DETAILED ACTIONStatus of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is in response to a Request for Continued Examination dated June 22, 2026. Claims 1-14, 16 and 18 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. All pending claims are examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114
Response
101 Analysis
101 In line with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance," which explains how we must analyze patent-eligibility questions under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 ("Revised Guidance"), the first step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2A) consists of two prongs. In Prong One, we must determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Section III.A. I.). If it does not, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
An abstract idea must fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in the Revised Guidance or be a "tentative abstract idea, "with the latter situation predicted to be rare. Id. at 51-52 (Section I, enumerating three groupings of abstract ideas), 54 (Section III.A. I., describing Step 2A Prong One), 56-57 (Section III.D., explaining the identification of claims directed to a tentative abstract idea).
If a claim does recite a judicial exception, the next is Step 2A Prong Two, in which we must determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception." Id. at 54 (Section II.A.2.) If it does, the claim is patent eligible. Id.
If a claim recites a judicial exception but fails to integrate it into a practical application, we move to the second step of Alice (i.e., Office Step 2B). to evaluate the additional limitations of the claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept. Id. at 56 (Section III.B.). In particular, we look to whether the claim:
• Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
“In accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve consistency and predictability, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—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); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)1 – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019 / p.52.
Independent Claim 12, which is illustrative of the independent claims including 1 and 10 and recites:
12. A method of operating a gaming establishments fund management system, the method comprising:
maintaining, by a processor, a gaming establishment account which is linked to a dedicated bank account automatically created on behalf of a user, and
responsive to an occurrence of an account state change event associated with a gaming establishment account:
modifying, bythe processor, an attribute of the gaming establishment account,
responsive to a first entity relationship with a computing component of a banking institution that operates independent of the processor and that maintains a dedicated bank account
triggering, by the processor, a synchronization with the dedicated bank account by communicating data associated with the account state change event to the computing component of the banking institution, and
responsive to a second, different entity relationship with the computing component of the banking institution,
triggering, by the processor, the synchronization with the dedicated bank account by one of: enabling the computing component of the banking institution to request data associated with the account state change event, and enabling a communication of data associated with the account state change event to the computing component of the banking institution.”
2A, Prong One.
The invention as claimed is directed to a process of automating the data synchronization between gaming accounts and external financial institution, where there has been a change in status of activity connecting both accounts (see App Spec. paras. 0001-0006).
This is a method of organizing human activity that is commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), whereby transaction details for example, where there is funds transfer between the transacting parties or sources.
Reviewing the different triggering factors for synchronization based on meeting the predefined criteria as recited in the claims are nothing more than gathering data and applying a set of instructions to the data.
2A- Prong Two
Beyond the abstract idea, the additional elements such as processors (see App. Spec. paras. 0021, 0089; see also paras. 0092-0095, 0105), there does not appear to be any technology being improved.
They are described at a high level of generality where each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Absent is any support in the specification that the claims as recited require specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components.
McRo looked at the specificity of the rules which involved a specific improvement in the computer-related technology (allowing computers to produce “accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters” that previously could only be produced by human animators) and not in the abstract idea (see McRo p. 21-22).
The specification noted that the human artists did not use the claimed rules but rather relied on subjective determination. The court relied on the specification’s explanation of the how the claimed rules enabled the automation of the specific animation tasks, automation of tasks that previously could not be automated and the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in the computer animation that improved the existing technological process as opposed to where the computer was merely used as a tool to perform the existing process. (Alice).
The McRo decision specifically pointed out that the specific animation technique used was different and unique in comparison to other animation techniques used, and therefore the invention was not simply automating known manual animation techniques, but was using new techniques, and therefore even if a generic computer implemented the animation techniques the computer was improved by its ability to perform technically improved animation.
Unlike, McRO, the present claims contain improvements to the context which is the gaming, including triggering a synchronization and not one of a technology or technological field.
Although the claims recite:
“modifying, by a the processor, an attribute of the gaming establishment account,
responsive to a first entity relationship with a computing component of a banking institution that operates independent of the processor and that maintains a dedicated bank account created on behalf of a user and linked to the gaming establishment account,
triggering, by the processor, a synchronization with the dedicated bank account by communicating data associated with the account state change event to the computing component of the banking institution, and
responsive to a second, different entity relationship with the computing component of the banking institution,
triggering, by the processor, the synchronization with the dedicated bank account by one of: enabling the computing component of the banking institution to request data associated with the account state change event, and communicating enabling a communication of data associated with the account state change event to the computing component of the banking institution.”.”
As recited it suggests synchronize the data between the transacting parties which is essentially evaluating data received against predefined criteria for alignment based on any changes to one account that impacts the bank account, absent is any support for the claims as recited for how it is an improvement to the computer or technical field beyond automating the evaluation process.
In particular, there is a lack of improvement to a computer or technical field of synchronization because the data processing performed merely uses a system as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The invention as claimed recites a generic computer component and the claim does not pass step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B; The next step is to identify any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. The additional element is processor (see App. Spec. paras. 0021, 0089; see also paras. 0092-0095, 0105) which is disclosed in the specification at a high degree of generality. Absent is any genuine issue of material fact that this component requires any specialized hardware or inventive computer component.
Likewise, the dependent claims 2-9, 11, 13-20 provide additonal details about the types of data elements collected or output generated. For example, claims 13-16 provide additional descriptions of the type of conditions and changes that occur based on these conditions being meet and do not address the issues raised in the independent claims and therefore do not amount to a technical improvement or an integration of a practical application.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101
.
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 a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim recites abstract idea of organizing human activities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
The claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter.
Independent Claim 12, which is illustrative of the independent claims including 1 and 10 and recites:
12. A method of operating a gaming establishments fund management system, the method comprising:
maintaining, by a processor, a gaming establishment account which is linked to a dedicated bank account automatically created on behalf of a user, and
responsive to an occurrence of an account state change event associated with a gaming establishment account:
modifying, bythe processor, an attribute of the gaming establishment account,
responsive to a first entity relationship with a computing component of a banking institution that operates independent of the processor and that maintains a dedicated bank account
triggering, by the processor, a synchronization with the dedicated bank account by communicating data associated with the account state change event to the computing component of the banking institution, and
responsive to a second, different entity relationship with the computing component of the banking institution,
triggering, by the processor, the synchronization with the dedicated bank account by one of: enabling the computing component of the banking institution to request data associated with the account state change event, and enabling a communication of data associated with the account state change event to the computing component of the banking institution.”
The invention as claimed is directed to a process of automating the data synchronization between gaming accounts and external financial institution (see App Spec. paras. 0001-0006).
This is a method of organizing human activity that is commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), whereby transaction details are exchanged between transacting parties or sources.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the remaining claim limitations recite generic computer components ( see App. specification, paras. 0020-0021; see also Figs. 1). This recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic computer components (e.g. processor) for communicating the data.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 - (e.g. processor) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Further, the dependent claims 2-9, 11 and 13-20 for example, recite additional descriptive details about the criteria applied to the account state change or rules applied to the transfer of funds from one source to another, however the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite generic computer components (e.g. general-purpose computer) to evaluate the submitted data based on predefined conditions. For example claims 13-15 provide additional details on the synchronization and what the account state change looks like.
The dependent claims provide additional descriptions of the components/elements of the claimed invention in a manner that merely refines and further limits the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10 and 12 and does not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of the independent claims.
None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the dependent claims are patent-ineligible.
In conclusion, merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
McClung USP Pub. No, 20160162882, Digital Money Choice And EWallet Selection.
Baitalmal, USP Pub. No. US 20090037452, System And Method For Synchronizing Applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKA OJIAKU whose telephone number is (571)270-3608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8.30 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at 571 272-3955. 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.
/CHIKAODINAKA OJIAKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344–45 (concluding that ‘‘[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,’’ observing that the district court ‘‘pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.’’); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding the concept of ‘‘voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation,’’ a ‘‘fundamental activity’’ that humans have performed for hundreds of years, to be an abstract idea);
In re Smith, 815F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that ‘‘[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’’ are abstract).
14 If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir . 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping’’ was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer’’); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’’); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible); id. at 1376 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that ‘‘could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind’’). Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping, Benson, 409 U.S.at 67, or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 - – See Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2019
Prosecution Insights