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
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments in the Response dated August 12, 2026 directed to the Non-Final Office Action dated May 13, 2026. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “balance of an gaming establishment device” (lines 6-7) should read “balance of a gaming establishment device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “independent any component” (line 14) should read “independent of any component”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-12, and 14-20 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 claims 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, 3-12, and 14-20 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The determination of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, relies on the Mayo/Alice two-step analysis.
In step 1 of the analysis, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In the present case, claims 1 and 3-11 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine) and claims 12 and 14-20 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). The claims are, therefore directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner is directed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims are compared to groupings of subject matter that have been found by courts as abstract ideas. These groupings include
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) 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); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 is considered representative and recites (the abstract idea is underlined) system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to a request to transfer an amount of funds from a financial institution account maintained by a financial institution to a balance of an gaming establishment device, and responsive to a transfer limit compliance determination being that the transfer complies with a transfer limit:
communicate, to a server of the financial institution, data associated with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account, wherein the transfer limit compliance determination occurs independent of any component of any gaming establishment fund management system that maintains any gaming establishment accounts, and
cause a modification of the balance of the gaming establishment device, wherein the transfer occurs independent of any wagering account transfers and independent of any issuance of any ticket vouchers, and
responsive to the request to transfer the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the balance of the gaming establishment device, and responsive to the transfer limit compliance determination being that the transfer fails to comply with the transfer limit, communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of a notification associated with the transfer failing to comply with the transfer limit.
The present claims are directed to systems and methods of the present disclosure employ gaming establishment transfer limits in association with a transfer of funds from an external account to a gaming establishment device independent of any gaming establishment accounts, any wagering account transfers and any cashless ticket vouchers (Specification [0010]). The steps recited in the claims fall under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. The core of each claim is: when someone requests to transfer money from a financial institution onto a gaming establishment device balance, transfer it if the request is within a limit and update the balance and notify the user if the transfer fails to comply with the transfer limit. Specifically, they are directed to the sub-category of fundamental economic practices because the claims are directed to transferring funds from a bank account to a gaming device. The claim limitations also fall into the sub-category of commercial or legal interactions because it processes information through a clearing-house, where the business relation is the relationship between the submitted transfer request and the funding source. The claim limitations also fall under the sub-category of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because they relate to transfer limits of funds based, in some instances on a responsible gaming limit. Finally, the claims also fall into the category of mental processes because determining whether a requested transfer complies with a transfer limit can be performed mentally or with a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the examiner considers whether additional elements 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:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (not considered relevant to the present claims);
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses 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.
The additional elements in the present claims are a processor, a memory device, a financial institution, a gaming establishment device, a server, any component of any gaming establishment fund management system, a display device, and any component operable to execute any wagering account transfer. The additional elements do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional elements do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The additional elements do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The examiner considers if 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; 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.
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.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional, as shown:
a processor, a memory device, a display device (Bradford et al., US 6,709,333 B1, game device 100 includes the normal and well known internals needed in order to have a functioning game, such as at least one central processor, associated memory, input/output interfaces, peripheral interfaces to the video display, control buttons and lever, monetary input devices, slot machine interface board (SMIB), together with the firmware and software needed to implement the full functionality of the game (these internals not shown); the gaming device 100 may alternatively comprise a live table game of chance, such as a blackjack table [C8:7-21]);
a financial institution, (Rosenberger, US 8,682,790 B1, it is very important to note that these electronic transfers occur purely on the account level of the end user's account, which is maintained by an account provider comprising a financial institution, which is well known in the art [C5:8-22]);
a server (Richards et al., US 2013/0310151 A1, the casino preferably utilizes the player identity and collateral information to determine whether to issue the PCAI; in one embodiment, the system server 40 may create a player account and associate a player's information with that account; such an account may be the same as, or be linked to, a player reward/tracking account which is associated with a casino's player loyalty program (such programs are well known in the art) [0078]);
a gaming establishment device, any component of any gaming establishment fund management system, any component operable to execute any wagering account transfer (Reeves, US 9,552,693 B1, as is well-known in the art, a gaming machine 106 has a credit meter and the funds in the account of the player are movable to and from the balance of the credit meter during a play session [C6:59-C7:4]); (Picciallo et al., US 2007/0118475 A1, it will be assumed for purposes of the present invention that the system operators have methods of establishing accounts and placing money or establishing credit lines within these accounts and that proper accounting procedures are in place to track the various transactions, all of which are standard in the industry and well known to those skilled in the art [0041]).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. The claims merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art Rejections
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully disagree and submits that the Federal Circuit has recognized that not every claim is directed to an abstract idea, and that software-type claims in particular are not "inherently abstract." Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[A] substantial class of claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept."). The Federal Circuit has specifically cautioned against describing the claims at a "high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule." Id. at 1337. (Response [p. 7])
The examiner disagrees.
Enfish found eligibility because the claims were directed to a specific improvement in how a computer stores and retrieves data. The present claims do not improve the functioning of the processor, memory, server, gaming device, or display. Those additional elements are invoked as tools to carry out a financial transaction subject to a limit.
Applicant argues
As noted by In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B. V, a "series of steps" can fall outside of a certain "method of organizing human activity." For example, although a human user may or may not be prevented transferring an amount of funds from a financial institution account to a gaming establishment device based on the system's determination of whether the requested transfer complies or not with a transfer limit, the claimed system does not organize any user interactions. As such, the processor executed instructions that define these steps do not pertain to any personal behavior or relationships or rules for humans to engage in any social activity or rules for humans to interact and thus cannot be reasonably considered any methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant further submits that under the first prong of Step 2A, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. In this case, the Office's characterization of the claims as directed to "transferring funds from a bank account to a gaming device" and "processes information through a clearing-house, where the business" and "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because they relate to transfer limits of funds based, in some instances on a responsible gaming limit" improperly abstracts the claims beyond the actual claim language. In this case, the claims recite a specific technical solution to a technical problem in gaming system architecture: identifying a funding source of funds to be transferred to a gaming establishment device and if that funding source is a financial institution account that lacks enforcing transfer limit compliance protocols and if non-compliance of a transfer limit is determined, preventing the transfer of funds from that financial institution account. This technical problem and solution are rooted in computer technology, not in fundamental economic practices or mental processes (e.g., real-time monitoring across networked components cannot be practically performed in the human mind). (Response [p. 8])
The examiner disagrees.
The identified abstract idea tracks the limitations of amended claim 1.
The examiner notes that Guldenaar held the claimed method of conducting a wagering game to be directed to an abstract idea. The decision does not support Applicant’s position.\
Furthermore, the claims fall squarely within the subgroupings of certain methods of organizing human activity. Transferring funds from a bank account to a gaming balance, conditioned on compliance with a transfer limit is a financial transaction coupled with a risk-mitigation rule falling into the sub-category of fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions. Limiting how much a patron may move into a gaming device and notifying the patron when the request exceeds the limit falls into the sub-category of managing personal behavior.
The closest authority is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting)", which "is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases before the Supreme Court and our court involving methods of organizing human activity." 792 F.3d. at 1367-68, 115 USPQ2d at 1640.
Applicant’s alleged “technical solution” to a “technical problem” is “identifying a funding source of funds to be transferred to a gaming establishment device and if that funding source is a financial institution account that lacks enforcing transfer limit compliance protocols and if non-compliance of a transfer limit is determined, preventing the transfer of funds from that financial institution account”. This is a regulatory and business-risk problem, not a problem rooted in computer technology.
Applicant’s assertion that the mental process is directed to “real-time monitoring across networked components cannot be practically performed in the human mind” is not what is asserted as the limitation of the abstract idea. As stated above, determining whether a requested transfer complies with a transfer limit can be performed mentally or with a pen and paper.
Next, applicant states:
In solving these technical problems, the screening for violations of certain transfer limits (which is necessary due to the above-described structure of certain fund transfers that bypass such screening natively provided in association with transfers that involve gaming establishment accounts) represents an improvement to the functionality of the system that was otherwise limited due to the reliance on certain gaming establishment systems. In other words, since a funding pathway that bypasses any gaming establishment accounts maintained by a gaming establishment fund management system also bypasses the enforcement of certain transfer limits, the claimed systems and methods operate to identify instances when a funding source bypasses such enforcement and independently enforce such transfer limit protocols to prevent a transfer of any amount of funds from a financial institution account to a gaming establishment device if the system determines that such a transfer fails to comply with a transfer limit. For example, since the transfer of funds from a financial institution account maintained independent of any gaming establishment to an electronic gaming machine (i.e., a gaming establishment device) may occur in association with a cashless wagering account maintained by a cashless wagering system that imposes certain transfer limit safeguards or may occur independent of any cashless wagering accounts (which would potentially leave the system exposed to transfer limit violations), the systems and methods monitor requested transfers of funds to the gaming establishment device and, if necessary, prevent certain fund transfers from financial institution accounts to ensure the system is not being abused via the breaching of transfer limits. As such, the systems and methods provide an alternative, non- cash-based and non-ticket voucher-based option for a gaming establishment patron to transfer funds between gaming establishment devices and a financial institution account while complying with various transfer limits which require the tracking of certain financial transactions associated with the gaming establishment patron. (Response [pp. 9-10])
The improvement Applicant asserts is an improvement in applying the business rule, not in the functioning of a computer or other technology. The processor, memory, network, financial institution server, gaming device, and display each operate exactly as they would in any funds transfer system.
Next, applicant states:
Applicant additionally submits that the claims recite significantly more under Step 2B. The ordered combination of communicating, to a server of the financial institution and responsive to a request to transfer an amount of funds from a financial institution account maintained by a financial institution to a balance of a gaming establishment device and a transfer limit compliance determination being that the transfer complies with a transfer limit, data associated with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account (wherein the transfer limit compliance determination occurs independent of any component of any gaming establishment fund management system that maintains any gaming establishment accounts) and causing a modification of the balance of the gaming establishment device, wherein the transfer occurs independent of any wagering account transfers and independent of any issuance of any ticket vouchers and further displaying, by a display device and responsive to the transfer limit compliance determination being that the transfer fails to comply with the transfer limit, a notification associated with the transfer failing to comply with the transfer limit represents an unconventional arrangement that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Prior systems enforced transfer limit protocols by interfacing with internal gaming establishment accounts that had the necessary safeguards in place to enforce such protocols. However, the unconventional nature of the claimed arrangement in which funds are transferred from an external account bypassing the employment of any gaming establishment account addresses a technical problem pertaining to enforcing transfer limit protections when a funding pathway bypasses prior account- based screening that did not exist in prior gaming architectures. Such an ordered combination is a specific technical arrangement that enables a new funds pathway that bypasses conventional account-based systems while maintaining the enforcement of gaming establishment transfer limit protocols. Said differently, it is this specific ordered combination of elements that bridges the gap between external financial systems (that lack gaming establishment specific transfer limit safeguards otherwise provided by wagering account transfers) and gaming establishment devices. Furthermore, the unconventional nature of this ordered combination is evidenced by the specification's recognition that the claims solve a previously unaddressed gap due to the bypass of certain gaming establishment fund management system controls that represent a technological departure from prior systems and reflects an improvement to the system itself, not merely the use of generic computers to implement an abstract concept. (Response [pp. 10-11])
The inventive concept must come from the additional elements, not from the abstract idea. The feature applicant identifies as unconventional is the routing of funds outside casino accounts and vouchers, with the limit check performed outside the casino’s fund management system. That feature is the business arrangement that constitutes the abstract idea.
The additional elements, considered individually and in combination, are generic components performing their ordinary functions.
The additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional as disclosed above. The examiner maintains that claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102/103, the examiner is persuaded by applicant’s arguments.
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 WERNER G GARNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7147. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-15:30 EST.
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.
/WERNER G GARNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights