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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his 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.
Claim 1 recites "a request to transfer" (line 3), “the requested transfer” (lines 7, 14, and 16), “the transfer” (lines 8-9), “the request to transfer” (line 12). Consistent usage of the same terms is much preferred over creatively describing the same elements using different language. Using similar, yet slightly different claim language creates confusion. It is unclear whether each term is intended to refer to the same claim element or whether each term refers to a different claim element. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the requested transfer” (lines 7, 14, and 16) and “the transfer” (lines 8-9). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Independent claims 10 and 12 recite similar language and are similarly rejected. Dependent claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20 inherit this discrepancy by nature of their dependencies. 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 1-20 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 1-20 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 1-11 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine) and claims 12-20 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 gaming establishment device, and responsive to a transfer limit compliance determination being that the requested 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
responsive to the request to transfer the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the gaming establishment device, and responsive to the transfer limit compliance determination being that the requested 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 requested 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. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Warner et al., US 2020/0226881 A1 (hereinafter Warner).
Regarding Claim 1: Warner discloses a system comprising:
a processor (Warner, the embedded controller 102 includes a central processing unit (“CPU”) [0060]); and
a memory device (Warner, the embedded controller 102 includes a central processing unit (“CPU”), at least one static or random access memories [0060]) 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 gaming establishment device (Warner, the method for initiating a transaction permits end users, e.g. casino patrons, to draw funds electronically from a financial account which they own or are authorized to access; typically, customers of financial institutions that include but are not limited to banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, and the like may obtain a debit card linked to one or more of their financial account(s) with said institution that are linked to the Visa or MasterCard authorization network for example, and provide direct debit capability from the account(s) [0131]), and responsive to a transfer limit compliance determination being that the requested transfer complies with a transfer limit (Warner, the networkable component determines that the fund transfer request complies with the configurable gaming limit and transmits the transaction information for a compliant fund transfer request to the SAS [Claim 1]), communicate, to a server of the financial institution, data associated with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account (Warner, at block 730 the master gateway 620 sends the fund transfer request to a financial network(s) via a secure data communication connection and the response is received directly by the master gateway 620 from the financial network(s) [0212]), wherein the transfer limit compliance determination occurs independent of any component of any gaming establishment fund management system that maintains any gaming establishment accounts (Warner, the transactional system and method may also be utilized independently of any existing in-house data, communication, or financial network(s), including but not limited to a casino management system (“CMS”) [0225]), and
responsive to the request to transfer the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the gaming establishment device, and responsive to the transfer limit compliance determination being that the requested transfer fails to comply with the transfer limit (Warner. if the backend server 622 determines that the fund transfer request is non-compliant with the applicable gaming limits and gaming rules, and this determination agrees with the master gateway initial determination, the method proceeds to block 746 in FIG. 7C [0219] and [Fig. 21]), communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of a notification associated with the requested transfer failing to comply with the transfer limit (Warner, at block 746 the backend server terminates the fund transfer request and sends a “DECLINED” transaction message to the patron via the aggregator 618, wireless communication module 616, and EFT terminal 602; the “DECLINED” transaction message is displayed to the patron on the EFT terminal 602 [0220] and [Fig. 7C]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 13: Warner further discloses wherein the memory devices stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a receipt, from the server of the financial institution, of data associated with an approval of the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account, cause the processor to cause a modification of a balance of the gaming establishment device, wherein the transfer occurs independent of any wagering account transfers (Warner, the system 100 enables the patron to receive a newly printed voucher that can be inserted into a bill validator (not shown) corresponding to slot machine 112 and an equivalent number of credits will be placed on the game register of the slot machine 112 [0083]).
Regarding Claims 3 and 14: Warner further discloses wherein the transfer limit is associated with an amount transferrable from the financial institution account over a period of time (Warner, the gateway can apply one or more of the factors when determining the applicability of a particular gaming rule or gaming limit to a fund transfer request or transaction; these factors can include, but are not limited to, temporal factors, geographic factors, and identification factors; in operation, each gaming limit and gaming rule provides a restriction on the number of transactions or total value of transactions during a time period, within a particular location, and attributed to a particular identity; the various factors would then be used by the gateway to define the time period, such as a day, as a calendar day, a gaming day, or a trailing period of 24 hours; the gateway can use the factors to define an identity to which a gaming rule or gaming limit applies, such as a particular patron [0051]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15: Warner further discloses wherein the transfer limit is associated with an amount transferrable in association with a user over a period of time (Warner, the gateway can apply one or more of the factors when determining the applicability of a particular gaming rule or gaming limit to a fund transfer request or transaction; these factors can include, but are not limited to, temporal factors, geographic factors, and identification factors; in operation, each gaming limit and gaming rule provides a restriction on the number of transactions or total value of transactions during a time period, within a particular location, and attributed to a particular identity; the various factors would then be used by the gateway to define the time period, such as a day, as a calendar day, a gaming day, or a trailing period of 24 hours; the gateway can use the factors to define an identity to which a gaming rule or gaming limit applies, such as a particular patron [0051]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 17: Warner further discloses wherein the request to transfer the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the gaming establishment device is associated with transfer context data identifying the gaming establishment device (Warner, the gaming system of claim 1 wherein transaction information includes an EFT terminal identification [Claim 6]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 18: Warner further discloses wherein the transfer limit comprises a responsible gaming limit (Warner, the gaming gateway may include problem gaming limits and problem gaming rule sets; illustrative problem gaming rule sets may include daily limits or may pause the period during which a person may withdraw funds to allow for a “cool down” period [0050]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 20: Warner further discloses wherein the transfer limit compliance determination occurs independent of the server of the financial institution (Warner, the master gateway makes initial determinations based on these limits, rules and standards about whether a transaction should be processed and sent on to the financial network or rejected without being sent [0097]).
Regarding Claim 10: Warner discloses a system comprising:
a processor (Warner, the embedded controller 102 includes a central processing unit (“CPU”) [0060]); and
a memory device (Warner, the embedded controller 102 includes a central processing unit (“CPU”), at least one static or random access memories [0060]) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to a request by a first user to transfer an amount of funds from a first financial institution account maintained by a financial institution to an electronic gaming machine (Warner, the method for initiating a transaction permits end users, e.g. casino patrons, to draw funds electronically from a financial account which they own or are authorized to access; typically, customers of financial institutions that include but are not limited to banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, and the like may obtain a debit card linked to one or more of their financial account(s) with said institution that are linked to the Visa or MasterCard authorization network for example, and provide direct debit capability from the account(s) [0131]), and responsive to a first transfer limit compliance determination being that the requested transfer complies with a first transfer limit associated with the first user (Warner, the networkable component determines that the fund transfer request complies with the configurable gaming limit and transmits the transaction information for a compliant fund transfer request to the SAS [Claim 1]), communicate, to a server of the financial institution, data associated with the transfer of the amount of funds from the first financial institution account (Warner, at block 730 the master gateway 620 sends the fund transfer request to a financial network(s) via a secure data communication connection and the response is received directly by the master gateway 620 from the financial network(s) [0212]), wherein the first transfer limit compliance determination occurs independent of the server of the financial institution, independent of the electronic gaming machine and independent any component operable to execute any wagering account transfer (Warner, the transactional system and method may also be utilized independently of any existing in-house data, communication, or financial network(s), including but not limited to a casino management system (“CMS”) [0225]), and responsive to a request by a second user to transfer the amount of funds from a second financial institution account maintained by the financial institution to the electronic gaming machine (Warner, the method for initiating a transaction permits end users, e.g. casino patrons, to draw funds electronically from a financial account which they own or are authorized to access; typically, customers of financial institutions that include but are not limited to banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, and the like may obtain a debit card linked to one or more of their financial account(s) with said institution that are linked to the Visa or MasterCard authorization network for example, and provide direct debit capability from the account(s) [0131]), and
responsive to a second transfer limit compliance determination being that the requested transfer fails to comply with a second, different transfer limit associated with the second user (Warner, the networkable component determines that the fund transfer request complies with the configurable gaming limit and transmits the transaction information for a compliant fund transfer request to the SAS [Claim 1]), communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of a notification associated with the requested transfer failing to comply with the second, different transfer limit (Warner, at block 730 the master gateway 620 sends the fund transfer request to a financial network(s) via a secure data communication connection and the response is received directly by the master gateway 620 from the financial network(s) [0212]), wherein the second transfer limit compliance determination occurs independent of the server of the financial institution, independent of the electronic gaming machine and independent any component operable to execute any wagering account transfer (Warner, the transactional system and method may also be utilized independently of any existing in-house data, communication, or financial network(s), including but not limited to a casino management system (“CMS”) [0225]).
Regarding Claim 11: Warner further discloses wherein the first user and the second user are the same user at different points in time (Warner, the master gateway further retrieves transaction information for all other transactions related to the fund transfer request based upon the factors defining the applicable gaming limits and gaming rules, i.e. other transactions made by the same patron, or by the same patron within a certain time period [0100]).
Regarding Claim 12: Warner discloses a method of operating a system, the method comprising:
responsive to a request to transfer an amount of funds from a financial institution account maintained by a financial institution to a gaming establishment device (Warner, the method for initiating a transaction permits end users, e.g. casino patrons, to draw funds electronically from a financial account which they own or are authorized to access; typically, customers of financial institutions that include but are not limited to banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, and the like may obtain a debit card linked to one or more of their financial account(s) with said institution that are linked to the Visa or MasterCard authorization network for example, and provide direct debit capability from the account(s) [0131]), and responsive to a transfer limit compliance determination being that the requested transfer complies with a transfer limit (Warner, the networkable component determines that the fund transfer request complies with the configurable gaming limit and transmits the transaction information for a compliant fund transfer request to the SAS [Claim 1]), communicating, to a server of the financial institution, data associated with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account (Warner, at block 730 the master gateway 620 sends the fund transfer request to a financial network(s) via a secure data communication connection and the response is received directly by the master gateway 620 from the financial network(s) [0212]), wherein the transfer limit compliance determination occurs independent of any component of any gaming establishment fund management system that maintains any gaming establishment accounts (Warner, the transactional system and method may also be utilized independently of any existing in-house data, communication, or financial network(s), including but not limited to a casino management system (“CMS”) [0225]), and
responsive to the request to transfer the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the gaming establishment device, and responsive to the transfer limit compliance determination being that the requested transfer fails to comply with the transfer limit (Warner, if the backend server 622 determines that the fund transfer request is non-compliant with the applicable gaming limits and gaming rules, and this determination agrees with the master gateway initial determination, the method proceeds to block 746 in FIG. 7C [0219] and [Fig. 21]), displaying, by a display device, a notification associated with the requested transfer failing to comply with the transfer limit (Warner, at block 746 the backend server terminates the fund transfer request and sends a “DECLINED” transaction message to the patron via the aggregator 618, wireless communication module 616, and EFT terminal 602; the “DECLINED” transaction message is displayed to the patron on the EFT terminal 602 [0220] and [Fig. 7C]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner in view of Kelly, US 2009/0176566 A1 (hereinafter Kelly).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16: Warner further discloses wherein a user is associated with a first amount transferrable over the period of time (Warner, the gateway can apply one or more of the factors when determining the applicability of a particular gaming rule or gaming limit to a fund transfer request or transaction; these factors can include, but are not limited to, temporal factors, geographic factors, and identification factors; in operation, each gaming limit and gaming rule provides a restriction on the number of transactions or total value of transactions during a time period, within a particular location, and attributed to a particular identity; the various factors would then be used by the gateway to define the time period, such as a day, as a calendar day, a gaming day, or a trailing period of 24 hours; the gateway can use the factors to define an identity to which a gaming rule or gaming limit applies, such as a particular patron [0051]) and an identified user is associated with a second, different amount transferrable over the period of time (Warner, the identification factors provide granularity to the gaming limit or gaming rule identity restriction such as by defining that the gaming rule or gaming limit applies to a particular patron or a particular debit instrument (i.e. per card) [0098]; the gateway can apply one or more of the factors when determining the applicability of a particular gaming rule or gaming limit to a fund transfer request or transaction; these factors can include, but are not limited to, temporal factors, geographic factors, and identification factors; in operation, each gaming limit and gaming rule provides a restriction on the number of transactions or total value of transactions during a time period, within a particular location, and attributed to a particular identity; the various factors would then be used by the gateway to define the time period, such as a day, as a calendar day, a gaming day, or a trailing period of 24 hours; the gateway can use the factors to define an identity to which a gaming rule or gaming limit applies, such as a particular patron [0051]).
Warner fails to disclose an anonymous user.
Kelly teaches an anonymous user (Kelly, the biometric input device (such as a biometric touch screen) allows an anonymous player to transfer funds from an account associated with his fingerprint [0073]).
Warner discloses a gaming system and method for enabling financial transactions in a gaming environment (Warner [Abstract]). The gaming system includes an electronic funds transfer (EFT) terminal, a networkable component, a financial network, and a Slot Accounting System (SAS) (Warner [Abstract]). The networkable component retrieves transaction information related to a fund transfer request (Warner [Abstract]). The networkable component can then independently determine that the fund transfer request complies with the applicable gaming limits and gaming rules (Warner [Abstract]). Compliant transactions that are approved by the financial network(s) are submitted to the SAS by the networkable component for generation of a corresponding voucher validation code (Warner [Abstract]).
Kelly teaches various systems, gaming devices, and methods for biometrically identifying a player (Kelly [Abstract]). The capture of the biometric information is undisclosed to the player (Kelly [Abstract]). The captured biometric information may be used to verifying a player's age, prevent underage gambling, promote responsible gaming, authorize and/or authenticate an electronic funds transfer (Kelly [Abstract]). The biometric information may also be used to provide player-centric gaming (Kelly [Abstract]). The player's preferences are associated with the biometric information, and a gaming device is reconfigured to the player's preferences once the player's biometric information is obtained at the gaming device (Kelly [Abstract]). Kelly teaches a biometric input device (such as a biometric touch screen) that allows an anonymous player to transfer funds from an account associated with his fingerprint (Kelly [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the gaming system and method for enabling financial transactions in a gaming environment as disclosed by Warner with the method of allowing an anonymous player to make a financial transaction as taught by Kelly in order to enable all players, identified and anonymous, to continue playing by allowing money transfers.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner in view of Xidos et al., US 7,470,191 B2 (hereinafter Xidos).
Regarding Claims 8 and 19: Warner discloses the invention as recited above. Warner fails top explicitly disclose wherein the responsible gaming limit is set by a user.
Xidos teaches wherein the responsible gaming limit is set by a user (Xidos, a responsible gaming system as in claim 1 wherein the CAS includes a self-exclusion system enabling a user to selectively set a time-based limit or a money-based gaming limit for use of the system [Claim 2]).
Warner discloses a gaming system and method for enabling financial transactions in a gaming environment (Warner [Abstract]). The gaming system includes an electronic funds transfer (EFT) terminal, a networkable component, a financial network, and a Slot Accounting System (SAS) (Warner [Abstract]). The networkable component retrieves transaction information related to a fund transfer request (Warner [Abstract]). The networkable component can then independently determine that the fund transfer request complies with the applicable gaming limits and gaming rules (Warner [Abstract]). Compliant transactions that are approved by the financial network(s) are submitted to the SAS by the networkable component for generation of a corresponding voucher validation code (Warner [Abstract]). Warner fails to explicitly disclose that users can set their own gaming limits.
Xidos teaches a gaming system distributed across both local (LAN) and wide (WAN) area networks that enables responsible gaming for its users (Xidos [Abstract]). A user is able to selectively set gaming limits (Xidos [Claim 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the gaming system and method for enabling financial transactions in a gaming environment based on gaming limits as disclosed by Warner with the method of allowing users to set their own gaming limits as taught by Xidos in order to give users and input into their game play.
Conclusion
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