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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/24/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1,2,10-13 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 11 are drawn to a system.
Claims 12 – 20 are drawn to a method.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1 - 11 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to a fund transfer request associated with funds maintained in a gaming establishment account, communicate, to a server of an external funding source that maintains an external account, data associated with an initiation of an electronic fund transfer to the external account,
responsive to no fund request for a first amount of time such that a first amount of funds maintained in the gaming establishment account for the first amount of time:
determine a first value associated with having forgone, for the first amount of time, a first electronic fund transfer of the first amount of funds from the gaming establishment account to the external account, and after the first amount of time and responsive to an independent occurrence of an incentive realization event, cause a display device to display the determined first value as available to potentially be awarded, and
responsive to no fund transfer request for a second, different amount of time such that the first amount of funds are maintained in the gaming establishment account for the second, different amount of time:
determine a second, different value associated with having forgone, for the second, different amount of time, a second electronic fund transfer of the first amount of funds from the gaming establishment account to the external account, and after the second, different period of time and responsive to the independent occurrence of the incentive realization event, cause the display device to display the determined second, different value as available to potentially be awarded.
Claim 10 (currently amended): A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to a fund transfer request associated with funds maintained in a gaming establishment account:
communicate, to a server of an external funding source that maintains an external account, data associated with the fund transfer request, and
cause a display device to display a transaction fee associated with the fund transfer request, and
responsive to a plurality of transaction fees avoided in association with a plurality of users forgoing a plurality of electronic transfers of funds from a plurality of gaming establishment accounts:
determine, based on a value of the plurality of transaction fees, an award available to be won by a user of the plurality of users, and
cause the display device to display
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental Processes
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent fundamental economic principles or practices, and managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards the determination of award values based upon a user deferring cashouts for a period of time. Or the awarding of a value amount based upon the value of fees that are avoided by a plurality of users forgoing a financial transfer. This represents a mental process, namely, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), wherein a user makes a determination of an award valued based upon deferring a cashout or based upon an amount of fees avoid forgoing a transaction.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): processor, memory servers and a display device
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. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below. These steps amount to insignificant extra-solutionary activity.
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, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed processors, servers, displays and memory. However, all of these I
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Brosnan US 8,083,585 establishes that these additional elements are generic:
A general type of conventional gaming machines has been provided with a display unit that is capable of generating video images, a value input device, a processor that controls the overall operation of the gaming machine and a memory that may store particular configuration settings or data concerning how an operator of the gaming machine desires the particular machine to be configured. The processor, for example, may utilize particular configuration data stored in the memory to control such items as the volume of particular sounds issued by the machine during various periods of game play, display options of the video images displayed on the display unit, the accepted denomination of the values input to the gaming device or how particular promotional gaming credits are awarded and accepted by the gaming machine. Typically, the conventional gaming machine memory stores hundreds of particular configuration settings. These configuration settings typically may be programmed by the casino on an individual machine basis. That is, a casino operator may interface the processor and memory via an interface and select particular settings in order to configure the gaming machine as desired. In casinos having large numbers of gaming machines, of which several of the gaming machines may be configured identically, setting the configuration settings of each of these gaming machines on a one by one basis becomes time consuming and burdensome. (Brosnan 1:11-35)
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’s specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[00177] In certain embodiments in which the gaming system includes an EGM (or personal gaming device) in combination with a central server, central controller, or remote host, the central server, central controller, or remote host is any suitable computing device (such as a server) that includes at least one processor and at least one memory device or data storage device. As further described herein, the EGM (or personal gaming device) includes at least one EGM (or personal gaming device) processor configured to transmit and receive data or signals representing events, messages, commands, or any other suitable information between the EGM (or personal gaming device) and the central server, central controller, or remote host. The at least one processor of that EGM (or personal gaming device) is configured to execute the events, messages, or commands represented by such data or signals in conjunction with the operation of the EGM (or personal gaming device). Moreover, the at least one processor of the central server, central controller, or remote host is configured to transmit and receive data or signals representing events, messages, commands, or any other suitable information between the central server, central controller, or remote host and the EGM (or personal gaming device). The at least one processor of the central server, central controller, or remote host is configured to execute the events, messages, or commands represented by such data or signals in conjunction with the operation of the central server, central controller, or remote host. One, more than one, or each of the functions of the central server, central controller, or remote host may be performed by the at least one processor of the EGM (or personal gaming device). Further, one, more than one, or each of the functions of the at least one processor of the EGM (or personal gaming device) may be performed by the at least one processor of the central server, central controller, or remote host
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 – 9 and 12 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arezina (2009/0327060) in view of Casinomeister.com (hereinafter “Casinomeister”) circa 2015, https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/terrible-encouragement-from-casino-rewards.66929/
As per claim 1, Arezina discloses:
a processor; and (Arezina Fig 2)
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (Arezina Fig 2)
responsive to a fund transfer request associated with funds maintained in a gaming establishment account, communicate, to a server of an external funding source that maintains an external account, data associated with an initiation of an electronic fund transfer to the external account, (Arezina discloses the transferring of funds between game establishment accounts and external financial accounts wherein the external funding source is on a server) (Arezina 0058 – 0059)
responsive to…. a first amount of funds maintained in the gaming establishment account for a first amount of time: (Arezina discloses a first amount of fund that are maintained in a game establishment account) (Arezina 0071)
determine a first value … responsive to an independent occurrence of an incentive realization event, (Arezina discloses the incentivizing of a player’s funds to be maintained in an account maintained in a game establishment, wherein the funds “are rounded to the nearest cash value”) (Arezina 0071) (Arezina discloses “Numerous variations on this general concept may also be implemented to tailor the opportunity to better suit the player's interests, wagering establishment's interests, and/or compromises therebetween. For example, the "interest" can be a pre-determined cash-value comp if the player returns within a pre-determined period of time (e.g., a day, a week, two weeks, a month, a year, 5 years, etc.) to the wagering establishment. This cash-value may vary in accord with variables such as, but not limited to, the period of time the amount of funds deposited with the wagering establishment or affiliated entity, the player's time of play within the wagering establishment, and/or the amount wagered by the player within the wagering establishment during a predetermined period of time (i.e., the player's history). A cash-value comp schedule or matrix may be used to inform a player of the time-value of the depositing of the player's funds (e.g., $250 left for 7 days can be redeemed for $260). Moreover, the accrual of "interest" itself is optionally contingent upon factors such as a minimum balance in the account and/or a minimum period of time for which such minimum balance must be maintained.”) (Arezina 0072). Thus as can be seen, Arezina discloses giving a player an option to not cashout their credits but rather deposit them to a game establishment account for a period of time wherein the amount has a time varying value component in relation to the amount of time left in the game establishment account. Arezina further discloses the use of redemption conditions (i.e. incentive realization events such as returning to the game establishment at a next period of time and playing a game for 2 hours to receive the interest comp (Arezino 0073)
communicate data that results in a display device displaying the determined first value available to be awarded in association with forgoing the first electronic transfer, and (Arezina discloses the communication of data regarding the determined cash value of their account with respect to time should they choose to keep their funds in the game establishments account) (Arezina 0072)
responsive to …that the first amount of funds are maintained in the gaming establishment account for the second, different amount of time: (Arezina discloses that the value can change with respect to time and informing the user of cash value amounts at differing times by means of a “cash value comp schedule”) (Arezina 0072) Thus the comp schedule will display different values according to different periods of time such as the amount of days left in the game establishment account.)
determine a second, different value associated with having forgone, for the second, different amount of time, a second electronic fund transfer of the first amount of funds from the gaming establishment account to the external account, and after the second, different period of time and responsive to the independent occurrence of an incentive realization event, cause the display device to display the determined second, different value as available to be potentially awarded. (Arezina discloses that communication of the cash value of their account wherein the value can change with respect to time and thus informing the user of at least two different cash value amounts at differing times by means of a “cash value comp schedule”) (Arezina 0072) Arezina further discloses the use of redemption conditions (i.e. incentive realization events) such as returning to the game establishment at a next period of time and playing a game for 2 hours to receive the interest comp (Arezino 0073)
Arezina fails to disclose specifically :
…responsive to no fund request for a first amount of time…
… no fund transfer request for a second, different amount of time such that…
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Casinomeister discloses a common marketing technique that online (casinos operated with servers and clients) casinos responsive to a player making a cashout request, they will hold the players money for a present period of time before transferring the desired cashout amount to the players bank account and during that preset amount of time, the online casino will offer the player bonus for reversing their submitted withdrawal. If the player reverses their withdrawal (i.e. “responsive to a no fund request”), the player will receive a 25% bonus up to a certain limit. (Casinomeister pages 1 – 6)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Arezina in view of Casinomeister to use a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by utilizing a cashout method that incentivizes players to stop withdrawing their money to an external account by means of presenting the player with awards or offers that increase their potential award. This would enable the game establishment increase profits by incentivizing players to keep playing more games at the establishment and not take their winnings elsewhere.
As per claim 2, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor after the first amount of funds are maintained in the gaming establishment account for the first amount of time and responsive to an occurrence of an incentive realization event, cause the processor to: determine an award based on the determined first value, and communicate data that results in the display device displaying the determined award. (Arezina discloses that communication of the cash value of their account wherein the value can change with respect to time and thus informing the user of at least two different cash value amounts at differing times by means of a “cash value comp schedule”) (Arezina 0072)
As per claim 3, wherein a value of the determined award is the same as the determined first value. (Arezina discloses the player may cashout their account wherein the cashout value is the value of the balance) (Arezina 0071)
As per claim 4, wherein the incentive realization event occurs based on an action of a user associated with the gaming establishment account. (Arezina discloses if the player waits a period of time the cashout value will be different from the initial value according to a “cash value comp schedule”) (Arezina 0072)
As per claim 5, wherein the gaming establishment account and the external account are associated with a first user and the determined award is associated with a second, different user. (Arezina disclose the first player associated with a first gaming establishment account being able to sell or auction off accounts balances to a second player) (Arezina 0068)
As per claim 6, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine the award in association with a play of a game displayed by the display device. (Arezina 0071 – 0072)
As per claim 7, wherein the gaming establishment account comprises a cashless wagering account. (Arezina 0072)
As per claim 8, wherein the first value is determined based on a first percentage of a first amount of interest accrued on the first amount of funds maintained in the gaming establishment account for the first amount of time. (Arezina disclose the value determined based on interest accrued on the funds) (Arezina 0072) As per claim 9, wherein the second, different value is determined based on a second, different percentage of a second, different amount of interest accrued on the first amount of funds maintained in the gaming establishment account for the second, different amount of time. (Arezina discloses the accrual of interest based upon tiered interest amount) (Arezina 0073)
Independent claim(s) 12 is/are anticipated by Arezina based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 13-20 is/are anticipated by Arezina based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 2-9 respectively which are similar in claim scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see above rejection in view of Casinomeister
Regarding claims 1 – 20 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues:
“In this case, a system that, amongst other non-human mind capable actions, communicates, to a server of an external funding source that maintains an external account, data associated with an initiation of an electronic fund transfer to the external account (which occurs responsive to a fund transfer request associated with funds maintained in a gaming establishment account) 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 Examiner respectfully disagrees and states that human can utilize manual means such as the human mind and pen and paper to transfer funds between internal and external accounts by means of recordkeeping wherein the transfers are responsive to fund request that are communicated by other humans etc. The Examiner has clearly identified the above element such as servers as additional elements viewed individually and as a whole, that 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. Examiner maintains the rejection.
Citation of Pertinent Art
US 2010/0250379: Directed towards a POS system that displays fees that are associated with certain payment methods and offers incentives to a user to choose payment methods that are associated with lower fees, wherein users may share in the fee
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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.
/RAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 7/10/2026
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights