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 the Claims
This is a first non-final office action on the merits for the application filed on 5/7/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/7/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claim limitations that employ phrases of the type “operable to” are typical of claim limitations which may not distinguish over prior art according to the principle. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “operable to” perform or is “capable of” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. Additionally, claims which use the phrases of the type “FOR” doing something or “TO” do something does not positively recited that the functional limit is actually performed or has been performed, but only that function may occur (future tense). [see MPEP § 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and 2111.04 ]. The claims are replete with statements of intended use. The examiner has attempted to identify occurrences within the prior art rejection as found in this office action. However, it is incumbent on the applicant to positively recite the claim boundaries.
Examiner notes that claim limitations that employ the phrase “responsive to” do not require any of the limitations after the phrase to actually occur unless the responsive step is positively recited. For example, claims 1 and 12 recite, “responsive to a restriction placement event occurring in association with a gaming establishment account”. Unless the restriction placement event actually occurs, which is not required by the claims, none of the following claim limitations actually occur and are intended use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Under step 1, claim 1 is directed to a machine and claim 11 is directed to a process. Thus, claims 1 and 11 are directed to statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 1 and 12 recite, “responsive to a restriction placement event occurring in association with a gaming establishment account, cause the processor to: place a restriction on the gaming establishment account, and communicate data associated with the placed restriction, wherein responsive to 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 receiving the data, the component of the banking institution determines whether to place the restriction on the dedicated bank account.” Independent claim 10 recites, “
responsive to a placed restriction associated with a gaming establishment account being cleared, 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, wherein responsive to 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 receiving 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, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claimed invention place a restriction and communicate data which are following rules and instructions. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of “a processor” and “a memory”, These additional elements are generic computing elements performing generic computer functions, as supported by at least [0089] of the specification, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or 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. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application the additional elements of “a processor” and “a memory” are generic computing elements as supported by at least [0089] of the specification. These additional elements are generic computing elements performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1, 10, or 12 without significantly more.
The claims limitations of claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20 further limit the abstract idea of claims 1, 10, or 12 and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gagner (WO 2009137633).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Gagner ‘633 teaches
1. A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor ([0056])
12. A method of operating a system, the method comprising: ([0011] and [0018]
responsive to a restriction placement event occurring in association with a gaming establishment account, cause the processor to:
place a restriction on the gaming establishment account, and
communicate data associated with the placed restriction,
wherein responsive to 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 receiving the data,
the component of the banking institution determines whether to place the restriction on the dedicated bank account [0018] "for creating an account rule [restriction on gaming establishment account], wherein the account rule specifies a financial transaction associated with the wagering game account and a credit account, and wherein the account rule specifies a condition that when satisfied will cause initiation of the financial transaction, an external system interface configured to transmit the account rule, and a wagering game unit configured to present wagering games; and an account controller configured to receive the account rule, initiate the financial transaction upon satisfaction of the condition specified in the account rule, determine one or more limitation rules [restriction on the dedicated bank account] that can restrict the use of the credit account for wagering games, and process the financial transaction according to the one or more limitation rules." See also [0141].).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Gagner ‘633 teaches
wherein the gaming establishment account comprises a player tracking account ([0141] "The system can then store the transaction amount in a memory store (e.g., in the credit transfer balance) that the system uses to track how much money has been transferred within the use limit.").
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Gagner ‘633 teaches
wherein the gaming establishment account comprises a cashless wagering account ([0141] "where the system transfers the transaction amount from the credit account to the wagering game session account. The system can then store the transaction amount in a memory store (e.g., in the credit transfer balance) that the system uses to wager how much money has been transferred within the use limit.").
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Gagner ‘633 teaches
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 ([0018] "for creating an account rule [restriction on gaming establishment account], wherein the account rule specifies a financial transaction associated with the wagering game account and a credit account, and wherein the account rule specifies a condition that when satisfied will cause initiation of the financial transaction, an external system interface configured to transmit the account rule, and a wagering game unit configured to present wagering games; and an account controller configured to receive the account rule, initiate the financial transaction upon satisfaction of the condition specified in the account rule, determine one or more limitation rules [restriction on the dedicated bank account] that can restrict the use of the credit account for wagering games, and process the financial transaction according to the one or more limitation rules." See also [0141].).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Gagner ‘633 teaches
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 (Figure 16 #1602,[00134] "Figure 16 is a flow diagram illustrating controlling use limitations, according to some embodiments. 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.").
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Gagner ‘633 teaches
wherein the restriction comprises any of a block, a lock and a closure ([00113] "As another example, if the account rule specifies that an account is to be locked, the account controller 318 locks the account.").
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gagner (2015/0332555).
Regarding claim 10, Gagner ‘555 teaches
10. A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor ([0031])
responsive to a placed restriction associated with a gaming establishment account being cleared, 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, wherein responsive to 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 receiving 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 ([0086] "At block 1102, the account controller 318 determines that a rule associated with a wagering game account should be enforced. As noted above, account rules can be associated with trigger condition. For example, winning jackpots, placing wagers, playing certain games, account balances, time of day, total amount of wagers made, etc. can trigger account rules to perform financial transactions. In some embodiments, the wagering game machines 302 notifies the account controller 318 about any information relevant to a player's account rules. For example, wagering game machines 302 can notify the account controller 318 when a player wins a jackpot, makes a wager, plays a game, begins a game session, ends a game session, etc. In response, the account controller 318 can determine whether any account rules' trigger conditions have been satisfied. In other embodiments, the wagering game machines 302 can acquire a list of account rules and notify the account controller 318 only when a trigger condition has been satisfied." {0088] "The account controller 318 may enforce some account rules with assistance from the financial institution computer 324." See also [0026], [0037], [0042], [0087], [0088], 0107] and [0108].).
Regarding claim 11, Gagner ‘555 teaches
11. The system of Claim 10, wherein the placed restriction comprises any of a block, a lock and a closure ([0088]).
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 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagner (WO 2009137633), in view of Irwin (US 2014/0141866).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Gagner ‘633 discusses 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 ([0062] "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, [0062]).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagner (WO 2009137633), in view of Sims (US 2022/0318348).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Gagner ‘633 discusses 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 ([0057] "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, [0057]).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagner (WO 2009137633), in view of Vlazny (US 2005/0124408).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Gagner ‘633 discusses that a player manually enters an identifier in [0071] 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, [0052]).
Relevant Prior Art
Rowe (US 2002/0039921) monitors player loss in a gamin environment
Nguyen (US2019/0122492) track sources for the monetary value of a monetary instrument across multiple previous gaming transactions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIE P. BRADY whose telephone number is (571)272-4855. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Thurs 8:00 - 2:00 ET.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571)270-7537. 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.
/MARIE P BRADY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622