CTFR 18/617,256 CTFR 86811 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Applicant’s Submission of a Response Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 04/09/2026. Presently, claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. The claim(s) recite(s) a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following 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: determine which of a plurality of different funding pathways to employ in association with the amount of funds transferred from the financial institution account, and responsive to the determination being to employ an electronic funds transfer funding pathway which occurs independent of any transfer of funds to a gaming establishment cashless wagering account maintained by a component of a gaming establishment fund management system determine whether to associate any bonus events with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account, the determination occurs independent of the component of the gaming establishment fund management system, and responsive to the determination being to associate a bonus event with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account, communicate data that results in a delivery of the bonus event . The underlined portions above relate directly to certain methods of organizing human activity as they are directly related to financial transactions. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is only generally linked to a computing technology (i.e. a processor and memory). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements to the claims are a processor and memory which are understood as generic computing components which the Supreme Court in Alice determined is not enough to bring claims into patent eligibility. While independent claim 10 has additional language as compared to claim 1, it is all still found to be financial transactions. Independent claim 12 is a mirror of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. All dependent claims are rejected as they are merely addition additional abstract ideas and as such do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims. 07-30-02 AIA 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 9 and 12 12 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. With regard to claim 9, Applicant has already introduced “a gaming establishment cashless wagering account” in the independent claim and thus it is unclear if this is the same or different as that of the independent claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0130781 to Anderson in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0029097 to Parietti . With regard to claim 1 ¸ Anderson discloses a system comprising: a processor (0020-0023); and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following 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 (0020-0023): determine which of a plurality of different funding pathways to employ in association with the amount of funds transferred from the financial institution account (0020-0023). However, Anderson does not appear to explicitly disclose that the funding pathway and determination of awards are separate from a component of a gaming establishment. However, the combination of Anderson and Parietti teaches responsive to the determination to employ an electronic funds transfer funding pathway, which occurs independent of any transfer of funds to a gaming establishment cashless wagering account maintained by a component of a gaming establishment fund management system determine whether to associate any bonus events with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account, the determination occurs independent of the component of the gaming establishment fund management system ( Anderson at 0020-0023; Parietti at 0043 wherein Parietti determines the bonus that is achieved by which card is used to fund something), and responsive to the determination being to associate a bonus event with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account, communicate data that results in a delivery of the bonus event ( Anderson at 0020-0023; Parietti at 0043; wherein the combination would yield different results of bonus depending on which funding method was chosen). With regard to claim 2 ¸ Anderson discloses wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the determination being to associate the bonus event with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account, cause the processor to communicate data to a gaming establishment device that delivers the bonus event (0020-0023; 0050). With regard to claim 3 , Anderson discloses wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the determination being to associate the bonus event with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account, cause the processor to communicate data to a server of a gaming establishment patron management system that assigns the bonus event to a gaming establishment patron account maintained for a user associated with the financial institution account (0050). With regard to claim 4 , Anderson discloses wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the determination being to associate the bonus event with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account, cause the processor to communicate data to a server of a gaming establishment ticket voucher management system that assigns the bonus event to a gaming establishment ticket voucher (0050). With regard to claim 5 , Anderson discloses wherein the bonus event is associated with a variable award (0050). With regard to claim 6 , Anderson discloses wherein the variable award is determined in association with a play of a game (0050). With regard to claim 7 , Anderson discloses wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, response to the determination being to employ the electronic funds transfer funding pathway cause the processor to cause a modification of a balance of a gaming establishment device (0020-0023; 0050). With regard to claim 8 , Anderson discloses wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to publish, to a service bus, data associated with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account (0077). With regard to claim 9 , Anderson discloses wherein the determination to employ the electronic funds transfer funding pathway is based on a user associated with the financial institution account not being associated with a gaming establishment cashless wagering account maintained by the component of the gaming establishment fund management system (0020-0023). Claims 12-20 are mirror claims to claims 1-9 and are rejected in like manner. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the teachings of Parietti with the disclosure of Anderson in order to provide different incentives to players depending upon what method they used to fund the games thus encouraging particular funding methods and discouraging others. Response to Arguments The previous rejection based upon non-statutory double patenting has been withdrawn based upon Applicant’s filing of a terminal disclaimer. The previous rejection based upon 35 USC 112b has been withdrawn based upon Applicant’s amendments to the claims. With regard to the rejection based upon 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims have a practical application because they now allow for different incentives for different funding pathways and that this is a technical improvement (Arguments, pages 9-10). This is not agreed upon as this is found to be merely employing different financial strategies in order to incentivize people to use different payment methods which is by definition related to certain financial transactions. Thus, this is still viewed as part of the abstract idea rather than a practical application thereof. Applicant’s arguments of reduction of cash transactions and human error (Arguments, page 11) have been considered but again are not offering a technical solution but rather just a business solution. Such arguments could have also been made in Alice as it now no longer involved a human, yet that case was still found to be ineligible. For the Office to take the position that a computer makes less mistakes and thus would now be eligible would, in essence, be overturning the decision in Alice and such is not with the purview of the Examiner nor of the Office. With regard to the prior art, it appears that Applicant’s claims are about determining what, if any, bonus to apply and THAT determination occurs independent of the actual transfer. Thus, Applicant’s argument of “Anderson lacks any transfer of funds involving an electronic funds transfer funding pathway which occurs independent of any transfer of funds to the player account,” (Arguments, page 12) does not really make sense as the funding in Applicant’s disclosure is directly to a gaming establishment device ( see abstract). However, the amendments to the claims have been addressed in the rejection above. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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. /Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/617,256 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/617,256 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/617,256 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/617,256 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/617,256 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/617,256 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/617,256 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/617,256 Page 9 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights