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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the automatic completion of user information reduces human effort and integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant further argues that the presence/improvement of cashless wagering reduces the tangible use of cash and has benefits in the real world that renders the claims patent eligible. Examiner disagrees and notes that the MPEP cites “[e}xamples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: … iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);” these two examples of data automation and reduction in physical presence have been rejected as rendering claims patent eligible and for the same reasons Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Higgins fails to provide for the transfer of identifying information when a subsidiary account is created in conjunction with a master account and as such does not meet the claim limitations in the independent claims. Examiner disagrees and notes that the accounts are created and linked with the same identifying information without additional data entry. While this type of arrangement differs from the disclosed invention, it meets the metes and bounds of the currently claimed invention.
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. The claims will be analyzed with respect to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test at MPEP§2106.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 1 (see MPEP§2106.03)
The claims recite one of the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 1 (see MPEP§2106.04(a-c))
The claims recite abstract ideas in the following categories;
Methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) see specifically “’Commercial interactions’ or ‘legal interactions’ include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.);” (MPEP§2106.04(a)(2)II; emphasis added) (hereinafter “MOHA”).
The abstract ideas have been noted in the claims below.
Regarding claim 1, in association with a creation of a gaming establishment credit account associated with a user (account creation being a commercial, contractual, legal or business interaction): request identifying information associated with the user from a gaming establishment credit system that maintains the gaming establishment credit account (acquiring ID is often a part of a commercial, contractual, legal or business interaction), wherein a first part of the identifying information was provided by the user in association with the creation of the gaming establishment credit account (prior associations and the recognition of such associations are part of a commercial, contractual, legal or business interaction), and responsive to a receipt of the identifying information associated with the user from the gaming establishment credit system, automatically and independent of the user reproviding at least the first part of the identifying information, create a gaming establishment account associated with the user (this is automatically setting up a commercial, contractual, legal or business interaction), wherein the creation of the gaming establishment account is at least partially based on the identifying information communicated from the component of the gaming establishment credit system (this is underlying abstract information that support a commercial, contractual, legal or business interaction).
Regarding claim 2, the system of Claim 1, wherein the gaming establishment account comprises a cashless wagering account (this is the nature of a commercial, contractual, legal or business interaction).
Regarding claim 3, the system of Claim 1, wherein the created gaming establishment account is initially disabled from being transacted against (this is a rule/constraint on a commercial, contractual, legal or business interaction).
Regarding claim 4, the system of Claim 3, wherein the created gaming establishment account is subsequently enabled to be transacted against based on an input received from the user (this is a rule/constraint on a commercial, contractual, legal or business interaction).
Regarding claim 5, the system of Claim 4, wherein the input is associated with an acceptance of the gaming establishment account (this is a rule/constraint on a commercial, contractual, legal or business interaction).
Regarding claim 6, the system of Claim 3, wherein the created gaming establishment account is subsequently enabled to be transacted against based on an input received independent of the user (this is a rule/constraint on a commercial, contractual, legal or business interaction).
Regarding claim 7, the system of Claim 1, wherein the gaming establishment credit account is associated with an amount of front money provided by the user (this is a rule/constraint on a commercial, contractual, legal or business interaction).
Regarding claim 8, the system of Claim 1, wherein funds associated with the gaming establishment credit account are accessible via a gaming establishment marker (this is a rule/constraint on a commercial, contractual, legal or business interaction).
Regarding claim 9, the system of Claim 1, wherein at least a second part of the identifying information associated with the user was provided by the user prior to the creation of the gaming establishment credit account (this is a rule/constraint on a commercial, contractual, legal or business interaction).
Regarding claims 10-20, these claims have abstract ideas as noted above regarding claims 1-9, mutatis mutandis.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 2 (see MPEP§2106.04(d))
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are generic computer hardware; insignificant extra solution activity such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data; and the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. These additional elements individually and in combination provide for limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements (1) add “insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) and (2) generally link “the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I).
These additional elements individually and in combination are not limitations that provide for “improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) apply or use the “judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) implement the “judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) effect “a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) or apply or use “the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I). As such the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2B (see MPEP§2106.05)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional generic computer hardware and insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP§2106.05).
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 U.S. Pub. 2019/0188962 by Higgins.
Regarding claim 1, Higgins discloses a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (para. 3-4 – see system, processor and memory), cause the processor to: request identifying information associated with the user from a component of a gaming establishment credit system that maintains the gaming establishment credit account (para. 22, 88-91 – see identifying information sent from the mobile device to the system for validation; para. 22-26 – see setup of subsidiary account when creating master account), wherein a first part of the identifying information was provided by the user in association with a prior creation of the gaming establishment credit account (para. 88-91 – see the identifying information that is stored on the gaming establishment management system), and responsive to a receipt of the identifying information associated with the user from the component of the gaming establishment credit system, automatically and independent of the user reproviding at least the first part of the identifying information, create a gaming establishment account associated with the user (para. 22-26 – see creation of the automatic creation of the subsidiary account), wherein the creation of the gaming establishment account is at least partially based on the identifying information communicated from the component of the gaming establishment credit system (para. 22-26 – see the subsidiary account having the credit of the master account and being based on the same credit).
Regarding claim 2, Higgins discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the gaming establishment account comprises a cashless wagering account (para. 34 – see cashless wagering account).
Regarding claim 3, Higgins discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the created gaming establishment account is initially disabled from being transacted against (para. 24-34 – see user restriction control of subsidiary account).
Regarding claim 4, Higgins discloses the system of Claim 3, wherein the created gaming establishment account is subsequently enabled to be transacted against based on an input received from the user (para. 24-34 – see user control of restrictions on the account).
Regarding claim 5, Higgins discloses the system of Claim 4, wherein the input is associated with an acceptance of the gaming establishment account (para. 24-34 – see the inputs by the user, Examiner notes that “associated with” is a broad limitation and the subsequent restrictions on the account are included in this limitation).
Regarding claim 6, Higgins discloses the system of Claim 3, wherein the created gaming establishment account is subsequently enabled to be transacted against based on an input received independent of the user (para. 24-34 – see automatic timeout).
Regarding claim 7, Higgins discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the gaming establishment credit account is associated with an amount of front money provided by the user (para. 24-34 – see the limit based on user funding).
Regarding claim 8, Higgins discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein funds associated with the gaming establishment credit account are accessible via a gaming establishment marker (para. 52 – see marker association).
Regarding claim 9, Higgins discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein at least a second part of the identifying information associated with the user was provided by the user prior to the creation of the gaming establishment credit account (para. 73 – see the information held prior in the credit system).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, these claims are rejected as noted above regarding claim 1 when the marker/account is newly created and enabled at para. 49.
Regarding claims 12-20, these are rejected as noted above regarding claims 1-9, mutatis mutandis.
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 PETER J IANNUZZI whose telephone number is (571)272-5793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM 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, 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.
/PETER J IANNUZZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights