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 .
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims are directed to resolving discrepancy between requested transfer funds amount and received funds amount (mental processes and organizing methods of human activity) involving:
generate an audit report based on a comparison of first data associated with the completion of funds transfer and second data associated with the completion of the funds transfer;
responsive to a discrepancy between the first data associated with the completion of the funds transfer and the second data associated with the completion of the funds transfer, enable an adjustment to resolve the discrepancy
Claims 1, 10, and 12 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or another technology; rather, it uses the computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea of resolving discrepancy between transfer fund amounts.
No particular machine beyond generic components. Claims 1, 10, and 12 recite “processor” and “memory device”; yet, these are generic computing elements. See MPEP 2106.05(b), (f).
The additional elements (gaming establishment device, electronic gaming machine, meter data,) are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not recite an inventive concept (“significantly more”) beyond the abstract ideas.
Generic computer components and environments (processor, memory, gaming establishment device, electronic gaming machine, meter data, electronic funds transfer) comparing data are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of computer processing.
Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, absent evidence in the record that any claimed element or arrangement is not WURC, it is proper to treat generic servers, processors, memories, and data receiving/sending as conventional. The claims do not recite non-conventional computer functionality or architecture.
No specific algorithm, data structure, or hardware improvement is claimed that would transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to judicial exceptions—mental process and organizing methods of human activity —and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, amount to no more than the abstract idea of resolving discrepancy between transfer fund amounts, implemented on a generic computer, and therefore do not add “significantly more.”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20250117779 to Ellis et al (Ellis) in view of US Pub. 20100016068 to White et al (White).
Claims 1, 10, and 12. Ellis discloses a system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following a completion, which occurs independent of any component of any gaming establishment fund management system that maintains any gaming establishment accounts, of an electronic funds transfer of an amount of funds from a financial institution account maintained by a financial institution to a gaming establishment device (¶¶30-31, 47, 71), cause the processor to:
generate an audit report based on a comparison of first data associated with the completion of the electronic funds transfer and second data associated with the completion of the electronic funds transfer, and
responsive to a discrepancy between the first data associated with the completion of the electronic funds transfer and the second data associated with the completion of the electronic funds transfer (¶¶148-151, 156 “WAT In Recon Report can provide a comparison between the cash value recorded by each gaming device and the system's records, helping to identify discrepancies”, also see ¶¶45, 82);
and (as required by claim 10) electronic gaming machine electronic funds transfer meter data and electronic funds transfer transaction data (¶¶148-151 ““Cash In” is the money moved from the wagering account to a gaming device to place bets”).
Ellis fails to explicitly disclose enable an adjustment to resolve the discrepancy (emphasis added).
White teaches (as required by claim 10) electronic gaming machine electronic funds transfer meter data (¶¶155 and 241 “machine meters”) and electronic funds transfer transaction data (pps. 10-11 Tables I and II “Machines with a WAT In variance”); and enable an adjustment to resolve the discrepancy (¶¶29, 155, and 241-243 “Fit It Wizard”). The system of Ellis would have motivation to use the teachings of White in order to ensure that people are credited proper amounts of requested funds at gaming devices.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ellis with the teachings of White in order to provide a way for patrons to quickly resolve any monetary crediting issues at respective electronic machines in doing would build trust in monetary systems so that people will continue to use the electronic machines.
Claims 2 and 13. Ellis in view of White teaches wherein the first data comprises gaming establishment device electronic funds transfer meter data (see White ¶¶155 and 241 “machine meters”) and the second data comprises electronic funds transfer transaction data (see Ellis ¶¶148-151 ““Cash In” is the money moved from the wagering account to a gaming device to place bets”; and see White pps. 10-11 Tables I and II “Machines with a WAT In variance”).
Claims 3 and 14. Ellis in view of White teaches wherein the adjustment comprises a modification of the electronic funds transfer transaction data (see White ¶¶29, 155, and 241-243 “Fit It Wizard”).
Claims 4 and 15. Ellis in view of White teaches wherein the adjustment comprises a modification of the gaming establishment device electronic funds transfer meter data (see White ¶¶29, 155, and 241-243 “Fit It Wizard”).
Claims 5 and 16. Ellis in view of White teaches wherein the adjustment comprises a creation of third data (see White ¶¶33-34) associated with a resolution of the discrepancy.
Claims 6 and 17. Ellis in view of White teaches wherein the audit report is generated in association with an audit request from an operator terminal (see White ¶155 “accounting personnel”, or ¶280 “manager”).
Claims 7 and 18. Ellis in view of White teaches wherein the memory device stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to enable a component of an external audit system (see Ellis ¶26; and see White ¶¶163, 685 “external systems”) to access the first data associated with the completion of the electronic funds transfer and the second data associated with the completion of the electronic funds transfer.
Claims 8 and 19. Ellis in view of White teaches wherein the component of the external audit system accesses the first data associated with the completion of the electronic funds transfer and the second data associated with the completion of the electronic funds transfer in association with a subscription to a service bus (see Ellis ¶¶76, 78 service engines, “transaction service”; and see White ¶¶156-157 “Migration service module”; also see ¶¶164, 192, 202).
Claims 9 and 20. Ellis in view of White teaches wherein the gaming establishment device comprises an electronic gaming machine (see Ellis ¶¶30 and 74; and see White ¶¶165 and 192).
Claim 11. Ellis in view of White teaches wherein the determination is based on whether the discrepancy is indicative of certain activities (see Ellis ¶¶148-151, 156 “WAT In Recon Report can provide a comparison between the cash value recorded by each gaming device and the system's records, helping to identify discrepancies”, also see ¶¶45, 82; and see White ¶¶29, 155, and 241 “Fit It Wizard”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715