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 .
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. 18/616572 in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0130781 to Anderson. The difference between ‘572 and the present application are found in that the present application offers a bonus upon a funds transfer pathway. Such does not appear to be claims in ‘572. However, Anderson teaches such (0050).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0130781 to Anderson. The difference between ‘572 and the present application are found in that the present application offers a bonus upon a funds transfer pathway. Such does not appear to be claims in ‘233. However, Anderson teaches such (0050).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/616597 in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0130781 to Anderson. The difference between ‘572 and the present application are found in that the present application offers a bonus upon a funds transfer pathway. Such does not appear to be claims in ‘597. However, Anderson teaches such (0050).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
In each of the above rejections 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 Anderson with ‘572, ‘233, and ‘597 in order to encourage users to transfer funds thus making the player likely to spend additional money that they may have not otherwise.
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. 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 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 to employ an electronic funds transfer funding pathway, 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 any component of a 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.
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 states, “the determination occurs independent of any component of a gaming establishment fund management system,” (emphasis added). However, the spec makes it clear that these funds transfer are to funding within a gaming system. Thus it is unclear how it can be completely independent since it is explicitly warding for funding at least some version of a wagering account The other independent claims have similar issues.
Claim 7 has a similar issue “wherein the transfer occurs independent of any transfer of funds to a gaming establishment account maintained by the gaming establishment fund management system.” Again any account (whether registered to the user or anonymous) is going to have to be account for in casino otherwise a player is just funding an abyss with no money (e.g. putting money into a gaming machine still establishes an account even if it is only temporary until the user spends all the money or cashes out). So how can a transfer occur but be independent of a transfer? Claim 18 has a similar issue.
All dependent claims are rejected as depending upon a previously rejected claim.
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 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0130781 to Anderson.
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 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 (0020-0023): responsive to a determination to employ an electronic funds transfer funding pathway, 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 any component of a gaming establishment fund management system (0020-0023), 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 (0020-0023).
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, cause the processor to cause a modification of a balance of a gaming establishment device, wherein the transfer occurs independent of any transfer of funds to a gaming establishment account maintained by the gaming establishment fund management system (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 account maintained by the gaming establishment fund management system (0020-0023).
Claims 12-20 are mirror claims to claims 1-9 and are rejected in like manner.
Conclusion
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