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 § 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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-20 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 recites:
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 wagering account transfer funding pathway being available, route the amount of funds from the financial institution account to a balance of a gaming establishment device along the wagering account transfer funding pathway,
responsive to each of the wagering account transfer funding pathway and an electronic funds transfer funding pathway being available, route the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the balance of the gaming establishment device along the wagering account transfer funding pathway, and
responsive to the wagering account transfer funding pathway being unavailable, route the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the balance of the gaming establishment device along the electronic funds transfer funding pathway.
Claim 10 recites:
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 wagering account transfer funding pathway being available, route the amount of funds from the financial institution account to a balance of a gaming establishment device along the wagering account transfer funding pathway,
responsive to each of the wagering account transfer funding pathway and an electronic funds transfer funding pathway being available, route the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the balance of the gaming establishment device along the electronic funds transfer funding pathway, and
responsive to the wagering account transfer funding pathway being unavailable, route the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the balance of the gaming establishment device along the electronic funds transfer funding pathway.
Claim 12 recites:
A method of operating a system, the method comprising:
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 and responsive to a wagering account transfer funding pathway being available, routing, by a processor, the amount of funds from the financial institution account to a balance of a gaming establishment device along the wagering account transfer funding pathway, responsive to the receipt of data associated with the approval of the amount of funds transferred from the financial institution account and
responsive to each of the wagering account transfer funding pathway and an electronic funds transfer funding pathway being available, routing, by the processor, the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the balance of the gaming establishment device along the wagering account transfer funding pathway, and
responsive to the receipt of data associated with the approval of the amount of funds transferred from the financial institution account and responsive to the wagering account transfer funding pathway being unavailable, routing, by the processor, the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the balance of the gaming establishment device along the electronic funds transfer funding pathway.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)” and/or “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) and/or “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claims 1, 10, and 12 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: processor and memory.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application that simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Herrington, US 20090209327 discloses that the transfer of funds to/from a player’s casino account is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph4)
Bregenzer, US 20040224745 discloses that it is well understood that software and firmware that controls for a casino-based game is stored on various memory devices, such as a ROM, EPROM, EEPROM, flash memory, hard drive, disk drive, or other alterable or inalterable memory or memories, and that the memory devices are linked to the processor or processors (paragraph 28);
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that 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 merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 2-9, 11, 13-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No.
18/617256 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to substantially similar subject matter. Both sets of claims are directed to systems and methods for funds transfers between gaming and financial systems. More particularly, both sets of claims encompass responsive to a wagering account transfer funding pathway being available, route the amount of funds from the financial institution account to a balance of a gaming establishment device along the wagering account transfer funding pathway, responsive to each of the wagering account transfer funding pathway and an electronic funds transfer funding pathway being available, route the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the balance of the gaming establishment device along the wagering account transfer funding pathway, and responsive to the wagering account transfer funding pathway being unavailable, route the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the balance of the gaming establishment device along the electronic funds transfer funding pathway and responsive to a determination to associate a bonus event with the activated electronic funds transfer funding pathway, communicate data that results in a delivery of the bonus event.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the
patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No.
18/617233 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to substantially similar subject matter. Both sets of claims are directed to systems and methods for funds transfers between gaming and financial systems. More particularly, both sets of claims encompass responsive to a wagering account transfer funding pathway being available, route the amount of funds from the financial institution account to a balance of a gaming establishment device along the wagering account transfer funding pathway, responsive to each of the wagering account transfer funding pathway and an electronic funds transfer funding pathway being available, route the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the balance of the gaming establishment device along the wagering account transfer funding pathway, and responsive to the wagering account transfer funding pathway being unavailable, route the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the balance of the gaming establishment device along the electronic funds transfer funding pathway, wherein the activated electronic funds transfer funding pathway is associated with a transfer limit imposed independent of the gaming establishment fund management system.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the
patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No.
18/616572 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to substantially similar subject matter. The sets of claims are directed to systems and methods for funds transfers between gaming and financial systems. More particularly, the sets of claims encompass responsive to a wagering account transfer funding pathway being available, route the amount of funds from the financial institution account to a balance of a gaming establishment device along the wagering account transfer funding pathway, responsive to each of the wagering account transfer funding pathway and an electronic funds transfer funding pathway being available, route the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the balance of the gaming establishment device along the wagering account transfer funding pathway, and responsive to the wagering account transfer funding pathway being unavailable, route the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the balance of the gaming establishment device along the electronic funds transfer funding pathway, causing a first transfer of the amount of funds to the gaming establishment account, and causing a second transfer of the amount of funds from the gaming establishment account to a balance of the gaming establishment device.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the
patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-7, 9-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shepherd 20210225125 (Shepherd)
Regarding Claims 1, 10.
Shepherd discloses a system comprising:
a processor (para 2); and
a memory device (para 2) 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 wagering account transfer funding pathway being available, route the amount of funds from the financial institution account to a balance of a gaming establishment device along the wagering account transfer funding pathway (Abstract, para 21, 23, 36, 49, 57, 59),
responsive to each of the wagering account transfer funding pathway and an electronic funds transfer funding pathway being available, route the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the balance of the gaming establishment device along the wagering account transfer funding pathway (Abstract, para 21, 23, 36, 49, 57, 59).
responsive to the wagering account transfer funding pathway being unavailable, route the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the balance of the gaming establishment device along the electronic funds transfer funding pathway (Abstract, para 21, 23, 28, 33, 35-36, 49, 57, 59).
Regarding Claims 2, 13.
Shepherd further discloses wherein the wagering account transfer funding pathway being available is based on a user associated with the financial institution account being associated with a gaming establishment account maintained by a gaming establishment fund management system (para 14, 16, 18, 21).
Regarding Claims 3, 14,
Shepherd further discloses wherein the gaming establishment account comprises a cashless wagering account (para 21).
Regarding Claims 4, 15.
Shepherd further discloses wherein the wagering account transfer funding pathway is unavailable responsive to a determination that a user associated with the financial institution account is not associated with a gaming establishment patron management system account (Abstract, para 21, 23, 28, 33, 35-36, 49, 57, 59).
Regarding Claims 5, 16.
Shepherd further discloses wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to publish data associated with the amount of funds routed to the balance of the gaming establishment device to a service bus (para 27, 44).
Regarding Claims 6, 17.
Shepherd further discloses wherein the wagering account transfer funding pathway and the electronic funds transfer funding pathway are associated with different external funding instruments to access different financial institution accounts (para 126, 169).
Regarding Claims 7, 18.
Shepherd further discloses wherein the wagering account transfer funding pathway is associated with a first tracked meter of the gaming establishment device and the electronic funds transfer funding pathway is associated with a second, different tracked meter of the gaming establishment device (Fig 1B, elem 108a, 108b; para 26, 42, 51).
Regarding Claims 9, 20.
Shepherd further discloses wherein the gaming establishment device comprises an electronic gaming machine (Fig 1; para 2, 6).
Regarding Claim 11.
Shepherd further discloses wherein the wagering account transfer funding pathway being available is based on a user associated with the financial institution account being associated with a cashless wagering account (para 21).
Regarding Claim 12. Shepherd discloses method of operating a system, the method comprising:
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 and responsive to a wagering account transfer funding pathway being available, routing, by a processor, the amount of funds from the financial institution account to a balance of a gaming establishment device along the wagering account transfer funding pathway, responsive to the receipt of data associated with the approval of the amount of funds transferred from the financial institution account (Abstract, para 21, 23, 36, 49, 57, 59), and
responsive to each of the wagering account transfer funding pathway and an electronic funds transfer funding pathway being available, routing, by the processor, the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the balance of the gaming establishment device along the wagering account transfer funding pathway, and responsive to the receipt of data associated with the approval of the amount of funds transferred from the financial institution account (Abstract, para 21, 23, 36, 49, 57, 59) and
responsive to the wagering account transfer funding pathway being unavailable, routing, by the processor, the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the balance of the gaming establishment device along the electronic funds transfer funding pathway (Abstract, para 21, 23, 28, 33, 35-36, 49, 57, 59).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepher, US 20210225125 (Shepherd) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Azzam et al., US 20200234536 (Azzam)
Regarding Claims 8, 19.
Shepherd failed to disclose wherein the wagering account transfer funding pathway is associated with a first fee and the electronic funds transfer funding pathway is associated with a second, different fee.
However, Azzam discloses of a wagering system in which fees charged for transferring between different pathways could be variable in order to incentivize users to transfer an amount of funds from an external account associated with a user to the gaming establishment fund management account associated with that user (para 51).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Azzam’s teachings with Shepherd because the various fees being imposed will incentivize users to transfer an amount of funds from an external account associated with a user to the gaming establishment fund management account associated with that user as taught by Azzam.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715