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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges receipt of amendments/arguments filed 7/6/26. The arguments set forth are addressed herein. Claims 1-9, 11-13, 15-20 remain pending, Claims 10 and 14 are canceled, Claims 1, 11, 13, and 15 are currently amended.
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 1-9, 11-13, 15-20 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 stored in the memory of said monetary value gaming ticket redemption station, when executed by the processor of the monetary value gaming ticket redemption system, causes the processor of the monetary value gaming ticket redemption system to transmit information regarding said presented monetary value gaming ticket to said reporting system, and wherein the machine readable code of the reporting system, when executed by the processor of the reporting system, causes the processor of the reporting system 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, wherein the machine readable code stored in the memory of the reporting system, when executed by the processor of the reporting system, causes the processor of the reporting system to receive information regarding a second monetary value gaming ticket presented for redemption at one of said monetary value gaming ticket redemption stations, receive a second image of a patron presenting said second monetary value gaming ticket, compare said second image to said first image, and determine, based on comparing the second image to the first image, whether said patron presenting said first monetary value gaming ticket is the same as said patron presenting said second 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; storing, in a memory associated with said reporting server, said first image and information regarding said first monetary value gaming ticket; receiving, at said reporting server from said monetary value gaming ticket redemption station, information regarding a second monetary value gaming ticket being presented for redemption; receiving, at said reporting server, a second image of a patron presenting said second monetary value gaming ticket; comparing, by the reporting server, said second image to said first image; and determining, by the reporting server, based on comparing the second image to the first image, whether said patron presenting said first monetary value gaming ticket is the same as said patron presenting said second 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 to capture an image of a patron seeking to redeem a monetary value gaming ticket for money; to transmit information regarding said presented monetary value gaming ticket; to store at least one first image of said patron captured with said information regarding said first monetary value gaming ticket; to receive information regarding a second monetary value gaming ticket presented for redemption; receive a second image of a patron presenting said second monetary value gaming ticket, compare said second image to said first image, and determine, based on comparing the second image to the first image, whether said patron presenting said first monetary value gaming ticket is the same as said patron presenting said second monetary value gaming ticket (Claim 1); and for receiving information regarding a first monetary value gaming ticket being presented for redemption by a patron; receiving a first image of said patron; storing, said first image and information regarding said first monetary value gaming ticket; receiving information regarding a second monetary value gaming ticket being presented for redemption; receiving, a second image of a patron presenting said second monetary value gaming ticket; comparing, said second image to said first image; and determining, based on comparing the second image to the first image, whether said patron presenting said first monetary value gaming ticket is the same as said patron presenting said second 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, “causes the processor of the reporting system 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 claimed computer components (“station”, “housing”, “processor”, “memory”, “machine readable code”, “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 a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
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”, “machine readable code”, “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 2-9, 11-12, and 15-20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in part.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The rejection of claims 1-9, 11-13, 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been clarified and maintained to reflect the instant amendments.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-10, filed 7/6/26, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-3, 7-9, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive; therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
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 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
Prosecution Insights