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 .
Summary
This Final Office Action in response to the communication received on April 28, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The effective filing date of the claimed invention is April 2, 2024.
Response to Amendment
No amendments were made in the April 28, 2026 filing.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.(Claims 12-20 are processes and Claims 1-11 are machines). Accordingly, step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 10 and 12) recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea.” Any additional elements will be analyzed under Step 2A-Prong 2 and Step 2B:
A system and method of operating a system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following an activation of a marker from a gaming establishment credit system and a transfer of an amount of funds associated with the activated marker to a gaming establishment account maintained by a component of a gaming establishment fund management system (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), cause the processor to:
generate an audit report based on a comparison of data associated with the activation of the marker and data associated with the transfer of the amount of funds associated with the activated marker to the gaming establishment account (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), and
responsive to a discrepancy between the data associated with the activation of the marker and the data associated with the transfer of the amount of funds associated with the activated marker to the gaming establishment account, enable an adjustment to resolve the discrepancy (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 10 and 12) is directed to a series of steps for resolving an auditing discrepancy, which is a mental processes. The mere nominal recitation of a processor, a memory device, and a gaming establishment fund management system does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human interactions. Thus, Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 10 and 12) recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The identified abstract idea of exemplary Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 10 and 12) is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are: a processor, a memory device, and a gaming establishment fund management system that implements the underlying abstract idea. These additional elements are broadly recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 10 and 12) is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 10 and 12) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, steps a) generate an audit report, and b) enable an adjustment to resolve a discrepancy, do not add significantly more to the exception because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 10 and 12) is ineligible.
Claim 2 (and similarly Claim 13) recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 3 (and similarly Claim 14) recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 4 (and similarly Claim 15) recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 5 (and similarly Claim 16) recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 6 (and similarly Claim 17) recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 7 (and similarly Claim 18) recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 8 (and similarly Claim 19) recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 9 (and similarly Claim 20) recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 11 recites the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub 2019/0043307 “Higgins”, in view of US Pat Pub 2012/0202584 “Amaitis”.
As per Claims 1 and 12, Higgins discloses a system and method of operating a system, comprising:
a processor (Higgins: [0003] In certain embodiments, the present disclosure relates to a system including a gaming establishment component processor, and a gaming establishment component memory device which stores a plurality of instructions, which when executed by the gaming establishment component processor, cause the gaming establishment component processor to receive data associated with a requested amount of funds to be electronically transferred from an external account to a gaming establishment account.); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (Higgins: [0003] In certain embodiments, the present disclosure relates to a system including a gaming establishment component processor, and a gaming establishment component memory device which stores a plurality of instructions, which when executed by the gaming establishment component processor, cause the gaming establishment component processor to receive data associated with a requested amount of funds to be electronically transferred from an external account to a gaming establishment account.) following an activation of a marker from a gaming establishment credit system and a transfer of an amount of funds associated with the activated marker to a gaming establishment account maintained by a component of a gaming establishment fund management system (Higgins: [0012] Accordingly, to account for certain relatively lower-fee fund transfers to the system being associated with relatively longer durations before the funds of that fund transfer are available for the player, the system disclosed herein utilizes one or more credit components of the system, such as a gaming establishment credit system, to issue one or more lines of credit or markers (to draw from in association with one or more of the accounts maintained by one or more of the system components) until the funds transfer completes or settles. Such a configuration eliminates or drastically lowers the fund transfer fees by making use of relatively slower funds transfer types while also making those funds immediately available to a player.), cause the processor to:
generate an audit report based on a comparison of data associated with the activation of the marker and data associated with the transfer of the amount of funds associated with the activated marker to the gaming establishment account (Higgins: [0045] the system imposes different fees for different types of transfers. For example, an ACH transfer might have a 1% fee associated with it, wherein the system would ensure that the line of credit is 1% less than the amount of the ACH transfer. In certain embodiments, the system imposes different fees based on the amount of time such transfers take to be completed or settle. For example, the system applies a 1% fee to the player's line of credit per day until their ACH transfer settles. In these embodiments, the system transfers all fees into an account for the operator or the supplier of the system disclosed herein and offers various reports to audit such transaction fees.).
Higgins fails to disclose but Amaitis teaches a system and method comprising:
responsive to a discrepancy between the data associated with the activation of the marker and the data associated with the transfer of the amount of funds associated with the activated marker to the gaming establishment account, enable an adjustment to resolve the discrepancy (Amaitis: [0043] After a transfer, transferred money may be available in a recipient account and not one or more source accounts. Some embodiment may include a period of time during which the money is available in neither a source nor a recipient account (for some activity, for wagering, for withdrawal). For example, such period may allow a verification that the transfer happened successfully to occur, such a period may allow a possible delay in processing to be accounted for, such a period may prevent a user from withdrawing the transferred money from a source and a destination if an error occurred, and soon.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Higgins to include resolving a discrepancy as taught by Amaitis, when auditing marker and transfer data as taught by Higgins with the motivation to improve accountability, tracking, assurance of credit worthiness, monitoring of activity, age verification, identity confirmation (Amaitis: [0020]).
As per Claims 2 and 13, Higgins fails to disclose but Amaitis teaches a system and method, wherein the adjustment comprises a modification of the data associated with the activation of the marker (Amaitis: [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Higgins to include resolving a discrepancy as taught by Amaitis, when auditing marker and transfer data as taught by Higgins with the motivation to improve accountability, tracking, assurance of credit worthiness, monitoring of activity, age verification, identity confirmation (Amaitis: [0020]).
As per Claims 3 and 14, Higgins fails to disclose but Amaitis teaches a system and method, wherein the adjustment comprises a modification of the data associated with the transfer of the amount of funds associated with the activated marker to the gaming establishment account (Amaitis: [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Higgins to include resolving a discrepancy as taught by Amaitis, when auditing marker and transfer data as taught by Higgins with the motivation to improve accountability, tracking, assurance of credit worthiness, monitoring of activity, age verification, identity confirmation (Amaitis: [0020]).
As per Claims 4 and 15, Higgins fails to disclose but Amaitis teaches a system and method, wherein the adjustment comprises a creation of data associated with a resolution of the discrepancy (Amaitis: [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Higgins to include resolving a discrepancy as taught by Amaitis, when auditing marker and transfer data as taught by Higgins with the motivation to improve accountability, tracking, assurance of credit worthiness, monitoring of activity, age verification, identity confirmation (Amaitis: [0020]).
As per Claims 5 and 16, Higgins discloses a system and method, wherein the audit report is generated in association with an audit request from an operator terminal (Higgins: [0045]).
As per Claims 6 and 17, Higgins discloses a system and method, wherein the gaming establishment account comprises a cashless wagering account (Higgins: [0057]).
As per Claims 7 and 18, Higgins discloses a system and method, wherein the data associated with the activation of the marker comprises data associated with an identified user over a period of time and the gaming establishment account is associated with the identified user (Higgins: [0012]).
As per Claims 8 and 19, Higgins discloses a system and method, wherein the data associated with the activation of the marker comprises data associated with a gaming establishment device and the data associated with the transfer of the amount of funds associated with the activated marker to the gaming establishment account comprises data associated any transfers of any part of the amount of funds associated with the activated marker from the gaming establishment account to the gaming establishment device (Higgins: [0045]).
As per Claims 9 and 20, Higgins discloses a system and method, wherein the audit report is further based on a comparison of data associated with a repayment of the marker and data associated with a transfer, from the gaming establishment account, of an amount of funds to repay the marker (Higgins: [0045]).
As per Claim 10, Higgins discloses a system comprising:
a processor (Higgins: [0003]); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following an activation of a marker from a gaming establishment credit system, a first transfer of funds associated with the activated marker to a gaming establishment account maintained by a component of a gaming establishment fund management system and a repayment of the marker based on a second transfer of funds from the gaming establishment account to the gaming establishment credit system (Higgins: [0003] and [0012]), cause the processor to:
generate an audit report based on a comparison of data associated with the marker and data associated with the transfers of funds associated with the gaming establishment account (Higgins: [0045]).
Higgins fails to disclose, but Amaitis teaches a system comprising:
responsive to the audit report comprising a discrepancy based on the comparison, enable an adjustment to resolve the discrepancy (Amaitis: [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Higgins to include resolving a discrepancy as taught by Amaitis, when auditing marker and transfer data as taught by Higgins with the motivation to improve accountability, tracking, assurance of credit worthiness, monitoring of activity, age verification, identity confirmation (Amaitis: [0020]).
As per Claim 11, Higgins discloses a system, wherein the comparison comprises at least one of a per user comparison, a per gaming establishment device comparison and a per gaming establishment account comparison (Higgins: [0045]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that a system that, following an activation of a marker from a gaming establishment credit system and a transfer of an amount of funds associated with the activated marker to a gaming establishment account maintained by a component of a gaming establishment fund management system, generates an audit report based on a comparison of data associated with the activation of the marker and data associated with the transfer of the amount of funds associated with the activated marker to the gaming establishment account, and responsive to a discrepancy between the data associated with the activation of the marker and the data associated with the transfer of the amount of funds associated with the activated marker to the gaming establishment account, enables an adjustment to resolve the discrepancy cannot practically be performed in the human mind or performed by a human using a pen and paper. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed systems and methods have been mischaracterized as "mental processes."
The steps of generating an audit report and enabling an adjustment to resolve a discrepancy amount to simple steps of accounting that collect information, analyze the information, and present the results of the collected and analyzed information. While the steps are performed by a memory that stores instructions that cause a processor to execute the steps of generating and adjusting following an activation marker from a gaming establishment credit system and a transfer of an amount of funds associated with the activated marker, the memory executed by the processor amount to using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The activation of a marker and transferring funds are merely descriptive data, that indicates a timing of the abstract idea. Those steps are not positively recited, and as such, are not a factor in determining the eligibility of the claims.
35 USC 103
Applicant argues that Higgins and Amaitis fail to include a comparison of data associated with an activation of a marker and data associated with a transfer of an amount of funds associated with the activated marker to a gaming establishment, nor the generation of an audit report based on this comparison. Higgins discloses “to account for certain funding sources taking a designated period of time, such as up to five days, to authorize a transfer of funds from that funding source, the system disclosed herein provides the access to funds attempted to be transferred from a funding source prior to the funding source actually authorizing and completing the transfer of such funds. In these embodiments, upon a player's attempted transfer of an amount of funds from a funding source, a gaming establishment credit system issues the player a line of credit or marker associated with the attempted transferred amount of funds. Following the issuing of the line of credit, the system enables the player to transfer part or all of the amount of funds to one or more of a plurality of system components, such as one or more cashless wagering systems which maintain one or more cashless wagering accounts and/or one or more gaming establishment retail systems which maintain one or more gaming establishment retail accounts. In these embodiments, upon the funding source authorizing and completing the transfer of the requested amount of funds, the system automatically closes (i.e., marks as paid) the issued line of credit with the gaming establishment credit system and converts any balance remaining from the issued line of credit to an amount of funds which are usable at one or more of the system components. On the other hand, upon the funding source rejecting the attempted transfer of an amount of funds (or not authorizing the attempted transfer of an amount of funds after a designated period of time), the system causes the gaming establishment credit system to mark the issued line of credit as in default, freeze any remaining funds associated with the line of credit, and recover from the player any remaining funds in one or more of the accounts maintained by one or more of the system components (i.e., to cover any remaining debt the player may have from the previously issued line of credit) (Higgins: [0012]).” The steps of closing the issued line of credit with the gaming establishment credit system and converting any balance remaining from the issued line of credit to an amount of funds which are useable to the systems when the transfer of request amount of funds are authorized and completed, or causing the gaming establishment credit system to mark the issued line of credit as in default, freeze any remaining funds associated with the line of credit, and recover from the player any remaining funds in one or more of the accounts maintained by the system component when the attempted transfer of an amount of funds fails, demonstrates a comparison of data associated with an activation of a marker and data associated with a transfer of an amount of funds associated with the activated marker to a gaming establishment.
In case Higgins isn’t adequately clear that an audit report is generated, Amaitis further teaches “accounting, and/or reporting may be performed regarding one or more transfers as desired by a regulatory body (Amaitis: [0023]).” As such the generation of an audit report based on financial transfers is generated. As understood in the art, an activated marker is a line of credit made available to a player until the transfer of funds has been completed. Therefore, accounting and/or reporting performed regarding transfer of funds as taught by Amaitis, teaches the generation of an audit report.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 REVA R MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-7942. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9:00-6:00.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/REVA R MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights