DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is responsive to the amendments and remarks received on April 14, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
At step 1, claims 1 and 10 are directed to a system, and claim 12 is directed to a method, which are statutory categories.
At step 2A prong I, claims 1 and 12 recite: place a restriction on the gaming establishment account, and communicate data associated with the placed restriction, wherein when a component of a banking institution that maintains a dedicated bank account created on behalf of a user and linked to the gaming establishment account receives the data, the component of the banking institution determines whether to place the restriction on the dedicated bank account. Claim 10 recites: communicate data associated with the cleared restriction to a component of an event system which publishes the data associated with the cleared restriction, wherein when a component of a banking institution that maintains a dedicated bank account created on behalf of a user and linked to the gaming establishment account receives the data associated with the cleared restriction, the component of the banking institution determines whether to clear a corresponding restriction placed on the dedicated bank account. These limitations recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, as they reflect managing behaviors and following rules.
At step 2A prong II, the claims recite the additional elements of a processor and a memory, both of which are generic computing components performing generic computing functions, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered both individually and as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
At step 2B, the additional elements are reconsidered, but again only amount to generic computing components performing generic computing functions, such that the claim, when considered as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, independent claims 1, 10, and 12 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20 further limit the abstract idea and do not introduce any new additional elements. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible for the same reasons as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gagner (WO 2009/137633).
With reference to claims 1 and 12, Gagner teaches a system comprising:
a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor when a restriction placement event occurs in association with a gaming establishment account, cause the processor to (see Figure 2):
place a restriction on the gaming establishment account (see paragraph 124, player account rules 1312, “The account controller 1304 determines whether there are any rules that restrict the money transaction between the credit account 1314 and the wagering game session account 1310.”), and
communicate data associated with the placed restriction, wherein when a component of a banking institution that maintains a dedicated bank account created on behalf of a user and linked to the gaming establishment account receives the data, the component of the banking institution determines whether to place the restriction on the dedicated bank account (see paragraph 124, “If, however, there are limitations, the account controller 1304 can enforce the limitations.” See also paragraph 125, ” The system 1400, therefore, can have limitations, as described in Figure 13, 15, and 16, which can help keep the player's use of the credit account in check,” paragraph 126, “For example, the system 1400 can access a wagering game session account on the account server 1404 and search limitation rules sources for limitations rules that have been set on the use of the credit accounts in the account settings panel 1419,” “During the process of transacting money from a source credit account, the account rule can determine whether the player has exceeded a transaction limit amount ("use limit"),” see paragraph 127, “If there are limitations, the system 1400 can generate a message 1412 to notify the player of restraints, use limits, etc.” See paragraph 128, “The system 1400 can look at the social contact's account for any limitations that the social contact has set on the use of the credit account(s) they are authorized to co-manage. In some embodiments, the co-account manager can set limitations by creating account rules which include actions that limit the use of the credit account.” See paragraph 134, “In Figure 16, the flow 1600 begins at processing block 1602, where a wagering game system ("system") determines whether there are use restrictions on a credit account. The system can determine various types of limitations. Some limitations can be restrictions, or prohibitions, that stop, or prevent the use of the credit account. The restrictions can be set by the player, social contacts (e.g., friends, family, financial managers, etc.), social groups (e.g., Gamblers Anonymous), jurisdictional bodies (e.g., a gaming commission), business groups (e.g., a casino, a credit card company, etc.), governing bodies (e.g., courts, law enforcement, Immigration Department, etc.), or any other individual, organization, or entity, that has an interest in keeping the player from using a credit account for wagering games.” See paragraph 135, “In some embodiments, the system can periodically scan through sources to find the player's restricted status. For example, when a player first registers for a player account with a casino, the system can run a check to see if the player is listed on any sort of list restricting the use of credit accounts. The system can store that information for quick access, and run periodic updates to see if the restrictions have been removed.” See paragraph 136, “In addition to use restrictions, or prohibitions, some limitations can be use limits, which limit, but don't automatically restrict, the player from using the credit account unless the player has reached a spending limit. At processing block 1604 the system determines if the player has reached, or exhausted, a spending limit set by the system. The limit can be a "session" limit, or in other words, a system imposed limit on credit account spending during any given wagering game session. The session limit can include an amount that can be utilized by any or all credit accounts for any wagering game session. To prevent the player from circumventing the limit by repeatedly starting game sessions, the session limit can also have a periodic time limitation, like a daily limit, wherein the player is restricted from utilizing any or all of the credit accounts for quick balance augmentation until the next day. The session balance can be stored and associated with an account server, with a wagering game machine, as a stand-alone background routine, etc. The player can use the credit account until the limit has been reached. Once reached, the system can provide a message, in processing block 1610, that notifies the player that the session limit is exhausted.” See generally paragraphs 124-129, 134-141, which teach that a user may impose their own limits on wagering account usage, and further other individuals or institutions, including banks, can check those limits and further restrict access to credit accounts in line with restrictions a user has set to prevent overspending on gambling).
With reference to claims 2 and 13, Gagner teaches the system of claim 1/method of claim 12, wherein the gaming establishment account comprises a player tracking account (see Figure 13, game session account 1310).
With reference to claims 3 and 14, Gagner teaches the system of claim 1/method of claim 12, wherein the gaming establishment account comprises a cashless wagering account (see Figure 13, game session account 1310).
With reference to claims 5 and 16, Gagner teaches the system of claim 1/method of claim 12, wherein the data associated with the placed restriction is communicated to a component of an event system which communicates the data associated with the placed restriction to the component of the banking institution (see Figure 13, player and game rules 1312, 1322 in communication with credit account limitation rules 1342).
With reference to claims 6 and 17, Gagner teaches the system of claim 1/method of claim 12, wherein a first restriction placement event is associated with the placement of the restriction on the dedicated bank account and a second, different restriction placement event is associated with no placement of the restriction on the dedicated bank account (see Figure 15, 1510 options yes/no. There may be scenarios where a restriction is placed on an account and also scenarios where a restriction is not placed on an account).
With reference to claims 7 and 18, Gagner teaches the system of claim 1/method of claim 12, wherein the restriction comprises any of a block, a lock and a closure (see Figure 16, step 1603, stop transaction is a block of the transaction).
With reference to claim 10, Gagner teaches a system comprising:
a processor (see Figure 2); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor when a placed restriction associated with a gaming establishment account is cleared (see paragraph 135, “The system can store that information for quick access, and run periodic updates to see if the restrictions have been removed.”),
cause the processor to communicate data associated with the cleared restriction to a component of an event system which publishes the data associated with the cleared restriction (see paragraph 135, ”The system can present the message through a GUI as a pop-up message (e.g., see message 1412 in Figure 14). For future reference, the system can store the player's name and any discovered restrictions on the player in a database record related to the player's account. In some embodiments, the system can periodically scan through sources to find the player's restricted status. For example, when a player first registers for a player account with a casino, the system can run a check to see if the player is listed on any sort of list restricting the use of credit accounts.”),
wherein when a component of a banking institution that maintains a dedicated bank account created on behalf of a user and linked to the gaming establishment account receives the data associated with the cleared restriction, the component of the banking institution determines whether to clear a corresponding restriction placed on the dedicated bank account (see paragraph 136, “At processing block 1604 the system determines if the player has reached, or exhausted, a spending limit set by the system. The limit can be a "session" limit, or in other words, a system imposed limit on credit account spending during any given wagering game session. The session limit can include an amount that can be utilized by any or all credit accounts for any wagering game session. To prevent the player from circumventing the limit by repeatedly starting game sessions, the session limit can also have a periodic time limitation, like a daily limit, wherein the player is restricted from utilizing any or all of the credit accounts for quick balance augmentation until the next day. The session balance can be stored and associated with an account server, with a wagering game machine, as a stand-alone background routine, etc. The player can use the credit account until the limit has been reached. Once reached, the system can provide a message, in processing block 1610, that notifies the player that the session limit is exhausted.” Here, when the player attempts to access other accounts that may not have limits but the overall session limit has been met, the system, i.e. the bank, can decide to prevent the user from accessing their other accounts).
With reference to claim 11, Gagner teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the restriction comprises any of a block, a lock and a closure (see Figure 16, step 1603, stop transaction is a block of the transaction).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagner in view of Irwin (US 2014/0141866).
With reference to claims 4 and 15, Gagner teaches restrictions as discussed above but not specifically wherein responsive to the determination being not to place the restriction on the dedicated bank account, a debit card associated with the dedicated bank account is operable to access funds maintained in the cashless wagering account in association with a purchase transaction initiated in association with the debit card at a point-of-sale terminal.
However, Irwin teaches wherein responsive to the determination being not to place the restriction on the dedicated bank account, a debit card associated with the dedicated bank account is operable to access funds maintained in the cashless wagering account in association with a purchase transaction initiated in association with the debit card at a point-of-sale terminal (See paragraph 62 "The only difference being that the funds transferred from the Internet service provider's Internet gaming account 325 to the consumer's closed or open loop winning account 323 are then forwarded to an optional open loop GPR account 324. Again, the payment of winnings will gamer little or no fees. Once transferred to the consumer's winning account 323 the consumer can cash out at any time by transferring the funds (again at little or no cost) from the winning account 323 to the optional open loop GPR account 324 associated within the overall consumer's gaming account 321 where the funds could be withdrawn from an ATM (Automated Teller Machine) [debit card] or spent wherever the open loop association (e.g., MasterCard, Visa, Discover, etc.) affiliated with the GPR account is accepted. As illustrated in FIG. 7, the GPR account 324 is optional, with the system not requiring the consumer to hold a GPR account 324 to conduct Internet wagering or cash out winnings.").
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the restrictions of Gagner by adding wherein responsive to the determination being not to place the restriction on the dedicated bank account, a debit card associated with the dedicated bank account is operable to access funds maintained in the cashless wagering account in association with a purchase transaction initiated in association with the debit card at a point-of-sale terminal, as taught by Irwin, so that consumer can conduct internet wagering or cash out winnings (Irwin, paragraph 62).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagner in view of Sims (US 2022/0318348).
With reference to claims 8 and 19, Gagner teaches restrictions as discussed above but not specifically wherein responsive to the determination being to place the restriction on the dedicated bank account, a payment instrument associated with the dedicated bank account is operable to facilitate a refund transaction initiated in association with the payment instrument at a point-of-sale terminal.
However, Sims teaches wherein responsive to the determination being to place the restriction on the dedicated bank account, a payment instrument associated with the dedicated bank account is operable to facilitate a refund transaction initiated in association with the payment instrument at a point-of-sale terminal (See paragraph 57, "A remedial action may include locking an affected resource account to block further transactions, flagging specific transactions as under review, automatically refunding certain transactions determined to be malfeasant, or the like.")
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the restrictions of Gagner by adding wherein responsive to the determination being not to place the restriction on the dedicated bank account, a debit card associated with the dedicated bank account is operable to access funds maintained in the cashless wagering account in association with a purchase transaction initiated in association with the debit card at a point-of-sale terminal, as taught by Irwin, so that transactions can be automatically refunded regardless of the account restrictions (Sims, paragraph 57).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagner in view of Vlazny (US 2005/0124408).
With reference to claims 9 and 20, Gagner teaches that a player manually enters an identifier in paragraph 71 but does not specifically teach wherein the restriction placement event comprises a predetermined quantity of incorrect personal identification numbers being inputted in association with the gaming establishment account.
However, Vlazny teaches wherein the restriction placement event comprises a predetermined quantity of incorrect personal identification numbers being inputted in association with the gaming establishment account ([0052] "The software of the gaming terminal 102 or the card reader device 114 may be programmed to lock-out an account (i.e., prevent access to the account) if the player enters the incorrect PIN a predetermined number of times.").
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the player identifiers of Gagner by adding wherein the restriction placement event comprises a predetermined quantity of incorrect personal identification numbers being inputted in association with the gaming establishment account, as taught by Vlazny, so that a player can be prevented access to the account (Vlazny, paragraph 52).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims provide a solution to the recognized problem of fraudulent activity. However, nothing in the claim discusses fraudulent activity or ways to solve for it, so this argument is not relevant to the claimed limitations. The claims could be understood to solve a variety of other concerns besides fraud, including preventing someone from overspending on gambling or overdrawing on their bank account.
Applicant further describes the claims as synchronizing account information and/or states. However, while data is shared between accounts, there is nothing technical occurring to synchronize these accounts, they are merely communicating information from one account to another and permitting the second account to decide how to proceed. Applicant’s arguments do not appear reflective of the claimed invention, and therefore are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that Gagner and Gagner II fail to teach the claimed invention. The examiner initially notes that these documents contain the same disclosure, and while the previous examiner cited to them separately for claims 1 and 10, only Gagner is cited to in the current rejection to simplify matters. Additionally, Gagner teaches a variety of features, and additional features of Gagner are pointed to above to clarify how Gagner teaches the amended claims. Therefore, the current arguments are moot as they pertain to other sections of the reference than what is cited above in the clarified rejection. It is believed that these additional sections of Gagner teach all that is required by the amended claims in light of the amendments and withdrawal of the previous claim interpretation notes.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ILANA L SPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7537. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/ILANA L SPAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights