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis): “Claim 1 (currently amended): A device comprising:
a communication interface; (additional element)
a processor; (additional element)and
a memory device (additional element) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a receipt, via the communication interface and from a master gaming controller (additional element) of an electronic gaming machine operating independent of the device, of data associated with an amount of funds to be cashed out from a credit balance of the electronic gaming machine to a financial institution account maintained by a financial institution, cause the processor to:
cause a communication, to a computing device (additional element) of the financial institution, of at least the data associated with the amount of funds and data associated with the financial institution account, and
responsive to a receipt of data associated with a financial institution confirmation of a transfer of the amount of funds to the financial institution account, communicate, via the communication interface and to the master gaming controller of the electronic gaming machine, data that results in the master gaming controller of the electronic gaming machine decreasing, independent of any amounts of funds modifying any balances of any gaming establishment accounts, the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine based on the amount of funds, wherein the decrease of the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine occurs independent of any physical currency distributed by the electronic gaming machine and independent of any cashless ticket vouchers distributed by the electronic gaming machine.”
Claim 10 recites the following: “Claim 10 (currently amended): A device comprising:
a card reader; (additional element)
a first communication interface; (additional element)
a second communication interface; (additional element)
a processor; (additional element) and
a memory device (additional element) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a selection, in association with a cashout event at an electronic gaming machine operating independent of the device, of transferring an amount of funds from a credit balance of the electronic gaming machine to a financial institution, cause the processor to:
capture, via the card reader and from a financial institution card, data associated with a financial institution account maintained by the financial institution,
communicate, via the first communication interface and to a payment gateway in communication with a computing device of the financial institution, the data associated with the financial institution account and data associated with the amount of funds of the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine, and
responsive to a receipt, via the first communication interface and from the payment gateway, of data associated with a financial institution confirmation of a transfer of the amount of funds to the financial institution account, serially communicate, via the second communication interface and in accordance with a slot accounting system protocol, data that results in a master gaming controller of the electronic gaming machine decreasing, based on the amount of funds and independent of any amounts of funds modifying any balances of any gaming establishment accounts, the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine.”
Claim 12 recites the following: “Claim 12 (currently amended): A method of operating a device, the method comprising:
responsive to a receipt, via the communication interface and from a master gaming controller of an electronic gaming machine operating independent of the device, of data associated with an amount of funds to be cashed out from a credit balance of the electronic gaming machine to a financial institution account maintained by a financial institution;
causing a communication, to a computing device of the financial institution, of at least the data associated with the amount of funds and data associated with the financial institution account, and
responsive to a receipt of data associated with a financial institution confirmation of a transfer of the amount of funds to the financial institution account, communicating, via a communication interface and to the master gaming controller of the electronic gaming machine, data that results in the master gaming controller of the electronic gaming machine decreasing, independent of any amounts of funds modifying any balances of any gaming establishment accounts, the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine based on the amount of funds, wherein the decrease of the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine occurs independent of any physical currency distributed by the electronic gaming machine and independent of any cashless ticket vouchers distributed by the electronic gaming machine.”
The italicized portions of representative Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims and 10 and 12, generally encompass the abstract idea. Without the generic computer and electronic gaming structure, Independent Claim 1 recites: receiving data identifying an amount of funds to be cashed out and a financial institution account; communicating that data to the financial institution; receiving confirmation of a transfer; and causing a balance to be decreased by the amount transferred. These steps of the claims falls under abstract ideas such as, for example: a fundamental economic practice as discussed in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014) and a method of organizing human activity (managing a commercial transaction between a payor, a financial institution, and a balance-holder) as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank — both of which are enumerated abstract-idea groupings under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Further, the dependent Claims include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
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 ;
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)); and/or
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).
Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 10, and 12 (and their respective dependent Claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 10, and 12), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: "a communication interface," "a processor," "a memory device," "a card reader," "a first communication interface," and "a second communication interface,"— are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoke generic computing components as tools to carry out the abstract idea. Here:
(i) The processor, memory, and communication interfaces perform conventional computing operations (receiving, storing, transmitting).
(ii) The card reader and input device are recited generically to perform their conventional functions of capturing card-borne data and operator input.
(iii) The master gaming controller and electronic gaming machine define the field of use (gaming). Limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not provide patent eligibility. Alice, 573 U.S. at 222–23.
Furthermore, none of these elements reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. The claims do not recite any improvement to the functioning of a computer, an electronic gaming machine, or a payment network; they merely automate, on generic hardware, the long-standing economic practice of authorizing a charge and applying it to a balance. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additionally, none of these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 10, and 12 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 10, and 12 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present (MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Considered individually and as an ordered combination the additional elements as recited above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The recited electronic gaming machine components are each well-understood, routine, and conventional in the gaming art. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Additionally, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Furthermore, taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 10, and 12 (and their dependent Claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to conduct a game with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
For at least the above reasons, Claims 1 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
Dependent Claims are ineligible and lack a practical application.
Claims 2-9 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 1.
Claim 11 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 10.
Claims 13-20 inherit the same abstract idea as Claim 12.
The dependent claims recite further extra-solution activities and further define the abstract idea of the independent claims.
AIA Notice
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 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-13, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 11,321,994 B2 to Prabhaker et al. (hereinafter Prabhaker).
Regarding Claim 1 (currently amended) and similarly recited Claims 10 and 12,: Prabhaker discloses a device comprising:
a communication interface, a processor, and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that … (fig. 1, Col. 7:47-51 discloses the cashless interface 14 may comprise a processor 200, a I/O interface or bus 202, a memory 204, such as for storing machine-readable code which is executable by the processor 200, and at least one communication interface 206),
… when executed by the processor responsive to a receipt, via the communication interface and from a master gaming controller of an electronic gaming machine operating independent of the device (fig. 1, cashless interface 14, Col. 1:44-48 “A cashless interface is interposed between a communication port, such as a SAS port, of a gaming machine and one or more external devices and systems, such as a slot machine interface board and a gaming machine or “slot” management system” – Col. 1:44-48; “… an existing gaming machine 12 may be retrofit with the cashless interface 14 in order to implement the cashless functionality” Col. 7:38-41 (this reads on operating independently as the device is separate from and operates independently of the gaming machine and master gaming controller); The cashless interface 14 communicates with the gaming machine controller – master gaming controller 150 via a SAS port (fig. 1, Col. 7:13-22); “the communication interface 206 may comprise a first port, such as a serial port, for facilitating a wired communication link between the SAS port 158 of the gaming machine 12 and the cashless interface 14” Col. 7:54-57; Prabhaker discloses “normal communications between the gaming machine 12 and the slot management system 18 via the SMIB 16 are permitted through the cashless interface 14” Col. 9:18-20), …
of data associated with an amount of funds to be cashed out from a credit balance of the electronic gaming machine to a financial institution account maintained by a financial institution (fig. 4, Col. 1:53-58, discloses the cashless interface is used to facilitate a transfer of funds from a player's e-wallet associated with the financial system to the gaming machine, or to facilitate a transfer of funds from the gaming machine to the player's e-wallet; Col. 11:55 – Col. 12:59 cash out/moving funds process of fig. 4; Col. 8:66 – Col. 9:2 discloses the financial system 26 is configured to communicate with one or more external banks or other financial entities B, such as via a banking or financial network 34, and the e-wallet may be funded from a bank account such that the e-wallet (this maps to a financial institution account maintained by a financial institution) … when a player may use the application on their player device 30 to designate an amount of monetary funds to be transferred from the gaming machine (i.e. the cashout sequence) Col. 11:59-62), cause the processor to:
cause a communication, to a computing device of the financial institution, of at least the data associated with the amount of funds and data associated with the financial institution account (fig. 4, depicts a flow diagram of a method of moving funds electronically from a gaming machine to another location, and preferably an e-wallet; Col. 12:19-35, Col. 8:65 – Col. 9:4 discloses the player device 30 generates and transmits a request to the financial system 26 of the desired transaction amount and the designated gaming machine. This request may be transmitted via a wireless signal from the player device 30 to the financial system 26 (step S5) … the financial system 26 generates and transmits a request or instructions to the cashless controller 22 (step S6), which communicates with the cashless interface 14 (step 7) to effectuate the cashout; the financial system is configured to communicate with external banks B via network 34), and
responsive to a receipt of data associated with a financial institution confirmation of a transfer of the amount of funds to the financial institution account, communicate, via the communication interface and to the master gaming controller of the electronic gaming machine, data that results in the master gaming controller of the electronic gaming machine decreasing …. the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine based on the amount of funds … (Col. 12:47-48, Col. 60-63, Col. 12:34-40, discloses in a step S9, the gaming machine 12 may then respond to the cashless interface 14 to effectuate a transfer of the monetary value funds from the gaming machine 12 … The gaming machine 12 may then reflect a corresponding decrease in the number of credits available to be wagered at the gaming machine 12, such as in the form of a reduced credit balance … In an embodiment where the gaming machine 12 communicates using the SAS protocol (IGT, Reno Nev.), this request may comprise an “AFT OUT” ),
… independent of any amounts of funds modifying any balances of any gaming establishment accounts … (Col. 12:41-59 discloses the cashout flow transfers funds directly between the gaming machine’s credit meter and the player’s e-wallet account at the financial system 26, with confirmation routed back through the cashless controller 22 to update the e-wallet balance… Col. 11:45-54 discloses normal operation of the gaming machine 12 is not changed, wherein when the funds are associated with the gaming machine 12 and the gaming machine's meters, the association of those funds with the gaming machine may be reported in the form of an updated meter balance by the gaming machine to the casino's SMS system 18 … the transfer moves funds from the game machine meter directly to the player’s e-wallet and does not affect any gaming establishment account),
…. wherein the decrease of the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine occurs independent of any physical currency distributed by the electronic gaming machine and independent of any cashless ticket vouchers distributed by the electronic gaming machine (fig. 4, Col. 11:55 – Col. 12:63 discloses an electronic funds transfer system of funds and not physical currency or cashless tickets).
Regarding Claim 2 and similarly recited Claim 13, (original): Prabhaker discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein the data associated with the financial institution account is determined via capturing data associated with a payment instrument (Col. 11: 55 - Col. 12:3-18 discloses the player’s e-wallet account information may be associated with a player device 30 acting as a payment instrument with credentials captured via an NFC tap).
Regarding Claim 5, and similarly Claim 16, (original): Prabhaker discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein the data associated with the financial institution account is determined in association with retrieving data from a prior funding transaction of the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine (Col. 11:21-32).
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly recited Claim 17, (original): Prabhaker discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein the communication of at least the data associated with the amount of funds and the data associated with the financial institution account occurs in association with a payment gateway (fig. 1, gateway 24, Col. 8:28-35 discloses cashless controller 22 is preferably communicatively coupled to the financial system 26, such as via a gateway 24. The gateway 24 may itself comprise a computing device (such as with a processor, memory and machine-readable code and a communication interface) which facilitates the communications between the cashless controller 22 and the financial system 26, such as over a secured communication link).
Regarding Claim 7, and similarly recited Claims 11 and 18, (original): Prabhaker discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to impose a limit in association with cashing out funds from the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine to the financial institution account (Col. 10:61-67 discloses the financial system 26 generates and transmits a request or instructions to the cashless controller 22 (such as via the gateway 24). This request is preferably dependent upon a confirmation by the financial system 26 that the amount of funds that the player has requested to be transferred from their e-wallet are associated with their wallet).
Regarding Claim 9, and similarly recited Claim 20, (original): Prabhaker discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to automatically cash out the amount of funds to the financial institution account upon an occurrence of a cashout event (Col. 13:49-59 discloses if the player left funds on the gaming machine 12, then the cashless interface 14 might be configured (either directly, via the cashless controller 22 or financial system 26) to cause those funds to be transferred from the gaming machine 12 to the player's wallet, effectively removing the funds from the gaming machine 12 so that they can't be used by another player. This process would be similar to that illustrated in FIG. 4, except that the transfer of funds from the gaming machine 12 is not player initiated, but is instead automatic).
Regarding Claim 10 (currently amended): it is anticipated for substantially the same reasons as Claim 1, with the following additional limitations. Prabhaker discloses a device comprising:
a card reader (fig. 2, card reader 166, Col. 6:65-67);
a first communication interface and a second communication interface (Col. 7:50-64 discloses the communication interface 206 may comprise a first port, such as a serial port, for facilitating a wired communication link between the SAS port 158 of the gaming machine 12 and the cashless interface 14. The communication interface 206 may include a second port, such as a second serial port, for facilitating a wired communication link between the cashless interface 14 and the SMIB 16. The communication interface 206 may further include one or more additional ports, such as an Ethernet port for facilitating a wired communication link between the cashless interface 14 and the cashless controller 22) (The Ethernet port to the cashless controller reads on the first communication interface and the serial port to the gaming machine SAS port reads on the second communication interface);
serially communicate, via the second communication interface and in accordance with a slot accounting system protocol (Col. 13:60-64 discloses gaming machine may be configured to communicate (via its SAS port) using a SAS protocol. Such a protocol is implemented over a serial communications port. … specific SAS messages used to effectuate the meter decrement are recited such as “AFT OUT” and “LP 74” – Col. 12: 34-49).
Regarding Claim 12 (currently amended), it recites a method of operating a device, performing substantially the same operations as the device of Claim 1 and is anticipated for the same reasons. Prabhaker discloses the corresponding method at Fig. 4, and Col. 11: 55 – Col. 12:63.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4, 8, 14-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11,321,994 B2 to Prabhaker et al. (hereinafter Prabhaker) in view of U.S. Patent 6,890,258 to Weiss.
Regarding Claim 3 and similarly recited Claim 14, (original): Prabhaker discloses the device of Claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a housing and a card reader supported by the housing, wherein the payment instrument comprises a financial institution card and the data associated with the financial institution account is captured in association with the financial institution card.
In a related invention, Weiss discloses a cashless gaming system further comprising a housing and a card reader supported by the housing, wherein the payment instrument comprises a financial institution card and the data associated with the financial institution account is captured in association with the financial institution card (fig. 4B, Col. 21:35-39, The redemption apparatus 110 preferably includes a cabinet 129 which houses the display 132, an input 126 for receiving the player memory card 140 and an output 130 which distributes to the player an award).
Prabhaker and Weiss are both directed to cashless gaming systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Prabhaker’s cashless interface with a housing supported card reader as taught by Weiss in order to accommodate players who prefer to authenticate via a physical card rather than a mobile device. The combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 4, and similarly recited Claim 15, (original): Prabhaker in view of Weiss discloses the device of Claim 3, wherein the financial institution card comprises one of a debit card and a credit card (Weiss, Col. 23:5-8 discloses a player approaches an enrollment station 40 and completes a player club application including a debit/credit portion).
Regarding Claim 8, and similarly recited Claim 19, (original): Prabhaker in view of Weiss discloses the device of Claim 1, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause a generation of a receipt in association with the decrease of the credit balance of the electronic gaming machine (Weiss, Col. 20:53-56, Col. 16:25-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Weiss’s receipt printing functionality with Prabhaker’s cashout flow process in order to provide an audit trail of the cashout-to-e-wallet transaction, which is particularly desirable for regulatory compliance and/or player dispute resolution.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of the Response filed 02/05/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by U.S. Patent 5,038,022 to Lucero, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to Claims 1, and 12 reciting the electronic gaming machine operates “independent of the device”. Lucero discloses an integrated card reader forming part of the gaming machine itself, rather than a separate device. Accordingly, the rejection over Lucero is withdrawn.
Upon further consideration in light of the amendments, new grounds of rejection are made over newly cited prior art.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are examined above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, David Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights