Detailed Action
Claims 1-17 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 17 is newly added.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Remark 1: Applicant argues “More particularly, claim 1 is characterized as directed to methods of organizing human activity, and within that category, to commercial interactions. Applicant respectfully disagrees. In determining patent eligibility, the claim must be considered as a whole. Indeed, Alice stated that "the element of each claim [must be considered] both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application."Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l,134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). The analysis of the September 24 Office Action begins with a purported summary of the claimed subject matter as "digital-currency-based wagering transactions." This is incorrect. While the system works in concert with one or more management servers configured to account for all currency inserted into and paid out by a plurality of gaming apparatuses, the claims do not discuss wagering activity at all. Indeed, wagering is recited only once, in the preamble. As stated in the preamble, the system is configured to facilitate use of digital currencies for wagering, but the actions of the system are not part of the wagering itself. Rather, claim 1 recites a system that permits digital currencies to be deposited so as to be used in a highly regulated industry, namely the gaming industry. As such, the system must interact with the above management servers, but the structure and operation of the system recited in claim 1 addresses the technical issue of how to safely and securely receive a deposit of digital currency. Given the fundamental nature of digital currency, this system must address certain technical problems and provide technical solutions. Thus, claim 1 recites a system in communication with a public network in communication a player wallet and in communication with one or more management servers configured to account for all currency inserted into and paid out by a plurality of gaming apparatuses, each gaming apparatus of the plurality of gaming apparatuses being arranged to play a game and disposed remote to the one or more management servers. The system includes one or more digital wallets, a first security subsystem, a second security subsystem, and a management subsystem. The first security subsystem is in communication with the public network, and is configured to screen incoming traffic from the public network. The second security subsystem is in communication with the public network, and is configured to permit outbound only communication with the public network. The management subsystem is in communication with the first security subsystem, with the second security subsystem, with the one or more digital wallets, and via a secure connection only with the one or more management servers. The management subsystem is configured to receive a request to deposit digital currency from the player wallet in one of the one or more digital wallets via the first security subsystem, generate a deposit address in response to the request and transmit the deposit address via the second security subsystem, query the one or the one or more digital wallets for incoming deposits, determine that one of the incoming deposits is associated with the deposit address, and inform, via the secure connection, the one or more management servers that a deposit has been received from a user associated with the deposit address and a value corresponding to the digital currency deposited. As such, there is no discussion of wagering transactions in claim 1. Instead, claim 1 recites the structure of the system (in three subsystems) that operates (via the management subsystem) to permit safe and secure receipt of digital currency. The system does this by a particular exchange with the player, namely the deposit address in response to the request to deposit digital currency, and then by querying the one or more digital wallets associated with the deposit address for incoming deposits. Only after it is determined that an incoming deposit is associated with the deposit address is the management server informed that a deposit has been received and a value associated with the digital currency deposited. As to the "Methods of Organizing Human Activity," the claim does not recite any of the traditionally recognized categories, such as may be found In the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2106.04(a)(2) II. Claim 1 does not recite Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles: while the system may be useful in carrying out economic practices, the words of the claim are directed to a system that may be used to receive a deposit of digital currency securely through a particular computerized system, not to the deposit of currency itself. Claim 1 does not recite Commercial or Legal Interactions: again, the system may be useful in carrying out such interactions, but the words of the claim are directed to the system and its operation, not to the deposit of currency alone. Finally, claim 1 does not recite Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People: rather, the system manages the flow of digital currency in a secure manner. Neither do the claims merely say "apply it" to a computer. Instead, the claims recite a particular system with multiple subsystems that bring about a technical solution to a technical problem: how to permit a secure deposit of digital currency from one (blockchain) wallet to another. The recited subject matter organizes the system to operate in an efficient manner that prevents insecure deposits from being made, but does so in a particular manner that is recited in the claim.” (Applicant Arguments, 2026-03-24).
Response to Remark 1: We are not persuaded. Claim is still directed to facilitating a digital-currency deposit for use in wagering because the claim expressly ties the system to wagering, player wallets, gaming apparatuses, and management servers, and recites receiving a deposit request, generating a deposit address, determining that a deposit corresponding to that address has been received, and informing the management servers of the deposited value. Those steps amount to a financial transfer and account-crediting workflow carried out in a wagering environment, which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial transactions. The recited digital wallets, public network, security subsystems, and management subsystem are described at a high functional level and are used as tools to implement that deposit workflow rather than to improve the computer technology itself. The claim does not recite a specific cryptographic protocol, a particular firewall technique, or a concrete improvement in network operation.
Remark 2: Applicant argues “The applicant does not believe that analysis is required beyond Step 2A, Prong One. As regards Prong Two, however, one is reminded of Bascom Global Internet Services Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). in Bascom, the Federal Circuit found that patent eligibility can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces. In Bascom, the Federal Circuit found that it was error to merely recognize that each claim element may be, by itself, known in the art, and fail to appreciate the "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."Id. at 1350. Despite the fact that the specification described the claimed hardware as "well-known generic computer components" and that "[f]iltering content on the Internet was already a known concept," the Federal Circuit found that "the patent describes how its particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content."Id. On this basis, the Federal Circuit concluded that even though the claims may have been directed to the abstract idea of filtering content, the ordered combination of claim limitations transform the abstract idea into a particular, practical application. As summarized in the MPEP, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court erred by failing to recognize that when combined, an inventive concept may be found in the non- conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350, 119 USPQ2d at 1242. In a similar fashion, the office action dwells (at page 8, for example) on the fact the structure of the system used during the operation of the system is mere "tools." The analysis does not consider the specific terms of the claims, seeking to force the claims into a high-level summary of "digital-currency-based wagering transactions" (which is inapt) and then raising exceptions as if they were an exclusive list of exceptions that the claims do not meet. MPEP 2106.05 states, however, that Bascom rebuts such an analysis, showing the critical importance of considering the additional elements in combination, rather than relying on a summary or short-hand. As the Director of the USPTO has recently stated: The proper statutory tools for limiting the scope of patents are §§102 (novelty), 103 (obviousness), and 112 (written description and enablement). Section 101 should not be misused as a blunt instrument to exclude entire technological fields.” (id).
Response to Remark 2: We are not persuaded. Bascom is distinguishable because the present claim does not recite a specific, non-generic placement or configuration that improves filtering or network functionality; instead, it merely allocates conventional roles among a first security subsystem, a second security subsystem, and a management subsystem. Even considered as an ordered combination, the claim uses known components to screen traffic, permit outbound communication, handle a deposit request, and report the result, which still implements the same abstract deposit-processing concept. The claim does not improve the operation of digital wallets, firewall technology, or server communications, but rather uses those components in their ordinary capacities. Moreover, the cited art shows that web-application screening and outbound-only gateway communication were known techniques, reinforcing that the additional elements are conventional tools rather than a technological improvement.
35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103
Remark 1: Applicant argues “The references do not, in fact, disclose or teach the subject matter they are relied on to disclose or teach. As discussed at MPEP 2141, IV, the applicant may traverse a rejection by "show[ing] that the Office erred in [its] findings." Such argumentation is distinguishable from a situation where the references are argued individually. As stated at MPEP 2145, IV., "[w]here an applicant's reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate." As one example, it is stated at page 12, that Michaelson et al. teaches to "receive a request to deposit digital currency from the player wallet in one of the one or more digital wallets." The cited passage from para. [0106] of Michaelson et al. does not, in fact, discuss anything concerning the receipt of a request to deposit digital currency, which request then triggers the generation of a deposit address. Michaelson et al. baldly states that "a player transfers an amount of bitcoins from the player's bitcoin wallet to the gaming system." There is no preliminary request to deposit, nor any triggering of the generation of a deposit address. Michaelson et al. discloses and teaches the deposit as a single, undivided action. The same is true when the player concludes the gaming session: the gaming system transfers any bitcoins from the gaming system back to the player's bitcoin wallet. Although the situation would be the opposite that recited in claim 1, a distinction with a difference, there is nothing in Michaelson et al. even with respect to the transfer from the system to the player that suggests that the transfer is other than a single, undivided action. Nor does the fact that Michaelson et al. states it "enable[s] a player to upload and/or download bitcoin data or information from the player's bitcoin wallet" disclose or teach anything in addition to a single, undivided action of transfer or deposit. A request to make a deposit does not necessarily flow from the teachings of Michaelson et al. Instead, Michaelson et al. appears to be using "enable" in its common and ordinary meaning of "to provide with the means or opportunity." Further, Brock does not provide the subject matter missing from Michaelson et al.1 That is, while Brock is relied upon for its teachings that an address of a cryptocurrency wallet is provided, this disclosure is not sufficient to address the disclosure and/or teaching missing from Michaelson et al. and has been improperly stripped of the context provided in Brock. As to the first point, as noted above, Michaelson et al. does not, in fact, disclose or teach that a request to make a deposit is received. Michaelson et al. addresses the transfer as a single, undivided action, and no request is mentioned - there is no "on- demand" in Michaelson et al. As such, the fact that Brock may send a wallet address does not provide or complete the disclosure or teaching missing from Michaelson et al. As to the second point, Brock sends an address when the party receiving the funds (the merchant) selects to receive payment in cryptocurrency. There is no on- demand generation of the deposit address in Brock - the merchant's address is sent by the merchant. Brock addresses the exact opposite of the scenario present in the claim - the address is not sent at the request of the purchaser (allegedly corresponding to the player), but at the direction of the merchant (allegedly corresponding to either the management subsystem or the management servers). It is not enough to merely rely on the parts of a reference that supports the rejection, because a reference must be considered as a whole, both for the parts in support of and those teaching away from the claimed subject matter. MPEP 2141.02, VI. ' While of Meisel et al. and Kitada et al. are also cited, neither reference discloses, teaches, or is relied upon to disclose or teach anything concerning the request to deposit or the wallet address. Consequently, these references cannot provide the disclosure and teaching missing from Michaelson et al. and Brock. In the context of the claimed subject matter, it is relevant that a request is received by the management subsystem (from the player), and that the management subsystem generates the deposit address, makes the recited determination, and then informs the management servers of the deposit and its value. The structure and operation of the system permit the management servers to be screened off from the player and its deposit by the management subsystem. This screening permits the deposit to be evaluated before the management servers are involved. For example, this evaluation may involve know-your-customer and know-your-transaction checks being performed. See, application, para. [0048]. Only after the staged transfer via the deposit address (and any attendant checks) will the management subsystem inform the management servers of the deposit and a value corresponding to the digital currency deposited. See, application, paras. [0049] et seq.”. (id).
Response to Remark 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the cited references (e.g. Michaelson, Meisel, Kitada, Brock, Lewis, Armes, and Gupta) still teach the new independent claim, as shown at least in paragraphs 9, and 106-107 of Michaelson, and as further outlined in paragraphs 8-29 of this action. Indeed, Michaelson teaches the gaming-side context of a player transferring bitcoins from the players bitcoin wallet to the gaming system for wagering, while Brock teaches service-mediated cryptocurrency funding from an external wallet, transfer to an address within the payment service, multi-part transactions through the service, confirmation, and service visibility into wallet transactions. In view of those teachings, it would have been obvious to adapt Michaelson’s disclosed transfer with Brocks known intermediate deposit handling steps so that the deposit could be received, associated, verified, and then reported before use within the gaming environment. Applicants argument that Brock only discloses a merchant-selected address is not persuasive because Brock also expressly teaches transfer from wallet 235 to payment service wallet 215 and direct service mediation of both sides of the transaction. Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Regarding claim 1, 4-6, 8, and 14- 17, the term " a first security subsystem " acts as a generic placeholder for the term “means”. The generic placeholder “a first security subsystem” is modified by functional language “. . . in communication with the public network, . . . configured to screen incoming traffic from the public network” in claim 1 and 17, “. . . wherein the one or more digital wallets are hosted separately from. . .” in claim 4, “wherein . . . comprises one or more web application firewalls” in claim 5, “comprises a load balancer, the load balancer coupled to the plurality of web application firewalls.” in claim 6, “a gateway in communication with . . ., with the second security subsystem, and via the secure connection only with the one or more management servers” in claim 8, “wherein the management subsystem is configured to be accessed by an auditor service via the public network . . .” in claim 14, “wherein . . ., the second security subsystem, and the management subsystem are hosted on a network separate and remote to the one or more management servers.” in claim 15, and “wherein . . . comprises a public subnet, the management subsystem comprises a private subnet including a gateway in communication with the public subnet, and the second security subsystem comprises a public network address translation gateway in communication with the gateway and the public network” in claim 16. Further, the generic placeholders are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions. The structures corresponding to the "a first security subsystem" may be found in at least in paragraphs 0059-0061 of Applicant’s specification (“That is, while the subsystems 122’, 124’, 126’ may include hardware and software, in the form of one or more gateways, balancers, servers, etc., the subsystems 122’, 124’, 126’ may include instead one or more serverless functions (e.g., Amazon Web Services (AWS) Lambda Functions) in place of the servers, for example. Some of these opportunities for substitution will be noted below”).
Regarding claim 1, 4, 6, 8, and 14-17 the term " a second security subsystem " acts as a generic placeholder for the term “means”. The generic placeholder “a second security subsystem” is modified by functional language “. . . in communication with the public network the . . . configured to permit outbound only communication with the public network” in claim 1 and 17 “. . . wherein the one or more digital wallets are hosted separately from. . .” in claim 4, “wherein . . . comprises one or more web application firewalls” in claim 5, “comprises a load balancer, the load balancer coupled to the plurality of web application firewalls.” in claim 6, “a gateway in communication with . . .and via the secure connection only with the one or more management servers” in claim 8, “wherein the management subsystem is configured to be accessed by an auditor service via the public network . . .” in claim 14, “wherein . . . the management subsystem are hosted on a network separate and remote to the one or more management servers.” in claim 15, and “wherein . . . comprises a public subnet, the management subsystem comprises a private subnet including a gateway in communication with the public subnet, and the . . . comprises a public network address translation gateway in communication with the gateway and the public network” in claim 16. Further, the generic placeholders are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions. The structures corresponding to the "a second security subsystem" may be found in at least in paragraphs 0059-0061 of Applicant’s specification (“That is, while the subsystems 122’, 124’, 126’ may include hardware and software, in the form of one or more gateways, balancers, servers, etc., the subsystems 122’, 124’, 126’ may include instead one or more serverless functions (e.g., Amazon Web Services (AWS) Lambda Functions) in place of the servers, for example. Some of these opportunities for substitution will be noted below”).
Regarding claim 1-4, 8-9, 13, and 15-17, the term " a management subsystem " acts as a generic placeholder for the term “means”. The generic placeholder “a management subsystem” is modified by functional language “the management subsystem configured to: receive a request to deposit digital currency from the player wallet in one of the one or more digital wallets . . .; generate a deposit address in response to the request and transmit the deposit address . . .; query the one or the one or more digital wallets for incoming deposits; determine that one of the incoming deposits is associated with the deposit address; and inform, via the secure connection, . . . that a deposit has been received from a user associated with the deposit address and a value corresponding to the digital currency deposited.” in claim 1 and 17, “receive an instruction to queue a deposit of digital currency from one of the one or more wallets to the player wallet, the instruction received . . .via the secure connection, and digital currency corresponding to a number of unplayed credits on the one of the gaming apparatuses; queue a withdrawal from the one of the one or more wallets for operator approval and transmit an approval request . . . via the secure connection; receive operator approval; and initiate transfer from the one or the one or more wallets.” in claim 2, “receive an instruction to queue a deposit of digital currency from one of the one or more wallets to the player wallet, the instruction . . . via the secure connection, and digital currency corresponding to a number of unplayed credits on the one of the gaming apparatuses; and queue a withdrawal from the one of the one or more wallets for operator approval” in claim 3, “wherein the one or more digital wallets are hosted separately from the first security subsystem, the second security subsystem, . . ..” in claim 4, “a gateway in communication with the first security subsystem, with the second security subsystem, and via the secure connection . . .one or more transfer servers in communication with the gateway and the one or more digital wallets, the one or more transfer servers configured to deposit the digital currency from the player wallet in the one or more digital wallets, and to send payout digital currency to the player wallet via the gateway and the second security subsystem.” in claim 8, “wherein the one or more transfer servers comprises a plurality of transfer servers, and . . . further comprises a load balancer coupled to the gateway and the plurality of transfer servers” in claim 9, “configured to access identity verification information from a third-party server via the second security subsystem and the public network” in claim 13, “configured to be accessed by an auditor service via the public network and the first security subsystem” in claim 14, “hosted on a network separate and remote to . . .” in claim 15, “a private subnet including a gateway in communication with the public subnet, and the second security subsystem comprises a public network address translation gateway in communication with the gateway and the public network.” in claim 16. Further, the generic placeholders are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions. The structures corresponding to the " a management subsystem " may be found in at least in paragraphs 0059-0061 of Applicant’s specification (“That is, while the subsystems 122’, 124’, 126’ may include hardware and software, in the form of one or more gateways, balancers, servers, etc., the subsystems 122’, 124’, 126’ may include instead one or more serverless functions (e.g., Amazon Web Services (AWS) Lambda Functions) in place of the servers, for example. Some of these opportunities for substitution will be noted below”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claims 2-16 are similarly rejected based on their dependency from their independent claim 1.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-17 are directed to a computer-implemented system/apparatus (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Claim 1 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of digital-currency-based wagering transactions. But for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain method of organizing human activity grouping is used to describe fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Fundamental economic principles or practices are relating to the economy and commerce, or recite hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. Commercial or legal interactions recite agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people recite social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. Here, the claim limitations reciting the abstract idea of digital-currency-based wagering transactions are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations recite fundamental economic principles or practices, as they relate to the economy and commerce (e.g., digital currency wagering, bookkeeping, accounting). More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea(s) while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 1:
A system configured to facilitate use of digital currencies for wagering, the system in communication with a public network in communication a player wallet and in communication with one or more management servers configured to account for all currency inserted into and paid out by a plurality of gaming apparatuses, each gaming apparatus of the plurality of gaming apparatuses being arranged to play a game and disposed remote to the one or more management servers, and the system comprising:
one or more digital wallets;
a first security subsystem in communication with the public network, the first security subsystem configured to screen incoming traffic from the public network;
a second security subsystem in communication with the public network the second security subsystem configured to permit outbound only communication with the public network; and
a management subsystem in communication with the first security subsystem, with the second security subsystem, with the one or more digital wallets, and via a secure connection only with the one or more management servers,
the management subsystem configured to:
receive a request to deposit digital currency from the player wallet in one of the one or more digital wallets via the first security subsystem;
generate a deposit address in response to the request and transmit the deposit address via the second security subsystem;
query the one or the one or more digital wallets for incoming deposits;
determine that one of the incoming deposits is associated with the deposit address; and
inform, via the secure connection, the one or more management servers that a deposit has been received from a user associated with the deposit address and a value corresponding to the digital currency deposited.
Claim 17
A system configured to facilitate use of digital currencies for wagering, the system in communication with a public network in communication a player wallet and in communication with one or more management servers configured to account for all currency inserted into and paid out by a plurality of gaming apparatuses, each gaming apparatus of the plurality of gaming apparatuses being arranged to play a game and disposed remote to the one or more management servers, and the system comprising:
one or more digital wallets;
a first security subsystem in communication with the public network, the first security subsystem configured to screen incoming traffic from the public network;
a second security subsystem in communication with the public network the second security subsystem configured to permit outbound only communication with the public network; and
a management subsystem in communication with the first security subsystem, with the second security subsystem, with the one or more digital wallets, and with the one or more management servers,
the management subsystem configured to:
receive a request to deposit digital currency from the player wallet in one of the one or more digital wallets via the first security subsystem;
generate a deposit address in response to the request and transmit the deposit address via the second security subsystem;
query the one or the one or more digital wallets for incoming deposits;
determine that one of the incoming deposits is associated with the deposit address; and
inform the one or more management servers that a deposit has been received from a user associated with the deposit address and a value corresponding to the digital currency deposited.
Step 2A Prong Two
In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Here, claim 1 as a whole, looking at the identified additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. First, the non-underlined additional elements (“player wallet”, “digital wallet”, “management servers”, etc) merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II).
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 1 , as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claims 2-16 have also been analyzed. However, the subject matter of these claims also fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 2-16 further recite the abstract idea of digital-currency-based wagering transactions. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements “player wallet”, “digital wallet”, “management servers”, etc fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaelson et al. (US20130065670A1) (hereinafter “Michaelson”) in view of Meisel et al. (US20090328187A1) (hereinafter “Meisel”) and Kitada et al. (US20080075097A1) (hereinafter “Kitada”) in further view of Brock (US20190034889A1) (hereinafter “Brock”)
As per Claim 1, Michaelson teaches:
A system configured to facilitate use of digital currencies for wagering, the system in communication with a public network in communication a player wallet (“Once generated or mined, a bitcoin may be stored in a person's bitcoin “wallet” which may be either stored on the person's computer by the bitcoin software or hosted on a third-party website” (Para. 0009)) and in communication with one or more management servers configured to account for all currency inserted into and paid out by a plurality of gaming apparatuses, each gaming apparatus of the plurality of gaming apparatuses being arranged to play a game and disposed remote to the one or more management servers, and the system comprising: (“In an Internet embodiment, the gaming system disclosed herein may be implemented using one or more servers, and individual users that access the servers by logging on from a personal web browser. In one such embodiment, a player transfers an amount of bitcoins from the player's bitcoin wallet to the gaming system. Once transferred, the player may be enabled to wager these bitcoins in association with one or more plays of one or more wagering games.” (Para. 0106); “In this embodiment, upon the conclusion of the player's gaming session (i.e., when the player wants to cash out any credit balance of any bitcoins), the gaming system transfers any bitcoins from the gaming system back to the player's bitcoin wallet. It may be appreciated that in this embodiment, each transaction involving each bitcoin may be recorded in association with that bitcoin's address.” (Para. 0106); “In another embodiment, the gaming system may enable a player to wager an amount or quantity of bitcoins on a game played at a gaming device which may be located at a physical gaming establishment, such as casino. In this embodiment, to assist in the wagering of bitcoins at such a physical gaming establishment, the gaming system may utilize an interface that facilitates the exchange of bitcoins.” (Para. 0107))
one or more digital wallets; . . . (“a player transfers an amount of bitcoins from the player's bitcoin wallet to the gaming system. Once transferred, the player may be enabled to wager these bitcoins . . . [T]he gaming system transfers any bitcoins from the gaming system back to the player's bitcoin wallet.” (Para. 0106)
receive a request to deposit digital currency from the player wallet in one of the one or more digital wallets . . .; (“In one such embodiment, a player transfers an amount of bitcoins from the player's bitcoin wallet to the gaming system. Once transferred, the player may be enabled to wager these bitcoins in association with one or more plays of one or more wagering games. In this embodiment, upon the conclusion of the player's gaming session (i.e., when the player wants to cash out any credit balance of any bitcoins), the gaming system transfers any bitcoins from the gaming system back to the player's bitcoin wallet. It may be appreciated that in this embodiment, each transaction involving each bitcoin may be recorded in association with that bitcoin's address.” (Para. 0106); “enable a player to upload and/or download bitcoin data or information from the player's bitcoin wallet in conjunction with playing the wagering games at the gaming device located in the gaming establishment.” (Para. 0107)
Michaelson does not disclose:
“a first security subsystem in communication with the public network, the first security subsystem configured to screen incoming traffic from the public network;” and “via the first security subsystem” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Meisel in the analogous art of filtering inbound network traffic to internet-connected servers, teaches: “a first security subsystem in communication with the public network, the first security subsystem configured to screen incoming traffic from the public network;” and “via the first security subsystem”. (See “The present invention relates in general to Web application security. The invention provides a mean to protect a Web application from hacker attacks. Thus the present invention is a Web Application Firewall (WAF).” (Para. 0002); “The WAF is normally located in the DMZ (demilitarized zone). . . . Typically, the DMZ contains devices accessible to Internet traffic, such as Web servers. Thus the WAF protects the Web applications and the Web Servers from misuse. The potential attackers normally do not have a direct access to the internal application/database servers. Each incoming and outgoing HTTP request/response transits through the WAF to prevent potential attackers from accessing organization's internal network and resources.” (Para. 0094); “The invention provides a mean to analyse the HTTP traffic between one or several clients 105 and a Web Server (WS) 106, 305, 406.” (Para. 0097)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Meisel to include a first security subsystem implemented as a firewall and positioned between the public network and the gaming system. Therefore, the incentives of improving protection of wagering servers provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Michealson does not disclose:
“a second security subsystem in communication with the public network the second security subsystem configured to permit outbound only communication with the public network; and” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Kitada in the analogous art of preventing unauthorized inbound access to a networked system, teaches: “a second security subsystem in communication with the public network the second security subsystem configured to permit outbound only communication with the public network; and”. (See “an IP application service providing system enables inbound communication from the outside toward the inside in IP application communication intended between an internal node concealed from an outside network and belonging to an inside network and an external node belonging to the outside network through a gateway device set to permit only outbound communication from the inside toward the outside.” (Para. 0018); “an IP application service providing method enabling inbound communication from the outside toward the inside in IP application communication intended between an internal node concealed from an outside network and belonging to an inside network and an external node belonging to the outside network through a gateway device set to permit only outbound communication from the inside toward the outside.” (Para. 0023)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Kitada to include a gateway set to permit only outbound communication with the public network. Therefore, the incentives of preventing unauthorized inbound access provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Michaelson does not disclose:
“a management subsystem in communication with the first security subsystem, with the second security subsystem, with the one or more digital wallets, and via a secure connection only with the one or more management servers, the management subsystem configured to:” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Brock in the analogous art of secured payments between parties, teaches: “a management subsystem in communication with the first security subsystem, with the second security subsystem, with the one or more digital wallets, and via a secure connection only with the one or more management servers, the management subsystem configured to:”. (See “customer 104 may have a balance of cryptocurrency stored in third party digital wallet 212 on customer 104's computing device 103 unrelated to payment service 108 and customer 104 can transfer all or a portion of the balance of the cryptocurrency stored in third party digital wallet 212 to payment service 108 as is well known to those of skill in the art. . . Thereafter the transferred amount of cryptocurrency is within customer 104's cryptocurrency wallet 235 for use in later transactions.” (Para. 0106); “Payment service 108 can complete the transaction by reducing 512 the cryptocurrency balance in customer 104's wallet 235 and increasing 512 cryptocurrency balance in merchant 102's wallet 237.” (Para. 0110); “When merchant 102 selects and POS device 105 receives the selection 506 to receive payment in cryptocurrency, POS device 105 can send 508 address of cryptocurrency wallet 237 and other transaction details such as value owed to customer device 103. Customer device 103 can then send 510 a message signed by its private key including its wallet 235 address, identify the cryptocurrency, and a value to be transferred to merchant wallet 237 to payment service 108.” (Para. 0109); “Once a miner has verified the block, the block is written to a public, distributed blockchain 220 where payment service 108 can then verify that the transaction has been confirmed and can credit customer's cryptocurrency ledger 204 with the transferred amount.” (Para. 0052); “Payment service 108 receives the transaction details and encrypted cryptocurrency payment information, and calculates (312) a value in cryptocurrency” (Para. 0077)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Brock to include a management subsystem communicating with servers via a secure connection. Therefore, the incentives of ensuring compliance with regulatory standards and securing sensitive account information provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Michaelson does not disclose:
“generate a deposit address in response to the request and transmit the deposit address via the second security subsystem;” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Brock in the analogous art of secured payments between parties, teaches: “generate a deposit address in response to the request and transmit the deposit address via the second security subsystem”. (See “When merchant 102 selects and POS device 105 receives the selection 506 to receive payment in cryptocurrency, POS device 105 can send 508 address of cryptocurrency wallet 237 and other transaction details such as value owed to customer device 103. Customer device 103 can then send 510 a message signed by its private key including its wallet 235 address, identify the cryptocurrency, and a value to be transferred to merchant wallet 237 to payment service 108.” (Para. 0109); “Payment service 108 cryptocurrency wallet 215 can be associated with many different addresses, and can vary addresses used to acquire cryptocurrency so that its holdings are represented under a variety of addresses on blockchain 220. When payment service 108 has its own holdings of cryptocurrency, customers, such as customer 104, can acquire cryptocurrency directly from payment service 108.” (Para. 0053); “Private blockchain 230 can function to record sender addresses, recipient addresses, public keys, values of cryptocurrency transferred, and can be used to verify ownership of cryptocurrency tokens to be transferred.” (Para. 0103))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Brock to include on-demand generation of a deposit address and transmitting it to a player device. Therefore, the incentives of uniquely identifying deposits and reducing fraud risk provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Michaelson does not disclose:
“query the one or the one or more digital wallets for incoming deposits;” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Brock in the analogous art of secured payments between parties, teaches: “query the one or the one or more digital wallets for incoming deposits;”. (See “The transaction is sent to miners to bundle the transaction into a block of transactions and to verify the authenticity of the transactions in the block. Once a miner has verified the block, the block is written to a public, distributed blockchain 220 where payment service 108 can then verify that the transaction has been confirmed and can credit customer's cryptocurrency ledger 204 with the transferred amount.” (Para. 0052); “Only the obligations between payment service 108 and customer 104 have changed. Since the transaction does not need to be recorded on blockchain 220 the transaction can be completed immediately without waiting on confirmation of the transaction from blockchain 220.” (Para. 0079); “Payment service 108 can then send a transaction confirmation to POS device 105.” (Para. 00))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Brock to include querying digital wallets for incoming deposits and confirming funds. Therefore, the incentives of enduring timely credits of player accounts and preventing errors in wagering transactions provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Michaelson does not disclose:
“determine that one of the incoming deposits is associated with the deposit address; and” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Brock in the analogous art of secured payments between parties, teaches: “determine that one of the incoming deposits is associated with the deposit address; and”. (See “customer 104 can transfer all or a portion of the balance of the cryptocurrency stored in third party digital wallet 212 to payment service 108 as is well known to those of skill in the art. Such a transaction requires customer 104 to transfer an amount of the virtual currency in a message signed by customer 104's private key to an address of cryptocurrency wallet 235 within payment service 108.” (Para. 0106); “Once a miner has verified the block, the block is written to a public, distributed blockchain 220 where payment service 108 can then verify that the transaction has been confirmed and can credit customer's cryptocurrency ledger 204 with the transferred amount.” (Para. 0052))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Brock to include a determination of address association for a transaction. Therefore, the incentives of ensuring accurate crediting of player accounts and maintaining auditability of transactions provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Michaelson does not disclose:
“inform, via the secure connection, the one or more management servers that a deposit has been received from a user associated with the deposit address and a value corresponding to the digital currency deposited.” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Brock in the analogous art of secured payments between parties, teaches: “inform, via the secure connection, the one or more management servers that a deposit has been received from a user associated with the deposit address and a value corresponding to the digital currency deposited”. (See “Once a miner has verified the block, the block is written to a public, distributed blockchain 220 where payment service 108 can then verify that the transaction has been confirmed and can credit customer's cryptocurrency ledger 204 with the transferred amount.” (Para. 0052); “When merchant 102 selects and POS device 105 receives the selection 506 to receive payment in cryptocurrency, POS device 105 can send 508 address of cryptocurrency wallet 237 and other transaction details such as value owed to customer device 103. Customer device 103 can then send 510 a message signed by its private key including its wallet 235 address, identify the cryptocurrency, and a value to be transferred to merchant wallet 237 to payment service 108. Payment service 108 can complete the transaction by reducing 512 the cryptocurrency balance in customer 104's wallet 235 and increasing 512 cryptocurrency balance in merchant 102's wallet 237.” (Para. 0109-0110); “any account information, or other customer identifying information would be encrypted.” (Para. 0069))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Brock to include informing, via secure connection, a server that a deposit was received from a given address, along with an associated value. Therefore, the incentives of ensuring accurate crediting of player accounts and maintaining auditability of transactions provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 2, Michaelson teaches:
The system of claim 1, . . .
Michaelson does not disclose:
“wherein the management subsystem is further configured to: receive an instruction to queue a deposit of digital currency from one of the one or more wallets to the player wallet, the instruction received from one of the one or more management servers via the secure connection, and digital currency corresponding to a number of unplayed credits on the one of the gaming apparatuses; queue a withdrawal from the one of the one or more wallets for operator approval and transmit an approval request to the one or more management servers via the secure connection; receive operator approval; and initiate transfer from the one or the one or more wallets.” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Michaelson in the analogous art of secured payments between parties, teaches: “wherein the management subsystem is further configured to: receive an instruction to queue a deposit of digital currency from one of the one or more wallets to the player wallet, the instruction received from one of the one or more management servers via the secure connection, and digital currency corresponding to a number of unplayed credits on the one of the gaming apparatuses; queue a withdrawal from the one of the one or more wallets for operator approval and transmit an approval request to the one or more management servers via the secure connection; receive operator approval; and initiate transfer from the one or the one or more wallets”. (See “receiving a request for payment associated with a transaction between a first user and a second user, where the request specifies a payment amount in a fiat currency and identifying an indication that the first user intends to satisfy the request for payment using a non-fiat instrument. The method also includes initiating a first transfer of a value corresponding to the payment amount in the non-fiat instrument from a first balance of the first user to one or more service balances of a payment service” (Abstract); “initiating, by the payment service, a second transfer of a value corresponding to the payment amount in the fiat currency from the one or more service balances of the payment service to a second balance of the second user, wherein the second balance is stored in the one or more data structures maintained by the payment service.” (Claim 19); “payment service 108 can store customer profile 132. Customer profile 132 can include customer data 202 which can include customer identifying information (name, contact information, etc.), records of past transactions 205 involving payment service 108 by customer 104, information regarding linked accounts (credit card information, bank account information, etc.), information regarding services utilized by customer profile 132 (e.g., the account utilizes a mobile wallet application 210 provided by payment service 108, etc.).” (Para. 0049)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Brock to include queueing currency deposits/withdrawals and transmitting approval requests to management servers. Therefore, the incentives of ensuring secure, auditable approval of wagering transactions provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 3, Michaelson teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the management subsystem is further configured to: receive an instruction to queue a deposit of digital currency from one of the one or more wallets to the player wallet, the instruction received from one of the one or more management servers via the secure connection, and digital currency corresponding to a number of unplayed credits on the one of the gaming apparatuses; and queue a withdrawal from the one of the one or more wallets for operator approval.” (“In this embodiment, upon the conclusion of the player's gaming session (i.e., when the player wants to cash out any credit balance of any bitcoins), the gaming system transfers any bitcoins from the gaming system back to the player's bitcoin wallet. It may be appreciated that in this embodiment, each transaction involving each bitcoin may be recorded in association with that bitcoin's address.” (Para. 0106); “In one embodiment, when the player cashes out, a payment device, such as a ticket, payment, or note generator 36 prints or otherwise may generate a ticket or credit slip to provide to the player. The player may receive the ticket or credit slip and may redeem the value associated with the ticket or credit slip via a cashier (or other suitable redemption system). In another embodiment, when the player cashes out, the player may receive the coins or tokens in a coin payout tray. It may be appreciated that any suitable payout mechanisms, such as funding to the player's electronically recordable identification card or smart card, may be implemented in accordance with the gaming device disclosed herein.” (Para. 0041); “In one embodiment wherein the gaming system uses two or more different types of currency, the gaming system may include a plurality of balances for the plurality of different types of currencies used.” (Para. 0105)).
As per Claim 4, Michaelson teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more digital wallets are hosted separately from the first security subsystem, the second security subsystem, and the management subsystem. (“Rather, the designated mobile device may store the player's bitcoin wallet and may control access to the stored bitcoin wallet, such as only enabling a player to communicate with the bitcoin software via a secure channel” (Para. 0108); “a bitcoin may be stored in a person's bitcoin “wallet” which may be either stored on the person's computer by the bitcoin software or hosted on a third-party website.” (Para. 0009); “In one such embodiment, the plays of the primary games may be displayed to the player in association with a gaming device located at a gaming establishment, such as a casino. In another such embodiment, the plays of the primary games may be displayed to the player in association with a networked environment, such as over the Internet.” (Para. 0013); “In this embodiment, the operation of the gaming device may be viewed at the gaming device with at least one internet browser.” (Para. 0083))
As per Claim 5, Michaelson teaches:
The system of claim 1, . . .
Michaelson does not disclose:
• “wherein the first security subsystem comprises one or more web application firewalls” (claim 5).
However, as per Claim 5, Meisel in the analogous art of filtering inbound network traffic to internet-connected servers, teaches: “wherein the first security subsystem comprises one or more web application firewalls”. (See “the present invention is a Web Application Firewall (WAF).” (Para. 0002); “an instance of the invention: a WAF, implemented as a Web server Plugin” (Para. 0057); “Several instances of the invention can share the knowledge they acquired in order to improve the recognition of attacks.” (Para. 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Meisel to include an application firewall as part of a security subsystem. Therefore, the incentives of blocking malicious traffic provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 7, Michaelson teaches:
The system of claim 1, . . ..
Michaelson does not disclose:
• “wherein the second security subsystem comprises a network address translation gateway” (claim 7).
However, as per Claim 7, Kitada in the analogous art of preventing unauthorized inbound access to a networked system, teaches: “wherein the second security subsystem comprises a network address translation gateway”. (See “an IP application service providing system enables inbound communication from the outside toward the inside in IP application communication intended between an internal node concealed from an outside network and belonging to an inside network and an external node belonging to the outside network through a gateway device set to permit only outbound communication from the inside toward the outside, the internal node subordinated to the gateway device.” (Para. 0018-0019); “In an IPv4 network, the network address translation (NAT) is widely employed in terms of saving global IP addresses. The NAT, especially a device called NAPT (Network Address Port Translation), translates a private address and a source port of an in-office/home network into a global address and a source port according to the NAPT (a NAPT table) (see FIG. 1), thereby enabling accesses to an outside network ONW from a plurality of internal nodes A.” (Para. 0002); “in a network configuration via a network address translation (or translator) NAT (which might simply be abbreviated to NAT) serving as a gateway device set to permit communication from the inside toward the outside (which is referred to as outbound communication), i.e., the communication from an inside network (private network) INW such as an in-office network or a home network toward an outside network (public network) ONW such as the Internet or an application service network.” (Para. 0059))
11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Kitada to include a NAT gateway as a security subsystem. Therefore, the incentives of hiding internal network addresses and preventing inbound attacks provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 8, Michaelson teaches:
The system of claim 1, . . .
Michaelson does not disclose:
• “wherein the management subsystem comprises: a gateway in communication with the first security subsystem, with the second security subsystem, and via the secure connection only with the one or more management servers one or more transfer servers in communication with the gateway and the one or more digital wallets, the one or more transfer servers configured to deposit the digital currency from the player wallet in the one or more digital wallets, and to send payout digital currency to the player wallet via the gateway and the second security subsystem” (claim 8).
However, as per Claim 8, Brock in the analogous art of secured payments between parties, teaches: “wherein the management subsystem comprises: a gateway in communication with the first security subsystem, with the second security subsystem, and via the secure connection only with the one or more management servers one or more transfer servers in communication with the gateway and the one or more digital wallets, the one or more transfer servers configured to deposit the digital currency from the player wallet in the one or more digital wallets, and to send payout digital currency to the player wallet via the gateway and the second security subsystem”. (See “When merchant 102 selects and POS device 105 receives the selection 506 to receive payment in cryptocurrency, POS device 105 can send 508 address of cryptocurrency wallet 237 and other transaction details such as value owed to customer device 103. Customer device 103 can then send 510 a message signed by its private key including its wallet 235 address, identify the cryptocurrency, and a value to be transferred to merchant wallet 237 to payment service 108.” (Para. 0109); “Payment service 108 can complete the transaction by reducing 512 the cryptocurrency balance in customer 104's wallet 235 and increasing 512 cryptocurrency balance in merchant 102's wallet 237. This can be carried out in methods commonly known in cryptocurrency transactions.” (Para. 0110); “While payment service 108 has credited customer 104's cryptocurrency ledger 204, the transferred cryptocurrency (data with address provided for receipt of transaction and a balance of cryptocurrency transferred in transaction) is stored in payment service 108's cryptocurrency wallet 215.” (Para. 0054))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Brock to include a gateway linked to transfer servers for handling deposits and payouts. Therefore, the incentives of transaction reliability provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 12, Michaelson teaches:
The system of claim 1, . . .
Michaelson does not disclose:
• “further comprising a plurality of blockchain nodes in communication with the one or more wallets and the second security subsystem” (claim 12).
However, as per Claim 12, Brock in the analogous art of secured payments between parties, teaches: “further comprising a plurality of blockchain nodes in communication with the one or more wallets and the second security subsystem”. (See “Private blockchain 230 can function to record sender addresses, recipient addresses, public keys, values of cryptocurrency transferred, and can be used to verify ownership of cryptocurrency tokens to be transferred.” (Para. 0103); “In some embodiments, payment service 108 can record transactions taking place within payment service 108 involving cryptocurrency until the number of transactions has exceeded a determined limit (limit could be a number of transactions, storage space allocation for a number of transactions, or any other limit, etc.). Once the limit has been reached payment service 108 can publish the transactions in private blockchain 230 to public blockchain 220 where miners can verify the transactions and record the transactions in blocks on public blockchain 220.” (Para. 0104); “these transactions can be recorded first to private blockchain 230 or directly to public blockchain 220.” (Para. 0112))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Brock to include multiple blockchain nodes in communication with digital wallets and the security subsystem. Therefore, the incentives of achieving consensus verification and improving transaction security provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 13, Michaelson teaches:
The system of claim 1, . . .
9. Michaelson does not disclose:
• “wherein the management subsystem is configured to access identity verification information from a third-party server via the second security subsystem and the public network” (claim 13).
10. However, as per Claim 13, Brock in the analogous art of secured payments between parties, teaches: “wherein the management subsystem is configured to access identity verification information from a third-party server via the second security subsystem and the public network”. (See “Creation of customer profile 132 can be subject to background checks, or other verifications of identity. For example, one or more government issued ID numbers may be required to create a customer profile that is usable with aliases. Since payment service 108 has verified the identity of those parties wishing to conduct transactions using an alias, while merchants 102 or users 150 can safely conduct such transactions.” (Para. 0097); “FIG. 5 illustrates an embodiment of the present technology wherein customer device 103 and POS device 105 communicate with payment service 108, and does not communicate directly with each other.” (Para. 0090); “As such, the payment processing service 126 may communicate with one or more computing devices of a payment card network 140 (or “card payment network”), e.g., MasterCard®, VISA®, over network(s) 110 to conduct financial transactions electronically. Payment processing service 126 can also communicate with one or more computing devices of one or more banks, processing/acquiring services, or the like over the network 110. For example, payment processing service 126 may communicate with an acquiring bank, and/or an issuing bank, and/or a bank maintaining customer accounts for electronic payments. Payment processing service 126 may also communicate with, or access customer and merchant accounts maintained by payment service 108.” (Para. 0037))
11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Brock to include accessing identity verification information from a third-party server via the public network. Therefore, the incentives of meeting AML and KYC regulatory requirements for gaming platforms provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 14, Michaelson teaches:
The system of claim 1, . . .
9. Michaelson does not disclose:
• “wherein the management subsystem is configured to be accessed by an auditor service via the public network and the first security subsystem” (claim 14).
10. However, as per Claim 14, Meisel in the analogous art of filtering inbound network traffic to internet-connected servers, teaches: “The invention can also keep track of the requests in order to furnish enhanced logging information or to achieve some learning 104, 204, 205, 206, 207, 404. The invention can also trigger alarms, or send email to an administrator if it judges it necessary.” (Para. 0098); “The GIS collects information from the local plugins (WAF/LAI) 103, 203, 303, 406, 407. Sensible information (password, credit card number . . . ) will not circulate through the network 202. Only data abstractions will be submitted from local plugins to the GISs 101, 200, 302, 401.” (Para. 0145); “The GIS is capable of reasoning. . . . The algorithms employed here can deliver an asynchronous result and therefore have more time to achieve more complex analysis than local plugins” (Para. 0146))
11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Meisel to include an auditor service through a public network and firewall-based security subsystem. Therefore, the incentives of enabling regulators to remotely monitor transactions for compliance provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 15, Michaelson teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first security subsystem, the second security subsystem, and the management subsystem are hosted on a network separate and remote to the one or more management servers. (“In another embodiment, the data network may be a wide area network (WAN) in which one or more of the gaming devices may be in communication with at least one off-site central server or controller. In this embodiment, the plurality of gaming devices may be located in a different part of the gaming establishment or within a different gaming establishment than the off-site central server or controller. Thus, the WAN may include an off-site central server or controller and an off-site gaming device located within gaming establishments in the same geographic area, such as a city or state. The WAN gaming system may be substantially identical to the LAN gaming system described above, although the number of gaming devices in each system may vary relative to one another.” (Para. 0082); “In one embodiment, as illustrated in FIG. 2B, one or more of the gaming devices 10 may be in communication with each other and/or at least one central controller 56 through a data network or remote communication link 58.” (Para. 0069); “In one embodiment, a progressive gaming system host site computer may be coupled to a plurality of the central servers at a variety of mutually remote gaming sites for providing a multi-site linked progressive automated gaming system. In one embodiment, a progressive gaming system host site computer may serve gaming devices distributed throughout a number of properties at different geographical locations including, for example, different locations within a city or different cities within a state.” (Para. 0087))
As per Claim 16, Michaelson teaches:
The system of claim 15, . . .
Michaelson does not disclose:
• “wherein the first security subsystem comprises a public subnet, the management subsystem comprises a private subnet including a gateway in communication with the public subnet, and the second security subsystem comprises a public network address translation gateway in communication with the gateway and the public network” (claim 16).
However, as per Claim 16, Kitada in the analogous art of preventing unauthorized inbound access to a networked system, teaches: “wherein the first security subsystem comprises a public subnet, the management subsystem comprises a private subnet including a gateway in communication with the public subnet, and the second security subsystem comprises a public network address translation gateway in communication with the gateway and the public network”. (See “in one embodiment of the present invention, in a network configuration via a network address translation (or translator) NAT (which might simply be abbreviated to NAT) serving as a gateway device set to permit communication from the inside toward the outside (which is referred to as outbound communication), i.e., the communication from an inside network (private network) INW such as an in-office network or a home network toward an outside network (public network) ONW such as the Internet.” (Para. 0059); “the IP application service providing system implements, through the NAT, connection support enabling communication (inbound communication) from the outside toward the inside in IP application communication intended between an internal node A concealed from the outside network ONW and an external node B. Note that as for a monitoring port, there is also a gateway device that is pre-permitted to receive the inbound communication.” (Para. 0059); “the gateway device such as the network address translation NAT or a firewall FW (NAT/FW).” (Para. 0060)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Kitada to include public and private subnets connected by a NAT/firewall gateway architecture. Therefore, the incentives of protecting internal systems from exposure provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 17, Michaelson teaches:
A system configured to facilitate use of digital currencies for wagering, the system in communication with a public network in communication a player wallet (“Once generated or mined, a bitcoin may be stored in a person's bitcoin “wallet” which may be either stored on the person's computer by the bitcoin software or hosted on a third-party website” (Para. 0009)) and in communication with one or more management servers configured to account for all currency inserted into and paid out by a plurality of gaming apparatuses, each gaming apparatus of the plurality of gaming apparatuses being arranged to play a game and disposed remote to the one or more management servers, and the system comprising: (“In an Internet embodiment, the gaming system disclosed herein may be implemented using one or more servers, and individual users that access the servers by logging on from a personal web browser. In one such embodiment, a player transfers an amount of bitcoins from the player's bitcoin wallet to the gaming system. Once transferred, the player may be enabled to wager these bitcoins in association with one or more plays of one or more wagering games.” (Para. 0106); “In this embodiment, upon the conclusion of the player's gaming session (i.e., when the player wants to cash out any credit balance of any bitcoins), the gaming system transfers any bitcoins from the gaming system back to the player's bitcoin wallet. It may be appreciated that in this embodiment, each transaction involving each bitcoin may be recorded in association with that bitcoin's address.” (Para. 0106); “In another embodiment, the gaming system may enable a player to wager an amount or quantity of bitcoins on a game played at a gaming device which may be located at a physical gaming establishment, such as casino. In this embodiment, to assist in the wagering of bitcoins at such a physical gaming establishment, the gaming system may utilize an interface that facilitates the exchange of bitcoins.” (Para. 0107))
one or more digital wallets; . . . (“a player transfers an amount of bitcoins from the player's bitcoin wallet to the gaming system. Once transferred, the player may be enabled to wager these bitcoins . . . [T]he gaming system transfers any bitcoins from the gaming system back to the player's bitcoin wallet.” (Para. 0106)
receive a request to deposit digital currency from the player wallet in one of the one or more digital wallets . . .; (“In one such embodiment, a player transfers an amount of bitcoins from the player's bitcoin wallet to the gaming system. Once transferred, the player may be enabled to wager these bitcoins in association with one or more plays of one or more wagering games. In this embodiment, upon the conclusion of the player's gaming session (i.e., when the player wants to cash out any credit balance of any bitcoins), the gaming system transfers any bitcoins from the gaming system back to the player's bitcoin wallet. It may be appreciated that in this embodiment, each transaction involving each bitcoin may be recorded in association with that bitcoin's address.” (Para. 0106); “enable a player to upload and/or download bitcoin data or information from the player's bitcoin wallet in conjunction with playing the wagering games at the gaming device located in the gaming establishment.” (Para. 0107)
Michaelson does not disclose:
“a first security subsystem in communication with the public network, the first security subsystem configured to screen incoming traffic from the public network;” and “via the first security subsystem” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Meisel in the analogous art of filtering inbound network traffic to internet-connected servers, teaches: “a first security subsystem in communication with the public network, the first security subsystem configured to screen incoming traffic from the public network;” and “via the first security subsystem”. (See “The present invention relates in general to Web application security. The invention provides a mean to protect a Web application from hacker attacks. Thus the present invention is a Web Application Firewall (WAF).” (Para. 0002); “The WAF is normally located in the DMZ (demilitarized zone). . . . Typically, the DMZ contains devices accessible to Internet traffic, such as Web servers. Thus the WAF protects the Web applications and the Web Servers from misuse. The potential attackers normally do not have a direct access to the internal application/database servers. Each incoming and outgoing HTTP request/response transits through the WAF to prevent potential attackers from accessing organization's internal network and resources.” (Para. 0094); “The invention provides a mean to analyse the HTTP traffic between one or several clients 105 and a Web Server (WS) 106, 305, 406.” (Para. 0097)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Meisel to include a first security subsystem implemented as a firewall and positioned between the public network and the gaming system. Therefore, the incentives of improving protection of wagering servers provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Michealson does not disclose:
“a second security subsystem in communication with the public network the second security subsystem configured to permit outbound only communication with the public network; and” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Kitada in the analogous art of preventing unauthorized inbound access to a networked system, teaches: “a second security subsystem in communication with the public network the second security subsystem configured to permit outbound only communication with the public network; and”. (See “an IP application service providing system enables inbound communication from the outside toward the inside in IP application communication intended between an internal node concealed from an outside network and belonging to an inside network and an external node belonging to the outside network through a gateway device set to permit only outbound communication from the inside toward the outside.” (Para. 0018); “an IP application service providing method enabling inbound communication from the outside toward the inside in IP application communication intended between an internal node concealed from an outside network and belonging to an inside network and an external node belonging to the outside network through a gateway device set to permit only outbound communication from the inside toward the outside.” (Para. 0023)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Kitada to include a gateway set to permit only outbound communication with the public network. Therefore, the incentives of preventing unauthorized inbound access provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Michaelson does not disclose:
“a management subsystem in communication with the first security subsystem, with the second security subsystem, with the one or more digital wallets, and via a secure connection only with the one or more management servers, the management subsystem configured to:” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Brock in the analogous art of secured payments between parties, teaches: “a management subsystem in communication with the first security subsystem, with the second security subsystem, with the one or more digital wallets, and via a secure connection only with the one or more management servers, the management subsystem configured to:”. (See “customer 104 may have a balance of cryptocurrency stored in third party digital wallet 212 on customer 104's computing device 103 unrelated to payment service 108 and customer 104 can transfer all or a portion of the balance of the cryptocurrency stored in third party digital wallet 212 to payment service 108 as is well known to those of skill in the art. . . Thereafter the transferred amount of cryptocurrency is within customer 104's cryptocurrency wallet 235 for use in later transactions.” (Para. 0106); “Payment service 108 can complete the transaction by reducing 512 the cryptocurrency balance in customer 104's wallet 235 and increasing 512 cryptocurrency balance in merchant 102's wallet 237.” (Para. 0110); “When merchant 102 selects and POS device 105 receives the selection 506 to receive payment in cryptocurrency, POS device 105 can send 508 address of cryptocurrency wallet 237 and other transaction details such as value owed to customer device 103. Customer device 103 can then send 510 a message signed by its private key including its wallet 235 address, identify the cryptocurrency, and a value to be transferred to merchant wallet 237 to payment service 108.” (Para. 0109); “Once a miner has verified the block, the block is written to a public, distributed blockchain 220 where payment service 108 can then verify that the transaction has been confirmed and can credit customer's cryptocurrency ledger 204 with the transferred amount.” (Para. 0052); “Payment service 108 receives the transaction details and encrypted cryptocurrency payment information, and calculates (312) a value in cryptocurrency” (Para. 0077)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Brock to include a management subsystem communicating with servers via a secure connection. Therefore, the incentives of ensuring compliance with regulatory standards and securing sensitive account information provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Michaelson does not disclose:
“generate a deposit address in response to the request and transmit the deposit address via the second security subsystem;” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Brock in the analogous art of secured payments between parties, teaches: “generate a deposit address in response to the request and transmit the deposit address via the second security subsystem”. (See “When merchant 102 selects and POS device 105 receives the selection 506 to receive payment in cryptocurrency, POS device 105 can send 508 address of cryptocurrency wallet 237 and other transaction details such as value owed to customer device 103. Customer device 103 can then send 510 a message signed by its private key including its wallet 235 address, identify the cryptocurrency, and a value to be transferred to merchant wallet 237 to payment service 108.” (Para. 0109); “Payment service 108 cryptocurrency wallet 215 can be associated with many different addresses, and can vary addresses used to acquire cryptocurrency so that its holdings are represented under a variety of addresses on blockchain 220. When payment service 108 has its own holdings of cryptocurrency, customers, such as customer 104, can acquire cryptocurrency directly from payment service 108.” (Para. 0053); “Private blockchain 230 can function to record sender addresses, recipient addresses, public keys, values of cryptocurrency transferred, and can be used to verify ownership of cryptocurrency tokens to be transferred.” (Para. 0103))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Brock to include on-demand generation of a deposit address and transmitting it to a player device. Therefore, the incentives of uniquely identifying deposits and reducing fraud risk provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Michaelson does not disclose:
“query the one or the one or more digital wallets for incoming deposits;” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Brock in the analogous art of secured payments between parties, teaches: “query the one or the one or more digital wallets for incoming deposits;”. (See “The transaction is sent to miners to bundle the transaction into a block of transactions and to verify the authenticity of the transactions in the block. Once a miner has verified the block, the block is written to a public, distributed blockchain 220 where payment service 108 can then verify that the transaction has been confirmed and can credit customer's cryptocurrency ledger 204 with the transferred amount.” (Para. 0052); “Only the obligations between payment service 108 and customer 104 have changed. Since the transaction does not need to be recorded on blockchain 220 the transaction can be completed immediately without waiting on confirmation of the transaction from blockchain 220.” (Para. 0079); “Payment service 108 can then send a transaction confirmation to POS device 105.” (Para. 00))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Brock to include querying digital wallets for incoming deposits and confirming funds. Therefore, the incentives of enduring timely credits of player accounts and preventing errors in wagering transactions provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Michaelson does not disclose:
“determine that one of the incoming deposits is associated with the deposit address; and” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Brock in the analogous art of secured payments between parties, teaches: “determine that one of the incoming deposits is associated with the deposit address; and”. (See “customer 104 can transfer all or a portion of the balance of the cryptocurrency stored in third party digital wallet 212 to payment service 108 as is well known to those of skill in the art. Such a transaction requires customer 104 to transfer an amount of the virtual currency in a message signed by customer 104's private key to an address of cryptocurrency wallet 235 within payment service 108.” (Para. 0106); “Once a miner has verified the block, the block is written to a public, distributed blockchain 220 where payment service 108 can then verify that the transaction has been confirmed and can credit customer's cryptocurrency ledger 204 with the transferred amount.” (Para. 0052))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Brock to include a determination of address association for a transaction. Therefore, the incentives of ensuring accurate crediting of player accounts and maintaining auditability of transactions provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Michaelson does not disclose:
“inform the one or more management servers that a deposit has been received from a user associated with the deposit address and a value corresponding to the digital currency deposited.” (claim 1).
However, as per Claim 1, Brock in the analogous art of secured payments between parties, teaches: “inform, via the secure connection, the one or more management servers that a deposit has been received from a user associated with the deposit address and a value corresponding to the digital currency deposited”. (See “Once a miner has verified the block, the block is written to a public, distributed blockchain 220 where payment service 108 can then verify that the transaction has been confirmed and can credit customer's cryptocurrency ledger 204 with the transferred amount.” (Para. 0052); “When merchant 102 selects and POS device 105 receives the selection 506 to receive payment in cryptocurrency, POS device 105 can send 508 address of cryptocurrency wallet 237 and other transaction details such as value owed to customer device 103. Customer device 103 can then send 510 a message signed by its private key including its wallet 235 address, identify the cryptocurrency, and a value to be transferred to merchant wallet 237 to payment service 108. Payment service 108 can complete the transaction by reducing 512 the cryptocurrency balance in customer 104's wallet 235 and increasing 512 cryptocurrency balance in merchant 102's wallet 237.” (Para. 0109-0110); “any account information, or other customer identifying information would be encrypted.” (Para. 0069))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Brock to include informing, via secure connection, a server that a deposit was received from a given address, along with an associated value. Therefore, the incentives of ensuring accurate crediting of player accounts and maintaining auditability of transactions provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaelson in view of Meisel, Kitada, and Brock in further view of Lewis (US20220417125A1)
As per Claim 6, Michaelson teaches:
The system of claim 5, . . .
Michaelson does not disclose:
• “wherein the one or more web application firewalls comprises a plurality of web application firewalls, and the first security subsystem comprises a load balancer, the load balancer coupled to the plurality of web application firewalls” (claim 6).
However, as per Claim 6, Lewis in the analogous art of secured payments between parties, teaches: “wherein the one or more web application firewalls comprises a plurality of web application firewalls, and the first security subsystem comprises a load balancer, the load balancer coupled to the plurality of web application firewalls”. (See “A WAF cluster is then created using container management software or systems, or the like (including, but not limited to, a Kubernetes®-based container orchestration system, or a Docker Swarm®-based container management system, or the like), so that WAF containers can be launched on demand. The container management system may be coupled with a load-balancing proxy server or a load-balancing proxy application programming interface (“API”) that proactively evaluates any latency being introduced by the WAF cluster.” (Para. 0014); “The container management system might monitor end-user experience and latency introduced by the WAF cluster. If latency is determined to be too high (i.e., beyond predetermined threshold values, or the like), additional WAF containers and/or additional HA WAF mini-clusters may be deployed until latency is reduced to an acceptable amount. As the workload decreases, WAF containers that become unused or underutilized may be decommissioned or deleted.” (Para. 0014); “launching WAF containers (whether as individual WAF containers, WAF containers configured in mini-clusters, WAF containers configured in WAF clusters, and/or the like) to protect software applications (“apps”) that are placed behind a load-balancing proxy server or proxy application programming interface (“API”) that proactively evaluates any latency being introduced by the WAF containers; if latency is introduced that exceeds a predetermined threshold, adding additional WAF containers (as individual WAF containers, to increase the number of WAF containers in existing WAF mini-clusters, to add WAF containers as configured in new WAF mini-clusters, to reorganize, rearrange, or reconfigure WAF containers in existing WAF mini-clusters or in the WAF primary cluster(s), etc.) until the workload is balanced.” (Para. 0021)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Lewis to include multiple WAFs behind a load balancer. Therefore, the incentives of scalability and latency reduction provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaelson in view of Meisel, Kitada, and Brock in further view of Armes (US20080072226A1)
As per Claim 9, Michaelson teaches:
The system of claim 8, . . .
Michaelson does not disclose:
• “wherein the one or more transfer servers comprises a plurality of transfer servers, and the management subsystem further comprises a load balancer coupled to the gateway and the plurality of transfer servers” (claim 9).
However, as per Claim 9, Armes in the analogous art of secured payments between parties, teaches: “wherein the one or more transfer servers comprises a plurality of transfer servers, and the management subsystem further comprises a load balancer coupled to the gateway and the plurality of transfer servers”. (See “Each of the plurality of transactions are then transmitted to a server selected from a plurality of servers that provides authorization for the transactions. The server may be selected from the plurality of servers based on a round-robin distribution of the plurality of servers, and additionally, the round-robin distribution may be modified to account for a workload on each of the plurality of servers.” (Para. 0012); “In step 210, each transaction is transmitted from the load balancer to an application server that is selected from a plurality of application servers that provides authorization, declination, or referral services. In one embodiment, the server may be selected based on a round-robin distribution of the plurality of servers that provide the necessary service. Alternatively, the server may be selected based on a variety of factors including, for example, a workload existing on, and/or processing power of, each of the plurality of servers that provide the necessary service. In additional embodiments, the round-robin distribution may be modified to account for factors such as an existing workload on and/or processing power of each of the plurality of servers.” (Para. 0045); “In one embodiment, the application sever is selected from the plurality of application servers based on a round-robin distribution of the plurality of application servers that provide the service capability. Using the round robin distribution, one transaction is transmitted to an application sever that provides the service capability. A second transaction is then transmitted to the next application server in sequence that provides the service capability. The above-described process continues until each of the plurality of transactions have been assigned to an application server that provides the service capability.” (Para. 0062)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Armes to include a plurality of transfer servers coordinated by a load balancer. Therefore, the incentives of handling transaction surges and distributing server workloads provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaelson in view of Meisel, Kitada, and Brock in further view of Gupta (US20080077636A1)
As per Claim 10, Michaelson teaches:
The system of claim 8, . . .
Michaelson does not disclose:
• “further comprising one or more backup databases, the one or more backup databases in communication with the one or more transfer servers and configured to replicate the one or more transfer servers” (claim 10).
However, as per Claim 10, Gupta in the analogous art of secured payments between parties, teaches: “further comprising one or more backup databases, the one or more backup databases in communication with the one or more transfer servers and configured to replicate the one or more transfer servers”. (See “These data replicators maintain a “hot backup” server having a duplicate copy of the database that is synchronized with the primary database deployed on a primary server. The primary server is ordinarily accessed by database users for full read/write access. Preferably, the secondary server handles some read-only database requests to help balance the user load between the primary and secondary servers.” (Para. 0005); “Database synchronization is maintained by transferring database log entries from the primary server to the secondary server. The transferred database logs are replayed on the secondary server to duplicate the corresponding transactions in the duplicate copy of the database. With such a data replicator, a failure of the primary server does not result in failure of the database system; rather, in the event of a primary server failure the secondary server takes over as a an interim primary server until the failure can be diagnosed and resolved. The secondary server can provide users with read-only access or with full read-write access to the database system during the interim.” (Para. 0005); “a database backup system is disclosed for monitoring a database deployed on a primary server and for maintaining a copy of said database on a secondary server. A data replicator in operative communication with the primary and secondary servers copies database log entries from the primary server to the secondary server and updates the secondary server using the copied database log entries. A user-defined routines replicator in operative communication with the primary and secondary servers copies user-defined routines deployed on the primary server to the secondary server and deploys the copies of the user-defined routines on the secondary server.” (Para. 0013))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Gupta to include a backup database replicating the functionality of transfer servers. Therefore, the incentives of achieving high availability and minimizing downtime for wagering databases provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
As per Claim 11, Michaelson teaches:
The system of claim 10, . . .
Michaelson does not disclose:
• “wherein the one or more backup databases comprises a primary database and a secondary database” (claim 11).
However, as per Claim 11, Gupta in the analogous art of secured payments between parties, teaches: “wherein the one or more backup databases comprises a primary database and a secondary database”. (See “In a database system having a primary server side (10) and a secondary server side (30), a high availability data replicator (26, 46) transfers log entries from the primary side (10) to the secondary side (30).” (Abstract); “To provide high reliability and robustness in the event of a database server failure, high availability data replicators are advantageously employed. These data replicators maintain a “hot backup” server having a duplicate copy of the database that is synchronized with the primary database deployed on a primary server.” (Para. 0005); “a database backup system is disclosed for monitoring a database deployed on a primary server and for maintaining a copy of said database on a secondary server.” (Para. 0013))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Michaelson with the technique of Gupta to include a primary and secondary database pair for redundancy. Therefore, the incentives of providing continuous service and complying with regulatory requirements provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US20200152005A1 (Higgins), discussing “the system disclosed herein enables cryptocurrency funds to be transferred between a gaming establishment account associated with a player and an external cryptocurrency account. Specifically and in view of the accepted uses of cryptocurrency funds in commerce, the system of the present disclosure supports the transfer of cryptocurrency funds to and from a gaming establishment account and the associated conversion, based on a current exchange rate, of such cryptocurrency funds to an amount of currency used by the gaming establishment. In certain embodiments, to facilitate the transfer of cryptocurrency funds to a gaming establishment account, such as a cryptocurrency wallet created by the gaming establishment and associated with the player, a player takes one or more actions to identify the gaming establishment account as the destination of the cryptocurrency fund transfer and/or verify that they are associated with an external cryptocurrency account from which the cryptocurrency funds are transferred from.” (Para. 0013).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin A. Jimenez whose telephone number is (571) 270-3080. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W. Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. 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.
/Justin Jimenez/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights