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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Higgins et al. (US 20240378617 A1) (henceforth, “Higgins”).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Higgins teaches a system and method, the method comprising:
a processor (Fig. 1); and
a memory device (Fig. 1) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to an occurrence of a first account state change event associated with a gaming establishment account (Para. 3-4), cause the processor to:
modify an attribute of the gaming establishment account (Para. 3), and
communicate 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 (Figs. 2A-B and Para. 59-65).
Regarding claim 10, Higgins teaches a system comprising:
a processor (Fig. 1); and
a memory device (Fig. 1) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
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 (Para. 3-5),
determine, based on the received data, whether to modify an attribute of the gaming establishment account (Para. 3-5), 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 (Figs. 2A-B and Para. 59-65).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 13, Higgins teaches the first account state change event comprises a modification of user identifying information associated with the user (Para. 11, Para. 14-16, and Para. 35-45).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Higgins teaches the modification of user identifying information is associated with an enrichment of the user identifying information (Para. 59-62).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Higgins teaches the enrichment of the user identifying information comprises a know-your-customer process being performed on the user identifying information prior to the data associated with the first account state change event being communicated (Para. 11, Para. 14-16, Para. 39-45, Para. 56, and Para. 59-65).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Higgins teaches the first account state change event comprises a modification of a restriction placed on the gaming establishment account (Para. 35-45, Para. 56, and Para. 61-65).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Higgins teaches the restriction comprises any of a block, a lock and a closure (Para. 35-36 and Para. 39-45).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Higgins teaches the gaming establishment account comprises a player tracking account (Para. 28-31).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Higgins teaches the gaming establishment account comprises a cashless wagering account (Fig. 1, element 102).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Higgins teaches responsive to an occurrence of a second, different account state change event associated with the gaming establishment account, cause the processor to modify another attribute of the gaming establishment account, and not communicate any data associated with the second account state change event (Para. 55 and Para. 71-73).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
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 (9-5).
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, David Lewis can be reached at (571)272-7673. 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