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
Applicant has amended the independent claims and argues that Ellis does not have a separate cashless payment terminal (CPT) device, limits on transfers, and no gaming establishment accounts (Remarks 7-8 filed 7/13/2026). Examiner disagrees in-part and agrees in-part. Examiner disagrees because Ellis discloses an external SMIB 265 and touch display 245 and in concert with the credit wagering service is cashless payment terminal as broadly recited in the claims. Further, Ellis discloses as part of the credit wagering service third party external systems 216 to include fraud verification 209 and funding system 208 that impose limits on a player’s access to funds for wagering and change the operational state of the gaming device through limits, timing, and throttling. Examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s arguments that responsible gaming restrictions are policy-based and not a limit on the underlying wager management service Remarks 7). The claims don’t differentiate what limits the ability to access funds. Yet, Ellis is not explicit as to the SMIB and touch display being used as an external terminal to which Applicant is directed to the teachings of Sanford. Lastly, Ellis discloses that funds from a bank can be directed towards casino gaming accounts as well as can be dispensed from the player’s bank directly to the external SMIB {terminal} to the gaming machine to increase a credit balance as described in the rejection below.
Applicant does not offer arguments directed to Iddings and Higgins relying on the arguments made for Ellis. Thus, the rejections relying on the teachings of Iddings and Higgins are maintained. Examiner notes that reference to Cunningham is a typographical error (Non-Final Rejection filed 4/15/2026).
Applicant argues for Claims 10 and 11 (Remarks 9-10) and Examiner agrees that while Lucero discloses that funds can be sent directly to a gaming machine there is no use of a separate device that interacts with the gaming terminal. Thus, the rejections based on Lucero are withdrawn. Applicant is directed to the combination of references used in the rejection of the device in Claim 1 and the teachings of Agarwal.
Applicant argues that Agarwal also does not recite a separate device as well, however, Examiner does not rely on Agarwal for this teaching. Further, Applicant argues that Agarwal also does not teach of a tilting by a device that is independent of the gaming machine and an account server. Examiner disagrees. The claims don’t recite tilting by an independent device by the device, merely that due to a receipt of data, communicate data that results in a modification of an operational state of the gaming machine. This is not the same as a device must be the cause of the tilt condition, just to communicate data, that the gaming machine receives data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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, 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim 1, 5, 10-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0410820 to Ellis in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0177920 to Sanford and U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0372584 to Kubajak.
In Reference to Claims 1, 5, 10-12, and 16
Ellis discloses a gaming machine (Fig. 1 gaming devices 110, gaming devices 220 [0195-0196]), comprising:
a communication interface (Fig. 2A SMIB 265 and Touch Display 245 connect gaming devices 220 to a host controller 219 and a credit wagering service 205, [0194, 0196]);
a processor and memory and instructions ([0328]) to:
responsive to entering a designated operational state (responsible wager gaming [0008, 0023, 0035, see also fraud verification 209 [0201] that can trigger the imposition of cash limits and of age restrictions [0241], respectively):
communicate, via the communication interface and to a cashless payment terminal comprising an input device and a display device (Fig. 2A credit wagering service 205 via external SMIB 265 and Touch Display 245), a command that limits the terminal from facilitating, independent of any amounts of funds modifying any balances of any gaming establishment accounts, any increases of a credit balance based on any amounts of funds associated with any financial institution accounts (data pertaining to responsible gaming behaviors such as use of thresholds, monitoring, lock-out periods [0249] or credit approval throttling [0008, 0041, 0042] and of fraud activity such as underage players each result in limiting cashless payments from being made directly from a financial institution to the gaming machine wherein “In some instance, funds are advanced directly from the credit line or credit account to the gaming machine without first creating an intermediate account, such as, for example, a wager account or wallet, for tracking balances or amounts in a wager account or wallet” [0043] and Ellis also discloses that “In other embodiments the funds would be disbursed from the lender only as the player actually uses them for wagering” [0235] which one of skill in the art would understand to be that the transfer does not rely upon or utilize any casino account), and
responsive to exiting the designated operational state (for example, at the end of a one hour lock period 1010 [0249] or the presentation of a valid proof of legal age), communicate, via the communication interface and to the cashless payment terminal, a command that enables the cashless payment terminal to facilitate, independent of any amounts of funds modifying any balances of any gaming establishment accounts, an increase of the credit balance based on an amount of funds associated with a financial institution account maintained by a component of a financial institution separate from any gaming establishment fund management system (when the time has passed for “a given lock period, that lock is removed 1040 [0251]. Where the lock is not removed, the ability to advance funds in excess of the threshold is restricted.” Hence, in the absence of the designated operational state {data}, the cashless system facilitates an increase in the credit balance of funds from the independent and external funding system 208 of Fig. 2B).
If Applicant does not agree that Ellis does not have a separate cashless gaming terminal as a separate device. One of skill in the art would be aware of the kiosk of Sanford.
According to Sandford, enhanced funding systems employ a kiosk K (Figs. 1A-3C [0127]) a device independent of the gaming machine [0135] that produced a printed voucher that can be presented to a gaming machine. The kiosk allows a player to issue commands to receive funds that can be used at gaming machines ([0002, 0014, 0134, 1035]). The system can be incorporated to a casino environment as a third-party processor ([0070, 0071]). Sanford invents this system where “[i]n regard to the latter system discussed above, however, it is perceived as irritatingly inconvenient and inefficient, from the player’s standpoint, to require a player to visit a few remote ATM machines, possibly standing in line. And cash must still be handled by the player in this system, even if the player subsequently exchanges the cash for a voucher.” ([0012])
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the external SMIB and Touch Display to interface with the Credit Wagering System of Ellis with the embodiment of a kiosk of Sanford to achieve the predictable result of amplifying one of skill in the art’s understanding of the form, fit, and function of this interface as a stand-alone separate device which is a convenient location of accessing a player’s external source of funds. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
If Applicant does not agree responsible gaming and fraud monitoring do not serve as designated operation states and relatedly, control whether a cashless payment terminal or kiosk enables of limits increases or decreases of a gaming machine credit balance or of a change to an operational state of a gaming machine, Applicant is directed to the teachings of Kubajak.
According to Kubajak, there is a need for currency tracking and accounting (Titl.) wherein “[a] casino management system 124 or third party system 126 may also (or alternatively) access information that is stored, tracked, or derived by the currency tracking system 104 or currency accounting system 106 for the purpose of determining the flow of currency items and helping a casino operator, financial institution, governmental entity, or the authorities determine whether and where a crime, such as theft or fraud, occurred within a casino (and in some cases, by whom). For example, a casino management system 124 or third party system 126 may execute logical decisions, or use artificial intelligence (AI) or other learning algorithms, to determine casino patron behavior or identify transaction patterns, and use the determined behavior or patterns to, for example, 1) disable the use of devices that the casino patron may attempt to use, such as a kiosk, EGM, ATM, currency acceptor, bill validator, point-of-sale (POS) device, deposit or money transfer function, ticket printer, cash dispenser, and so on” [0038].
It would require only routine skill in the art to modify the system of Ellis with the ability to issue commands to disable gaming machines and kiosks to control patron behavior. The Courts have held that applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
10. Claims 2-4, 8-9, 13-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis, Sanford, Kubajak further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 2007/0243928 to Iddings.
In Reference to Claims 2 and 13
Ellis discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a tilt state. One of skill in the art would be aware of the teachings of Iddings.
Iddings also discloses an electronic gaming machine (Figs. 2 gaming device 2), comprising a communication interface (Fig. 1 gaming network interfaces 100 for gaming device 101), a processor (Fig. 3 processor 310); and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (Fig. 3 memory 316, software 314), cause the processor to respond when a gaming machine, when faced with, for example, the gaming machine itself or a host system in a network with the gaming machine may try to access or control the gaming machine and try to send a command to a printer of the gaming machine to print a cashless ticket of a particular value, the gaming machine will enter a hard tilt state ([0253]). Further, Iddings ([0236]) incorporates by reference U.S. Pat. No. 6,890,259 wherein over a network interfacing a gaming machine (Col. 1, ll. 27-36) where a hard tilt condition causes a lock-out state where no further game play can occur and operator intervention is required to reset the machine so that game play can resume (Col. 3, ll. 5-10) which Examiner interprets the lock-out as preventing any changes to the credit balance {increases or decreases} on the gaming machine).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify Ellis with the tilt conditions of Iddings to implement known cashless gaming such that funds transfers from a patron’s financial institution to the gaming machine can occur conveniently and securely. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claims 3-4 and 14-15
Iddings discloses an attempt to print a cashless ticket of a particular value by the host system ([0235]) which is a failed funding transaction. In light of the fraud detection of Ellis of the cashless wagering system, the failed funding transaction is associated with the cashless payment terminal.
In Reference to Claims 8-9 and 19-20
The currency tracking system of Kubajak where the transaction patterns and use the determined behavior or patterns to, for example, 1) disable the use of devices that the casino patron may attempt to use, such as a kiosk, EGM, ATM, currency acceptor, bill validator, point-of-sale (POS) device, deposit or money transfer function, ticket printer, cash dispenser, and so on” [0038] is a command that limits the terminal of Ellis from any decreases of a credit balance based on the amounts transferred to any financial institution. Further, Iddings lock-out condition s a command that limits the terminal of Ellis from any decreases of a credit balance based on the amounts transferred to any financial institution (player funds the gaming machine via electronic funds transfer [0047], begins play [0048] decreasing a credit balance [0049] are affected by the lock-out).
11. Claims 6-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis, Sanford, Kubajak, further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0102985 to Higgins.
Ellis discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose a missed heartbeat message and wherein the heartbeat message is generated by the cashless payment terminal.
Higgins discloses cashless gaming ([0022]) wherein “[i]n certain embodiments, such a registration service periodically publishes the state of health of the various applications of the different accounts as well as provides that outages or malfunctions associated with one component of the system are reported to other, interconnected components of the system. In operation of these embodiments, to provide that each of the interconnected components of the system are current on the different accounts, the system (or one or more designated components of the system) will periodically update the various interconnected components with a list of available accounts with which various transactions, as described herein, can be performed. For example, the registration service of this embodiment is responsible to inform the various cashless wagering system installations about what cashless wagering system services are available for magnetic card transactions. In another example, the registration service will initiate a heartbeat request and response for the various cashless wagering systems and the registration service to validate the connection state between at least two parties. In this example, should one of the components of the system go offline, the registration Service informs the other components of this occurrence.” ([0022]).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify Ellis with the heartbeat of Higgins originating at the terminal to establish another fail condition and to arrest processes of the gaming machine from a device separate from and independent of the gaming machine to achieve the predictable result of securing cashless gaming operations. The Courts have held that applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
Conclusion
11. 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 extension fee 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
13. 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.
14. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights