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
After the amendments filed 03/19/2026, claims 1-20 remain pending, of which, 1, 10 and 12 were amended.
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 judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 10 and 12, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to an occurrence of a transfer context data creation event, cause the processor to:
create transfer context data to identify a gaming establishment device of a gaming establishment (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity), and responsive to a receipt, from a server of a financial institution, of data associated with an approval of a transfer of an amount of funds from a financial institution account maintained in association with the financial institution independent of the gaming establishment (Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity), cause, based on the created transfer context data, a transfer of the amount of funds to the identified gaming establishment device, wherein the transfer occurs independent of any wagering account transfers (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 10 and 12) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a processor, a memory, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping.
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Fundamental Economic Practices and Principles (e.g., “cause, based on the created transfer context data, a transfer of the amount of funds to the identified gaming establishment device, wherein the transfer occurs independent of any wagering account transfers”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. These limitations are interpreted as at least Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (e.g., “responsive to a receipt, from a server of a financial institution, of data associated with an approval of a transfer of an amount of funds from a financial institution account maintained in association with the financial institution independent of the gaming establishment”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. These limitations are interpreted as at least Commercial or Legal Interactions insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the Commercial or Legal Interactions while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims; and/or
C. Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., “create transfer context data associated with a gaming establishment device of a gaming establishment”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Mental Processes. These limitations are interpreted as at least Mental Processes insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing the concepts in the human mind, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, 11 and 13-20:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-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 – see Vanda Memo
-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)
-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
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “a processor, a memory”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general purpose structure and general purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of a processor and a memory are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2004/0204228, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine comprises elements such as a processor and memory to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶58). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prather et al (U.S. 2012/0142403).
Regarding claims 1, 10-11 and 12, Prather discloses:
a system (¶42, EFT system 100) comprising:
a processor (¶11-12, ¶36, gaming device processor); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (¶43, database 135 which stores encrypted data for each transaction 133) responsive to an occurrence of a transfer context data creation event (¶17, ¶19-20, initiating an application in the EFT device which causes the EFT device to send a request to a secure payment gateway), cause the processor to:
create transfer context data to identify a gaming establishment device of a gaming establishment (¶43, each transaction causes encrypted transaction data to be generated and stored in database 135 which includes, at least, a gaming device ID), and
responsive to a receipt, from a server of a financial institution, of data associated with an approval of a transfer of an amount of funds from a financial institution account maintained in association with the financial institution independent of the gaming establishment (¶56, the debit network server forwards the request to the specified bank server and the bank confirms access to the payment gateway IS via the debit network), cause, based on the created transfer context data, a transfer of the amount of funds to the identified gaming establishment device (¶56, the IS sends transaction details and funds to the ACS funds management portal which then transfers the transaction details to the appropriate gaming credit system and gaming device host system, which then transmits the funds to the appropriate gaming device), wherein the transfer occurs independent of any wagering account transfers (¶16, funds are issued to the gaming device directly).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Prather discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the transfer context data creation event occurs in association with a pairing with a mobile device (¶18, ¶20, the EFT device includes a mobile device (e.g., mobile phone, PDA, smartphone, etc.), initiating an application on the EFT device causes the EFT device to send a request to a secure payment gateway which in turn causes the creation of encrypted transaction data including gaming dev ice ID, the examiner interprets the communication between the mobile device and the payment gateway as a pairing under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “paring”).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Prather discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
a slot machine interface board associated with the gaming establishment device pairs with the mobile device (¶11-12, a controller which receives card/ticket information and forwards the information to external systems, and further performs validation and authorization function in communication with external validation systems, the examiner interprets such a controller as a SMIB under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “SMIB” as it provides communication between the gaming device and external systems).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Prather discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the created transfer context data comprises an identification of the gaming establishment device (¶43, each transaction causes encrypted transaction data to be generated and stored in database 135 which includes, at least, a gaming device ID).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Prather discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the transfer context data creation event occurs in association with a request to transfer the amount of funds from the financial institution account (¶37, ¶56, the user is provided UI to enter transaction details such as payment transaction type, amount of funds and account from which to withdraw funds).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Prather discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the created transfer context data comprises timing data associated with the request to transfer the amount of funds from the financial institution account (¶18, the encrypted data includes transaction date or time data).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Prather discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the gaming establishment comprises a plurality of gaming establishment sites (¶18, the system includes a plurality of EFT devices (i.e., a plurality of sites within a casino)) and the created transfer context data comprises a gaming establishment site associated with the gaming establishment device (¶43, each transaction causes encrypted transaction data to be generated and stored in database 135 which includes, at least, a gaming device ID).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Prather discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the memory device stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to communicate the created transfer context data to at least one of a server associated with an external funding solution, and a server associated with an electronic funds transfer transaction service (¶56, the IS sends transaction details and funds to the ACS funds management portal which connects to the user’s financial accounts via an ATM network).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Prather discloses that which is discussed above, and further discloses that:
the gaming establishment device comprises an electronic gaming machine (¶18, the EFT device is a gaming device such as a slot machine).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that, in light of Enfish the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because software claims are not inherently abstract (See Remarks, pg. 6). The examiner must respectfully disagree. In Enfish, the claims were directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality itself (i.e., a self-referential table). Here, the instant claims are directed to creating transfer context data…and causing a transfer of funds independent of any wagering account transfers. This is financial transaction routing, which is Fundamental Economic Practice, which the courts have repeatedly held be an abstract idea. Unlike Enfish, the instant claims do not improve the function of a computer, processor, memory or the communication protocol. These generic computer elements are used as a tool to perform the routing, without any additional elements which add “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Applicant appears to argue that the claims are improperly identified at a “high level of abstraction” (See Remarks, pg. 6). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The examiner’s characterization is grounded in the actual claim language, broadly and reasonably interpreted in light of the specification. Specifically, the instant claims recite steps such as creating transfer context data, receiving approval information from a financial institution and causing a transfer of funds based on that data, all of which are activities which fall squarely within the realm of financial transaction processing. The claims do not recite any improvement to the computer functionality (e.g., new data structures, unconventional communication protocols, etc.) or any technological improvement to the processor, memory, or gaming hardware. Rather, the claims merely use generic computing components to implement the financial transaction logic, which the courts have consistently held to be abstract. Further, applicant’s specification describes the system components and their interactions only at a high level of generality, replying on broadly stated processors, memory devices, communication interfaces and software modules, without disclosing any specific technical improvements to their operations. Accordingly, the examiner’s characterization is not an improper abstraction but an accurate reflection of the claims when read in light of the specification.
Applicant argues that the additional elements integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by allegedly providing a specific solution to the problems associated with bypassing regulated gaming accounts to transfer funds to gaming establishment devices. Specifically, applicant argues that the creation and use of transfer context data constitutes a technological improvement that ensures funds are routed to the correct gaming establishment device when the device does not otherwise identify itself (See Remarks, pgs. 6-7). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The claims merely recite generating and using information “transfer context data” to facilitate the routing of funds, an activity that constitutes financial transaction processing and does not reflect any improvement to computer technology. The specification describes the system components and their interactions only at a high level of generality, without disclosing any technical improvements (e.g., an unconventional architecture, specialized data structure, technical enhancements to device pairing, netowkring or transaction security, etc.). Applicant’s alleged “solution” is therefore a business oriented workflow implemented on generic computing components, not a technical improvement (i.e., an improvement arising due to technology).
Applicant argues that the claimed system provides a number of practical advantages, such as saving users time and effort in setting up gaming accounts, reducing the need for patrons to carry cash, improving security, reducing heath concerns associated with cash and ticket vouchers and minimizing human error in cash based transactions (See Remarks, pgs. 7-8). The examiner must respectfully disagree. While such advantages may be desirable from a business standpoint, they do not constitute technological improvements relevant to the 101 analyses. But rather, the alleged benefits arise from the business context in which the abstract idea is applied. The claims merely implement financial transaction routing using generic computing components without reciting any additional elements which constitute “significantly more”. The Courts have consistently held that improvements in convenience, accuracy or human-error reduction, when achieved through the automation of business practices, are non-technical do not transform an abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific improvement to technology because the system allegedly provides a technically improved way to identify a destination gaming establishment device and transfer funds without relying on regulated game establishment accounts (See Remarks, pg. 8). The examiner must respectfully disagree. The claims do not recite any improvement to the functioning of a computer, processor, memory, etc. Instead, the claims merely use generic computing components to implement the abstract idea of routing financial transactions using information “transfer context data”. Merely applying an abstract idea within a particular technological environment does not render the claim eligible (See MPEP 2106.05(a)). Further, improvements to a business process, even if described as more efficient or streamlined, do not constitute improvements to computer technology (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the specification describes the system components in broad function terms and relies on routine computer operation to carry out the claimed steps, and thus, does not provide a technical explanation as to how to implement the alleged improvement.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Prather does not create any transfer context data associated with the gaming device as claimed. Specifically, applicant argues that Prather merely stores a gaming device ID in a database and does not create such data “responsive to a transfer context data creation event” and the transaction data is not created for the purpose of identifying a game establishment device for routing funds (See Remarks, pg. 9). The examiner must respectfully disagree. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Prather discloses data that meets the claimed “transfer context data”. The claims do not require the data be labeled as “transfer context data”, nor do they require any particular data structure or format. Rather, the claims recite data that is created to identify a gaming establishment device and is used to route funds to that device. Prather expressly discloses such data. Specifically, Prather discloses creating transaction data in response to a transaction initiating event (¶43, database 135 includes encrypted data for each transaction 133, including a transaction ID, a gaming credit system ID, gaming device ID, user name, transaction value, date and time). This data is created in response to the initiation of the fund transfer request and submitting of a transaction request (See Fig. 5, steps 401-409). Further, Prather discloses that the transaction data identifies the gaming device (¶43, the encrypted data for each transaction includes a gaming device ID). Under BRI, any data that identifies the gaming device meets this limitation. Prather also teaches that the encrypted transaction data is transmitted to the ACS funds management portal, which uses the gaming device ID to route the funds to the appropriate gaming credit system and ultimately to the correct gaming device, which is functionally equivalent to the claimed use of the transfer context data (¶56, Fig. 5).
The remainder of the applicant's arguments are substantially directed to newly added limitations. The Examiner respectfully submits that the prior art of record discloses these limitations, as discussed in the updated rejections as set forth above. Accordingly, the Applicant is directed to the rejection of the claims above for a detailed response to Applicant's arguments as to the applicability of the prior art.
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 JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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.
/Jason Pinheiro/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights