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 – 8 and 10 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
I. The claims are drawn to apparatus, process and CRM categories.
II. Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2a:
III. Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Representative claim 1 is analyzed below, with italicized limitations indicating recitations of an abstract idea.
A method for operating an Automated Teller Machine (ATM), the method comprising: initiating, by a processor of the ATM, a withdrawal transaction with a user of the ATM, wherein the withdrawal transaction is associated with a fee having a pre-defined value; providing, by the processor of the ATM, to the user, through a display device of the ATM, a prompt indicating an option to execute an electronic game on the ATM; determining, by the processor of the ATM, whether the user has accepted the option to execute the electronic game on the ATM; in response to determining the user has accepted the option to execute the electronic game on the ATM, initiating, by the processor of the ATM, execution of the electronic game on the ATM; determining, by the processor of the ATM, a result of execution of the electronic game on the ATM; and in response to determining the result of execution of the electronic game on the ATM is a win result, adjusting, by the processor of the ATM, the pre-defined value of the fee associated with the withdrawal transaction.
The underlined limitations fall within at least three of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG:
Fundamental economic principles or practices
Commercial or legal interactions
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
The claims are directed towards incentivizing the behavior of users playing a game via group agreements or contract. This is viewed by the Examiner as a fundamental economic practice, an agreement in the form of contracts, and managing personal behavior or relationships between people, which are all considered to be abstract ideas according to the 2019 guidelines.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
iii. Although the claims recite additional limitations, such as one or more processors and at least one server, the said additional limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require
additional limitations such as an interface and memory components.
iv. These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2b:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, the claim language does recite additional elements such as a processor and a display, however, viewed as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Viewing 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.
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by White (U.S. 2008/0191006).
Regarding claim 1, White discloses a method for operating an ATM, (“The ATM may include a user interface, a communication interface connected to an ATM network, and a processor. The user interface may be adapted to receive account information from an ATM card, receive input from the user, and present information to the user”, par. 0004), the method comprising, initiating, by a processor of the ATM, a withdrawal transaction with a user of the ATM, (“the financial transaction may be a withdrawal request”, par. 0029), wherein the withdrawal transaction is associated with a fee having a pre-defined value, (“ATM operators or ATM network operators may charge fees”, par. 0046), providing, to the user, through a display device of the ATM, (fig. 3, part 304), a prompt indicating an option to execute an electronic game on the ATM, (“Upon completion of the transaction 415, the user is asked if they wish to play a game”, par. 0032), determining whether the user has accepted the option to execute the electronic game on the ATM, (“if the user accepts, the user is asked to make a wager”, par. 0032), in response to determining the user has accepted the option to execute the electronic game on the ATM, initiating execution of the electronic game on the ATM, (“Once the wager is received 435, the system confirms that the funds wagered are available 440. The game is then played”, par. 0034), determining a result of execution of the electronic game on the ATM, (“If the user loses 450, funds in the amount of the wager are removed from the user's account 455. If the user wins 450, funds in the amount of the wager are placed in the user's account”, par. 0034), and in response to determining the result of execution of the electronic game on the ATM is a win result, adjusting, the pre-defined value of the fee associated with the withdrawal transaction, (“In one embodiment, if the user wins, the ATM may waive a transaction fee or provide a nominal compensation”, par. 0047).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, White discloses wherein the electronic game comprises a game of chance, (“present the user with a game of chance”, par. 0005).
Regarding claim 3, White discloses wherein the electronic game comprises a skills-based game, (“The user may place the wager on any type of legal gambling. For example, an electronic card game may be played where the user bets on the outcome of a hand of blackjack or poker”, par. 0033).
Regarding claims 4 – 8 and 20, White discloses wherein adjusting the pre-defined value of the fee associated with the withdrawal transaction comprises decrementing the pre-defined value of the fee associated with the withdrawal transaction, (“if the user wins, the ATM may waive a transaction fee or provide a nominal compensation”, par. 0047).
Regarding claim 9, White discloses an ATM comprising a display device, (fig. 3, part 304), a processor coupled with the display device, and a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and having stored therein a set of instructions, (“an ATM processor may include instructions”, par. 0008), initiate a withdrawal transaction with a user of the ATM, (“the financial transaction may be a withdrawal request”, par. 0029), wherein the withdrawal transaction is associated with a fee having a pre-defined value, (“ATM operators or ATM network operators may charge fees”, par. 0046), providing, to the user, through a display device of the ATM, (fig. 3, part 304), a prompt indicating an option to execute an electronic game on the ATM, (“Upon completion of the transaction 415, the user is asked if they wish to play a game”, par. 0032), determining whether the user has accepted the option to execute the electronic game on the ATM, (“if the user accepts, the user is asked to make a wager”, par. 0032), in response to determining the user has accepted the option to execute the electronic game on the ATM, initiating execution of the electronic game on the ATM, (“Once the wager is received 435, the system confirms that the funds wagered are available 440. The game is then played”, par. 0034), determining a result of execution of the electronic game on the ATM, (“If the user loses 450, funds in the amount of the wager are removed from the user's account 455. If the user wins 450, funds in the amount of the wager are placed in the user's account”, par. 0034), and in response to determining the result of execution of the electronic game on the ATM is a win result, adjusting, the pre-defined value of the fee associated with the withdrawal transaction, (“In one embodiment, if the user wins, the ATM may waive a transaction fee or provide a nominal compensation”, par. 0047).
Regarding claim 10, White discloses an input device and wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: receive, through the input device, information related to an identity of the user; identify the user based on the received information related to the identity of the user; and verify an age of the user based on identifying the user, wherein providing the prompt indicating the option to execute the electronic game on the ATM is performed in response to verifying the age of the user, (“Keypad 306 may be used to receive input from the customer, such as a personal identification number (PIN) associated with the customer's financial account, transaction selections, dollar amounts for transactions (if applicable), and other information related to a customer's transaction with the ATM”, par. 0028).
Regarding claims 11 - 13, White discloses wherein the instructions further cause the ATM to track activity of the user and wherein providing the prompt indicating the option to execute the electronic game on the ATM is performed based on tracking the activity of the user, (“Upon completion of the transaction 415, the user is asked if they wish to play a game”, par. 0032).
Regarding claims 14, 17, and 18, White discloses a wireless communications interface, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to communicate with a mobile device of the user through the wireless communications interface, and wherein providing the prompt indicating the option to execute the electronic game on the ATM is performed based on information received from the mobile device, (“The term "machine-readable medium" includes, but is not limited to portable or fixed storage devices, optical storage devices, wireless channels”, par. 0057).
Regarding claim 15, White discloses a system comprising a display device, (fig. 3, part 304), a processor coupled with the display device, and a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and having stored therein a set of instructions, (“an ATM processor may include instructions”, par. 0008), initiate a withdrawal transaction with a user of the ATM, (“the financial transaction may be a withdrawal request”, par. 0029), wherein the withdrawal transaction is associated with a fee having a pre-defined value, (“ATM operators or ATM network operators may charge fees”, par. 0046), providing, to the user, through a display device of the ATM, (fig. 3, part 304), a prompt indicating an option to execute an electronic game on the ATM, (“Upon completion of the transaction 415, the user is asked if they wish to play a game”, par. 0032), determining whether the user has accepted the option to execute the electronic game on the ATM, (“if the user accepts, the user is asked to make a wager”, par. 0032), in response to determining the user has accepted the option to execute the electronic game on the ATM, initiating execution of the electronic game on the ATM, (“Once the wager is received 435, the system confirms that the funds wagered are available 440. The game is then played”, par. 0034), determining a result of execution of the electronic game on the ATM, (“If the user loses 450, funds in the amount of the wager are removed from the user's account 455. If the user wins 450, funds in the amount of the wager are placed in the user's account”, par. 0034), and in response to determining the result of execution of the electronic game on the ATM is a win result, adjusting, the pre-defined value of the fee associated with the withdrawal transaction, (“In one embodiment, if the user wins, the ATM may waive a transaction fee or provide a nominal compensation”, par. 0047).
Regarding claim 19, White discloses wherein the electronic game comprises a game played between a plurality of players, (“The game of chance may be a lottery and the processor includes instructions to enter the user into a lottery”, par. 0005).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
/E.M.T/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DAVID L LEWIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715