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 .
Status of the Application
This Office-Action acknowledges the Amendment filed on 5/14/2026 and is a response to said Amendment.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 5/14/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Application18/617256, 18/617233, and 18/616572 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent Claims 1, 10, and 12 disclose the limitation: “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 which occurs independent of any transfer of funds to any gaming establishment accounts associated with the user”.
In this case, the newly amended limitations do not appear to be supported in the specification. The last sentences of paragraphs [0003-0005] appear to disclose similarities to the claimed limitation, but not the underlined amended limitations.
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 associated with a user and 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 which occurs independent of any transfer of funds to any gaming establishment accounts associated with the user.
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 associated with a user and 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 which occurs independent of any transfer of funds to any gaming establishment accounts associated with the user.
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 associated with a user and 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 which occurs independent of any transfer of funds to any gaming establishment accounts associated with the user.
[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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments in regards to the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicant argues that that the elements of the claimed gaming systems integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by alleging that the claimed invention “offer multiple funding pathways to transfer funds from a financial institution account (and thus represent a technical advancement relative to prior systems that forced a single funding pathway for all users for all transfers of funds from financial institution accounts) and since certain funding pathways are preferable (with respect to certain operational efficiencies) over other funding pathways, the claimed system and methods drive the employment of certain funding pathways which offer such operational efficiencies. For example, since certain users prefer to remain anonymous to a gaming establishment fund management system (and thus are not associated with any gaming establishment accounts) but do not want to forgo the ability to transfer funds from their financial institution account, the claimed systems and method enable adoption of an electronic funds transfer funding pathway for such users to accomplish the transfer of funds while maintaining the anonymity of the individual user. Such a configuration provides more flexibility in how users fund gaming establishment devices and offers a more efficient operation via customizing the funding options for each individual user based on the funding options available.” (middle of page 9) and further argued that “that a non-cash-based option offered by the claimed systems and methods that, in certain instances, operates independent of funds being transferred to any gaming establishment accounts associated with a user, saves storage resources by not requiring the maintenance of certain gaming establishment accounts and further saves users time and effort in having to set up such gaming establishment accounts. Such a direct funding pathway (i.e., an electronic funds transfer funding pathway) employable by the claimed systems and methods further saves processing resources (relative to existing systems that required funds flow to a gaming establishment account) by reducing the transactions that need to occur by reducing the quantity of accounts such funds have to travel to and from before reaching the destination device. Applicant additionally submits that since certain gaming establishment patrons are uncomfortable venturing throughout a gaming establishment with relatively large amounts of cash, the non-cash-based solution facilitated by the claimed systems and methods enable a user access to an amount of funds transferred from a financial institution account without the need to handle cash. This reduction in the use of cash at a gaming establishment provides a relatively more secure environment for a user (via reducing or eliminating a user carrying cash on their person and thus diminishing the risks that such cash may be lost or stolen), overcomes various health concerns associated with cash-based transactions and cashless ticket voucher-based transactions (e.g., protecting patrons from using forms of currency and/or paper cashless ticket vouchers that act as transmission vehicles for contagions), and benefits the gaming establishment by reducing the use of certain kiosks that accept and hold cash (e.g., reducing the wear and tear on such devices and prolonging the operational life on these devices). Moreover, such a non-cash-based solution that reduces the amount of cash transactions in a gaming establishment additionally reduces or eliminates human errors which often occur when cash is distributed at gaming establishment interfaces, such as casino desks and/or cashless ticket vouchers are purchased with an amount of cash at gaming establishment interfaces, such as casino desks. Specifically, eliminating gaming establishment personnel from distributing cash not only protects the user (e.g., if the gaming establishment personnel provides the gaming establishment patron a lower amount of cash than the patron deserves) but also protects gaming establishment personnel (e.g., if the user becomes angry over receiving a lower amount of cash than the user deserves and confronts gaming establishment personnel) and protects the gaming establishment (e.g., if the gaming establishment personnel inadvertently or fraudulently provides the patron a higher amount of cash than the patron deserves).” (middle of page 9 to middle of page 10)
The Examiner disagrees because there appears to be no change to the actual gaming system, as claimed, nor any technological improvements. In this case, the Examiner believes that allowing a user to choose between accounts amounts to business decisions rather than a technological improvement. Furthermore, the Examiner believes that the tracking of transactions are also business decisions as it entails casinos complying with jurisdictional rules/laws. Regarding the applicant’s arguments pertaining of cashless ticket vouchers, the Examiner does not believe there is disclosure of such within the claim language. All in all, the Examiner maintains that the claimed invention merely utilizes general purpose computing components to implement business decisions with regard to the transfer of monetary funds for gambling accounts. The Examiner believes there appears to be no change to the actual gaming system such that there is an actual technological improvement in the functioning of the gaming machine nor the gaming technology implementing game play, and even if there was as the applicant presents as an argument, there are no disclosures within the specification or the claim language that support this.
Accordingly, the Examiner must respectfully disagree that the claims recite patent-eligible methods for at least the reasons recited in the rejection as presented above.
The Examiner found the applicant’s arguments with regard to the prior art rejection to be persuasive and has withdrawn the prior art rejections.
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 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
Prosecution Insights