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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/16/2026 has been entered.
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 1-5, 7, 9-10, 12-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “‘[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant invention meets Step 1 because it encompasses systems. However, claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 309 (1980).
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, “the systems and methods of the present disclosure enable a transfer of funds from an external account to a gaming establishment device in which a funding pathway is determined based on one or more attributes of a user associated with the external account.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Representative claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
1. A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a receipt of data associated with an approval of an amount of funds transferred from a financial institution account maintained, independent of any gaming establishment, in association with a financial institution, cause the processor to:
responsive to a determination that a user associated with the financial institution account is associated with a gaming establishment cashless wagering account maintained by a server of a gaming establishment cashless wagering system, activate a wagering account transfer funding pathway comprising:
causing a first transfer of the amount of funds to the gaming establishment cashless wagering account, and
causing a second transfer of the amount of funds from the gaming establishment cashless wagering account to a balance of a gaming establishment device which modifies a first tracked meter based on that transfer, and
responsive to a determination that the user associated with the financial institution account is not associated with any gaming establishment cashless wagering accounts maintained by the server of the gaming establishment cashless wagering system, activate an electronic funds transfer funding pathway which bypasses the server of the gaming establishment cashless wagering system causing any transfers of the amount of funds to any gaming establishment cashless wagering accounts and comprising causing, independent of any wagering account transfers associated with the gaming establishment device, a transfer of the amount of funds to the balance of the gaming establishment device which modifies a second, different tracked meter based on that transfer.
The underlined portions of claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea, with similar features in claims 10 and 12. Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9, 13-16, 18, and 20 further define the abstract idea (e.g., by defining business relationships, publishing data, using various funding instruments, charging fees, etc.) or are directed to implementation steps for the abstract idea (e.g., using an electronic gaming machine).
The claimed abstract idea may be viewed, for example, as:
a method of exchanging financial obligations (e.g., transfers between bank accounts and casino accounts) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank and Bilski v. Kappos;
a fundamental economic practice (e.g., transferring funds between accounts) as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank; and/or
a method of organizing human activities (e.g., financial transactions between parties) as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
Under prong 1, the above analysis demonstrates that the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity. Under prong 2, and as discussed in further detail below, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely provide instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, add only extra solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Here, the claimed invention is directed to the manner of transacting between a financial institution (e.g., bank) environment and a casino environment (e.g., slot machine), but there is no indication that the claims encompass an improvement in the underlying computer technology. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: a processor, and memory device to carry out financial transactions such as between a financial institution and a server of a gaming establishment cashless wagering system and/or an electronic gaming machine. Such features are merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea on generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art of wager gaming.
The specification and claims define the various financial management systems in generic and/or functional terms. The claims provide only generic computer components, such as a processor and memory to carry out such transactions, along with an indication that the gaming establishment device being a generic server and/or generic electronic gaming machine. The specification does not require any particular type of computer or gaming machine.
The claimed elements taken as a whole perform the same functions when taken individually. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant addresses the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on pages 7-8 of the Remarks section. Applicant explains that the claimed systems rely on alternative funding pathways, including a gaming establishment account (or gambling account) and a pathway that excludes any gaming establishment account (something other than a gambling account). Remarks 7. Applicant asserts that these separate funding pathways offer a technical advancement over prior art systems that required a single funding pathway. Id. 7-8. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the “pathways” described by Applicant require no more than a decision of which accounts to transfer money into or out of. Such monetary transactions are merely financial transactions that are untethered from any technical improvement. Moreover, Applicant points to newly-added features of the claims that require a meter for each of these funding pathways. Id. at 8. As broadly claimed, the meters require only a collection of data representing the financial transactions into or out of respective accounts, i.e., whether the transaction proceeds through the first pathway or the second pathway. Such data collection amounts to an abstract idea.
In light of the above analysis, the claimed invention fails to demonstrate patent eligibility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH whose telephone number is (571)272-2818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights