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 abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “A system for anonymous tracking of patron redemption of monetary value gaming tickets comprising: at least one monetary value gaming ticket redemption station comprising a housing, a processor, a memory, machine readable code stored in said memory and executable by said processor, at least one video display, at least one patron input device, a monetary value gaming ticket reader, and a money dispenser; at least one image capture device configured to capture an image of a patron seeking to redeem a monetary value gaming ticket for money at one of said monetary value gaming ticket redemption stations by presenting a first monetary value gaming ticket to said monetary value gaming ticket reader thereof; and a reporting system comprising a computing device comprising a processor configured to execute machine readable code, a memory, a communication interface, and machine readable code stored in the memory the executable by the processor and a data storage device; wherein said machine readable code of said monetary value gaming ticket redemption station is configured to transmit information regarding said presented monetary value gaming ticket to said reporting system; and wherein the machine readable code of the reporting system is configured to cause the processor thereof to store at least one first image of said patron captured by said image capture device with said information regarding said first monetary value gaming ticket” (Claim 1); “A method of anonymously tracking patron redemption of monetary value gaming tickets, comprising the steps of: receiving, at a reporting server from a monetary value gaming ticket redemption station, information regarding a first monetary value gaming ticket being presented for redemption by a patron; receiving, at said reporting server, a first image of said patron; and storing, in a memory associated with said reporting server, said first image and information regarding said first monetary value gaming ticket” (Claim 13). Each of the above underlined portions are related to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of mental processes particularly concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or Organizing Human Activity particularly managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions for to capture an image of a patron seeking to redeem a monetary value gaming ticket for money, transmitting information regarding said presented monetary value gaming ticket, store at least one first image of said patron with said information regarding said first monetary value gaming ticket (Claim 1) and receiving information regarding a first monetary value gaming ticket being presented for redemption by a patron, receiving a first image of said patron, and storing said first image and information regarding said first monetary value gaming ticket (Claim 13) pertain to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) pertaining to Mental Processes and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) pertaining to organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (particularly the technological environment of a gaming device and/or gaming system) (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). Additionally, “cause the processor thereof to store at least one first image of said patron captured by said image capture device with said information regarding said first monetary value gaming ticket” (Claim 1) and/or “storing, in a memory associated with said reporting server, said first image and information regarding said first monetary value gaming ticket” (Claim 13) amounts to mere data gather which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of a “station”, “housing”, “processor”, “memory”, “video display”, “input device”, ticket reader”, “money dispenser”, “image capture device”, “system”, “computing device”, “data storage device” and/or “server”) are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility (the use of a computing device and/or generic components is merely illustrating the environment in which the abstract idea is practiced). These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. Taking the physical elements individually and in combination, the computer-based components perform purely generic computer-based functions that are silent in regards to clearly indicating how a computer aids the method, system, and/or medium to which a computer performs/implements the method, system, and/or medium. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer, ’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
It is settled law that adding physical elements to an abstract idea will not amount to an “inventive concept" if the physical elements are well-known, routine and conventional elements and they perform their well-known, routine and conventional functions. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed Cir 2016):
Turning to the second step in our analysis, we find that the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). We agree with the district court that the claims’ recitation of a “telephone unit,” a “server”, an “image analysis unit,” and a “control unit” fail to add an inventive concept sufficient to bring the abstract idea into the realm of patentability. (Emphasis added by Examiner.)
On the question of preemption, the Federal Circuit has stated 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 DNA 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.)
Nor do the dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 add “significantly more” since they merely add to the claimed concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) pertaining to Mental Processes and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) pertaining to organizing human activity. The dependent claims failing to place the claimed invention into a practical applicant or additional generic components of the dependent claims failing to amount to “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above.
Consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claim are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8-9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russ (US 2020/0139252) in view of Fujimoto (US 2003/0211885).
Claim 1: Russ discloses a system for anonymous tracking of patron redemption of monetary value gaming tickets comprising: at least one monetary value gaming ticket redemption station (108) comprising a housing (fig. 3), a processor (304), a memory (308), machine readable code stored in said memory and executable by said processor (¶ 52), at least one video display (¶ 34, 55), at least one patron input device (316), a monetary value gaming ticket reader (336), and a money dispenser (344)(¶ 52, 55-60, 62, 64, 95);
at least one image capture device (106) configured to capture an image of a patron seeking to redeem a monetary value gaming ticket for money at one of said monetary value gaming ticket redemption stations by presenting a first monetary value gaming ticket to said monetary value gaming ticket reader thereof (¶ 32-33, 60, 95-97);
and a reporting system comprising a computing device (116) comprising a processor (120) configured to execute machine readable code, a memory (124), a communication interface, and machine readable code stored in the memory the executable by the processor and a data storage device (databases (148), (152))(¶ 35-37, the databases can be internal or external to the server);
wherein said machine readable code of said monetary value gaming ticket redemption station is configured to transmit information regarding said presented monetary value gaming ticket to said reporting system (¶ 39 – “the ticket/voucher management instruction set 132 is configured to perform any action consistent with the issuance of tickets/vouchers, tracking of ticket/voucher states, and redeeming of tickets/vouchers, namely, determining whether a ticket/voucher has been redeemed by the player 112 to whom the ticket/voucher was issued.”, ¶ 59 – “Activities of the gaming device 108 related to ticket/voucher activity may be managed and reported by the ticket/voucher management instruction set 328. In some embodiments, when a ticket/voucher is redeemed at the gaming device 108 by the player 112, information associated with the ticket/voucher may be obtained by the ticket/voucher management instruction set 328 and reported to the gaming server 116. Furthermore, the ticket/voucher management instruction set 328 may be configured to update the credit meter 324 if the redeemed ticket/voucher is determined to be in a redeemable state and has a redeemable or redemption value associated therewith. In some embodiments, the credit meter 324 may be updated or incremented by the redeemable or redemption value of the ticket/voucher when redeemed. This information may be obtained directly from the ticket/voucher or may require some interactions with the gaming server 116 prior to updating the credit meter 324”, ¶ 78); and
wherein the machine readable code of the reporting system is configured to cause the processor thereof to store at least one first image of said patron captured by said image capture device (¶ 73, 97).
Russ teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting storing the at least one first image of said patron captured by said capture device with said information regarding said first monetary value gaming ticket. Russ at least teaches reviewing data pertaining to users to identify bad behavior, ban gaming, or for reporting purposes, wherein the data includes fraudulent data or anomalies (¶ 96-97). An analogous art of Fujimoto teaches a user redeeming a monetary value gaming instrument that includes sending information associated to the monetary value gaming instrument to the reporting system and taking a image of a user in response to an anomaly and transmitting the image to the reporting system, wherein the reporting system stores the image of the user in association with the information of the monetary value gaming instrument (¶ 146-147, 153-154, 158-160, 164, 251-257). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as it pertains to at least the first image and said information regarding said first monetary value gaming ticket (monetary value gaming instrument) and reporting system/server of Russ such that the first image is stored in association with the information regarding said first monetary value gaming ticket/instrument within a reporting system as taught by Fujimoto because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means to review data pertaining to users to identify bad behavior, ban gaming, or for reporting purposes (Russ - ¶ 97). Such a modification would greatly improve monitoring functions against wrong or fraudulent acts (Fujimoto - Abstract).
Claim 13: Russ discloses a method of anonymously tracking patron redemption of monetary value gaming tickets, comprising the steps of: receiving, at a reporting server (116) from a monetary value gaming ticket redemption station (108), information regarding a first monetary value gaming ticket being presented for redemption by a patron (¶ 39 – “the ticket/voucher management instruction set 132 is configured to perform any action consistent with the issuance of tickets/vouchers, tracking of ticket/voucher states, and redeeming of tickets/vouchers, namely, determining whether a ticket/voucher has been redeemed by the player 112 to whom the ticket/voucher was issued.”, ¶ 59 – “Activities of the gaming device 108 related to ticket/voucher activity may be managed and reported by the ticket/voucher management instruction set 328. In some embodiments, when a ticket/voucher is redeemed at the gaming device 108 by the player 112, information associated with the ticket/voucher may be obtained by the ticket/voucher management instruction set 328 and reported to the gaming server 116. Furthermore, the ticket/voucher management instruction set 328 may be configured to update the credit meter 324 if the redeemed ticket/voucher is determined to be in a redeemable state and has a redeemable or redemption value associated therewith. In some embodiments, the credit meter 324 may be updated or incremented by the redeemable or redemption value of the ticket/voucher when redeemed. This information may be obtained directly from the ticket/voucher or may require some interactions with the gaming server 116 prior to updating the credit meter 324”, ¶ 78);
receiving, at said reporting server, a first image of said patron (¶ 97); and storing, in a memory (124) associated with said reporting server, said first image (¶ 35-37, 73, 97).
Russ teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting storing information regarding said first monetary value gaming ticket. Russ at least teaches reviewing data pertaining to users to identify bad behavior, ban gaming, or for reporting purposes, wherein the data includes fraudulent data or anomalies (¶ 96-97). An analogous art of Fujimoto teaches a user redeeming a monetary value gaming instrument that includes sending information associated to the monetary value gaming instrument to the reporting system and taking an image of a user in response to an anomaly and transmitting the image to the reporting system, wherein the reporting system stores the image of the user in association with the information of the monetary value gaming instrument (¶ 146-147, 153-154, 158-160, 164, 251-257). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as it pertains to said information regarding said first monetary value gaming ticket (monetary value gaming instrument) and reporting system/server of Russ such that the information regarding said first monetary value gaming ticket/instrument is stored within the reporting system as taught by Fujimoto because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of review data pertaining to users to identify bad behavior, ban gaming, or for reporting purposes (Russ - ¶ 97). Such a modification would greatly improve monitoring functions against wrong or fraudulent acts (Fujimoto - Abstract).
Claim 3: Russ teaches wherein said first monetary value gaming ticket was dispensed from a gaming machine and represents an amount of funds (¶ 52, 59, 62, 76).
Claim 8: Russ teaches wherein said at least one image capture device is supported by a housing of said monetary value gaming ticket redemption station (¶ 33, 52, 54).
Claim 9: Russ teaches wherein said at least one image capture device is associated with a security system (¶ 42, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russ (US 2020/0139252) in view of Fujimoto (US 2003/0211885), and in further view of Parrott (US 2005/0054417).
Claim 2: Russ in view of Fujimoto teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein said monetary value gaming ticket redemption station further comprises an ID reader. An analogous art of Parrott teaches a monetary value gaming ticket redemption station (20) further comprising an ID reader (650)(Fig. 3, ¶ 39, 98, 102, 105-107). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Russ in view of Fujimoto with the ID reader of Parrott to provide additional features such as allowing a user to apply for player tracking cards (Parrott - ¶ 6, 105-106). Such a modification provides new means for patrons to interact with gaming apparatuses (Parrott - ¶ 2).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russ (US 2020/0139252) in view of Fujimoto (US 2003/0211885), and in further view of Van Baltz (US 2002/0111206).
Claim 7: Russ in view of Fujimoto teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein said information regarding said first monetary value gaming ticket comprises a ticket ID. Russ at least teaches that the ticket/voucher is assigned a ticket ID (¶ 74-75) and redeeming the first monetary value gaming ticket (¶ 94-96). An analogous art of Van Baltz teaches transmitting information associated with a monetary value gaming ticket including a ticket ID from a monetary gaming ticket redemption station to an external system for purposes of redeeming the ticket (Fig. 3, ¶ 52-60). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Russ in view of Fujimoto with the ticket ID means of Van Baltz because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of redeeming a ticket voucher in which at least Russ is intended (see above). Such a modification ensures the excitement and entertainment experience that arises from uninterrupted game play and improves upon the overall level of player enjoyment (Van Baltz - ¶ 5-9).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russ (US 2020/0139252) in view of Fujimoto (US 2003/0211885), and in further view of Nguyen (US 2003/0162591).
Claim 18: Russ in view of Fujimoto teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the step of the monetary value gaming ticket redemption station prompting the patron to present ID to an ID reader of said monetary value gaming ticket redemption station. An analogous art of Nguyen teaches the monetary value gaming ticket redemption station prompting the patron to present ID to an ID reader of said monetary value gaming ticket redemption station (¶ 24-27, 38-39, emphasis on ¶ 26). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Russ in view of Fujimoto with prompt means of Nguyen to provide added security to cashless gaming vouchers (Nguyen - ¶ 6). Such a modification enhances player trust and acceptability (Nguyen - ¶ 6).
Russ in view of Fujimoto in view of Nguyen teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the prompt step occurring response to instructions transmitted from the reporting server to said monetary value gaming ticket redemption station. However, applicant fails to disclose that having the prompt step occurring response to instructions transmitted from the reporting server to said monetary value gaming ticket redemption station solves any stated problem, provides an advantage, or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the prompting means of Russ in view of Fujimoto in view of Nguyen, or applicant’s invention, would perform the same function of prompting the patron to present ID to an ID reader of said monetary value gaming ticket redemption station, regardless of whether or not the prompt step occurs responsive to instructions transmitted from the reporting server to said monetary value gaming ticket redemption station. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Russ in view of Fujimoto in view Nguyen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Russ in view of Fujimoto in view of Nguyen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715