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
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment/arguments filed 06/25/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-20 remain pending, no Claims have been newly added, and no Claims have been canceled. No new matter appears to have been added.
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.
Claims 1-20 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations of […]; and […] responsive to an occurrence of a first account state change event associated with a gaming establishment account, […]: modify an attribute of the gaming establishment account, and […], 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 modify an attribute of the dedicated bank account based on the occurrence of the first account state change event. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 1 (substantially similar to claim 12). The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
The claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a processor”, and “a memory device”. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, are not integrated into a practical application because they are all recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as tools to implement or perform the steps of the abstract idea. The additional elements when considered alone and in combination amount to no more than using generic computing components to apply the judicial exception. The recitation(s) “communicate data…” are insignificant extra-solution activity i.e., data gathering and/or data output. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2, No). Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A - Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and the insignificant extra-solution activity of communicating data is no more than data gathering and/or data output. The same analysis applies here in step 2B and does not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B, No).
The dependent claims fail to add “significantly more” because they merely represent further use of generic computers for routine data-processing functions related to steps/rules for synchronizing accounts (Claims 2-9 and 13-20).
Claim 10 recites, in part, the limitations of […]; and […]: receive, from a component operating independent of the system and independent of a component of a banking institution that maintains a dedicated bank account created on behalf of a user and linked to a gaming establishment account, data associated with a change of an attribute of the dedicated bank account, determine, based on the received data, whether to modify an attribute of the gaming establishment account, and responsive to the determination being to modify the attribute of the gaming establishment account, modify the attribute of the gaming establishment account to synchronize with the attribute of the dedicated bank account. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 10. The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
The claims also recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)), and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 10 recites the additional elements of “a processor”, and “a memory device”. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, are not integrated into a practical application because they are all recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as tools to implement or perform the steps of the abstract idea. The additional elements when considered alone and in combination amount to no more than using generic computing components to apply the judicial exception. The recitation(s) “receive… data…” are insignificant extra-solution activity i.e., data gathering and/or data output. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2, No). Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A - Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and the insignificant extra-solution activity of communicating data is no more than data gathering and/or data output. The same analysis applies here in step 2B and does not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B, No).
The dependent claims fail to add “significantly more” because they merely represent further use of generic computers for routine data-processing functions related to steps/rules for synchronizing accounts (Claim 11).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not include elements which are performed
as a mental process in the human mind or can be performed by a human using a pen and paper. Specifically, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III) explains that claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. See SRI Int 'l, Inc. V. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (declining to identify the claimed collection and analysis of network data as abstract because "the human mind is not equipped to detect suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets as recited by the claims").
In this case, a system that, responsive to an occurrence of a first account state change event associated with a gaming establishment account, modifies an attribute of the gaming establishment account, and communicates data associated with the first account state change event (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 modify an attribute of the dedicated bank account based on the occurrence of the first account state change event) cannot practically be performed in the human mind or performed by a human using a pen and paper. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed systems and methods have been mischaracterized as "a mental process."”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations outlined above, that exclude the additional elements, are limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind, and are considered certain methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The additional elements identified above, including the processor and memory device, are being used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. Of course, modifying one account and contracting a second account of the change is a mental process as this is how accounts would be updated prior to the advent of computers. Clerk 1 of Bank 1 modifies an account, calls Clerk 2 of Bank 2 to alert them of the change and Clerk 2 decides whether to modify the account of Bank 2. The advance lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “Specifically, the particular manner in which the system of representative independent Claim 1 operates provides a solution to the recognized problem with fraudulent activity occurring in association with a gaming establishment account being confined to the gaming establishment ecosystem. That is, given the independent operation of a gaming establishment fund management system and a component of a banking institution, a detection of a fraudulent event occurring in association with a gaming establishment account was previously unable to be properly disseminated to the component of the banking institution.
In solving these technical problems and as described in the specification, the claimed systems and methods enable the synchronization of attributes between one or more gaming establishment accounts and a dedicated bank account (to, amongst other technical benefits, reduce the likelihood of fraud when suspecious activity occurs in association with the gaming establishment account). In other words, if activities representative of malicious activity are detected in association with a gaming establishment account (i.e., an occurrence of an account state change event in association with a gaming establishment account), the systems and methods modify an attribute of such a gaming establishment account (e.g., modifying a state of the gaming establishment account by placing a block, a lock and/or a closure on such a gaming establishment account) and share data associated with such events (which enable a component of a banking institution to modify an attribute of a dedicated bank account based on the occurrence of the account state change event). Such a configuration harmonizes one or more security measures between a gaming establishment account and dedicated bank account associated with the gaming establishment account which reduces instances of fraud perpetrated against such accounts.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a). Providing a means of communicating data regarding a gaming account change to a banking institution and allowing the banking institution to determine whether or not to change an attribute of a bank account (as claimed in claim 1) is not a technical solution to a technical problem e.g. something specific to improvements to the functioning of a computer etc., but rather provides a notice of change to a banking institution that is associated with a gaming account. Managing and maintaining financial accounts, including monitoring and communicating between accounts, pertains to managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions pertaining to organizing human activity and/or a mental process. The applicant’s disclosure (¶ 12) does provide support for an improvement to user security, wherein, the system monitors the activities associated with one gaming establishment account and/or a financial institution account associated with one such account and synchronizes information associated with such monitored activities across the various disparate, but interconnected components of the system; however, such disclosure does not relay the actual improvement of the technology, nor do the claims, and lacks any claimed improvement to the communication or synchronization of information between accounts. The claims at issue lack integration into a practical application. Applicant’s claimed abstract idea lacks or fails to suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The Examiner contends that the claims do not provide an improvement to the technology in which it is generically applied.
At least based on the above, the 101 rejection of claims 1-20 are herein maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 06/25/2026, with respect to the prior art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASE E LEICHLITER whose telephone number is (571)270-7109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10-6).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights