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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinton [US20060236382A1] and Schneider [US20050124411A1].
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Hinton discloses:
A system comprising:
a processor (Hinton, Fig 1B, CPU 122); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions (Hinton, Fig 1B, RAM 124 and Disk 132) that, when executed by the processor following a creation of a gaming establishment credit account associated with a user, cause the processor to (Hinton, [0177], “Additionally or alternatively, the user attribute information that is provided by the identity provider may include user attribute information that was implicitly requested by the service provider, i.e. user attribute information that has been determined by the identity provider to be sufficient for performing a user account creation operation at the service provider.”):
responsive to a gaming establishment account creation event occurring separate from the creation of the gaming establishment credit account (Hinton, [0177], “…performing a user account creation operation at the service provider.”) and separate from any input by the user (Hinton, [0177], “…the user attribute information that is provided by the identity provider may include user attribute information that was implicitly requested by the service provider…”) to create any gaming establishment accounts:
request identifying information associated with the user (Hinton, [0177], ““…the user attribute information…”),
wherein a first part of the identifying information was provided by the user in association with the creation of the gaming establishment credit account (Hinton, [0164], “Referring to FIG. 9A, the user has already authenticated to the identity provider (step 902).”), and
responsive to a receipt, from a gaming establishment credit system server that maintains the gaming establishment credit account (Hinton, [0089], “point-of-contact server 342 and trust proxy server 344 (or more simply, trust proxy 344 or trust service 344)”; Hinton, [0198], “the identity and attribute service (I&AS) 356 or 718 needs to be able to recognize a user identity”), of the identifying information associated with the user and separate from the user reproviding at least the first part of the identifying information, create a gaming establishment account associated with the user (Hinton, [0170], “Since the user had not yet been federated with the service provider, the service provider creates a new account for the user with the alias information that has been provided by the identity provider within the request message (step 918) such that the user has an active session at the service provider.”),
wherein the creation of the gaming establishment account is at least partially based on the identifying information communicated from the gaming establishment credit system server (Hinton, [0170], “…with the alias information that has been provided by the identity provider…”).
As interpreted by the Examiner, Hinton’s disclosure of a user account at the identity provider is analogous to the instant application’s recitation of a “gaming establishment credit account”, and Hinton’s disclosure of a linked user account at the service provider is analogous to the instant application’s recitation of a “gaming establishment account”.
Regarding Hinton’s lack of explicitly disclosing the use of the hardware for the purpose of gaming, this is considered intended use and does not patentably distinguish the instant application from the prior art. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
However, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner introduces Schneider, which explicitly discloses hardware for the purposes of gaming (Schneider, [0007] and Fig 1, “FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a gaming device used for embodiments of the invention.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the runtime user account creation process of Hinton within gaming systems as taught by Schneider since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Hinton/Schneider discloses:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the gaming establishment account creation event occurs in association with an input received by a gaming establishment device (Hinton, Figs 1A-B, These figures display examples of equivalents to a gaming establishment device and Fig 9B displays the workflow for Hinton’s equivalent of the gaming establishment account creation event with “Client” representing the gaming establishment device.).
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Hinton/Schneider discloses:
The system of Claim 2, wherein the gaming establishment device comprises an electronic gaming machine (Hinton, Figs 1A-B, These figures display examples of equivalents to a gaming establishment device – including a computer which may be utilized as a standard electronic gaming machine.).
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Hinton/Schneider discloses:
The system of Claim 3, wherein the input is associated with a gaming session occurring at the electronic gaming machine (Schneider, [0043], “Where a temporary account is established, play can be tracked across multiple play sessions over time.”).
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Hinton/Schneider discloses:
The system of Claim 2, wherein the gaming establishment device comprises a gaming establishment retail point-of-sale terminal (Hinton, [0050] and Fig 1E, “E-commerce domain 197 supports authentication manager 198 that authenticates users for completing online purchases.”).
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Hinton/Schneider discloses:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the gaming establishment account creation event occurs in association with an input received separate from any gaming establishment device (Hinton, [0188] and Fig 9E, “Given the user attribute information in the received message [from the Identity Provider], the service provider performs or completes a runtime user account creation operation at the service provider (step 998) based on the received user attribute information;”).
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Hinton/Schneider discloses:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the gaming establishment account comprises a cashless wagering account (Schneider, [0035], “The server cluster 56 is attached to and manages several databases, such as a slot accounting database 90, a patron management database 92, a ticket wizard database 94, a “Cage Credit and Table Games” (CCTG) database 96, a player tracking database 98, and a cashless database 99.”).
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), Hinton/Schneider discloses:
The system of Claim 1, wherein an enablement of the created gaming establishment account to be transacted against is based on an input being received from the user (Schneider, [0048], “At a decision 370 the player either chooses to and proceeds to enroll at a process 380 or opts not to enroll in the player tracking system.”).
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Hinton/Schneider discloses:
The system of Claim 1, wherein at least a second part of the identifying information associated with the user is received separate from the gaming establishment credit system server (Hinton, [0203], “The service provider recognizes that it does not have an identifier for the user's preferred identity provider, and the service provider prompts the user to provide the information in some manner (step 1106), e.g., through user-selectable controls in a web page.”).
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), Hinton discloses:
A system comprising:
a processor (Hinton, Fig 1B, CPU 122); and
a memory device (Hinton, Fig 1B, RAM 124 and Disk 132) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a triggering event occurring in association with a user not associated with any cashless wagering accounts (Hinton, [0177], “…performing a user account creation operation at the service provider.”), cause the processor to:
determine if the user is associated with any existing gaming establishment markers (Hinton, Fig 10 and [0190], “The service provider extracts a user identifier from the received request message (step 1004) and makes a determination as to whether or not the user identifier is recognized (step 1006).”), and
responsive to the user being associated with an existing gaming establishment marker, operate with a gaming establishment credit system server to automatically create a cashless wagering account in association with the user (Hinton, Fig 10 and [0196], “If the service provider has sufficient information for activating the user's account at step 1018, then the service provider creates an active session for the user (step 1024), either based on a successful authentication of a recognized user identity at step 1006 or based on the newly created user identity at step 1016.”),
wherein the creation of the cashless wagering account occurs based, at least in part, on user identifying information employed in a creation of the existing gaming establishment marker (See citation directly above.).
Hinton discloses the triggering events and automated user account creation as cited above, but Hinton does not explicitly teach the user account creation for the purposes of gaming (See notation in Claim 1 above.) or a triggering event occurring independent of any creation of any gaming establishment markers.
Schneider, however, discloses:
hardware for the purposes of gaming (Schneider, [0007] and Fig 1, “FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a gaming device used for embodiments of the invention.”); and
a triggering event occurs separate from any creation of any gaming establishment markers (Schneider, [0031], “In determining when to grant a bonus or system award, the promotion server 68 can access data stored anywhere on the network 5 looking for triggering events”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the runtime user account creation process of Hinton within gaming systems while utilizing triggering events independent of account creation as taught by Schneider since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Hinton/Schneider discloses:
The system of Claim 10, wherein the triggering event comprises the user logging into an electronic gaming machine (Hinton, Figs. 8-11D disclose Single-Sign-On (SSO) procedures for the client via a computer (i.e., electronic gaming machine) to access the intended resources.).
Regarding claims 12-20, the claims share similar limitations to claims 1-9. For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claims 1-9 above.
Response to Arguments
Although, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments regarding 112(f) and 112(b), the Applicant’s amendments as discussed within the Remarks, filed July 7, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Hinton is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Hinton is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.
Specifically, Hinton and the instant application identify the same problem: a user must separately register at a second, independently-operated system even though the first system already holds the required identifying information.
The instant application recites, “Accordingly, to minimize the amount of time users and gaming establishment personnel need to interact with each other, to minimize the amount of processing resources dedicated to collecting the same information multiple times … and further based on the lack of communication between components that maintain such accounts (which leads to the same user having to input the same information multiple times), the system of the present disclosure harnesses a single input of certain information to enable multiple components to operate independently to achieve different outcomes based on the same inputted information” (Specification, [0011]). In this paragraph, the Applicant describes the problem as the time and resources spent on collecting the same set of information on multiple occasions and a solution of harnessing a single input of certain information to utilize throughout multiple systems.
Hinton recites, “For example, various techniques have been used to reduce authentication burdens on users and computer system administrators. These techniques are generally described as “single-sign-on” (SSO) processes because they have a common purpose: after a user has completed a sign-on operation, i.e. been authenticated, the user is subsequently not required to perform another authentication operation. Hence, the goal is that the user would be required to complete only one authentication process during a particular user session. To reduce the costs of user management and to improve interoperability among enterprises, federated computing spaces have been created” (Hinton, [0007-0008]). In this disclosure, Hinton describes the same problem as the instant application: entering the same information on multiple occasions (as remedied by SSO) and the connection of multiple components to operate independently (as remedied by the combination of SSO within a federated network).
The Examiner respectfully submits the citations above as evidence that the Hinton remains reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the Applicant was concerned; therefore, Hinton may be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (e.g., “a “gaming establishment credit account” as claimed is not merely any account, rather, as described in the specification, it is a specific type of account subject to gaming regulatory requirements including verification of patron’s identity, creditworthiness, and compliance with state gaming commission rules.” (Remarks, p 12, para 2) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that, “the “identity provider” of Hinton appears to be “a user’s home domain” (and not an account, let alone a gaming establishment credit account) and the “service provider” of Hinton appears to be “a federated business partner” (and not an account, let alone a gaming establishment account)” (Remarks, p 12, para 3), the Examiner respectfully submits the “identity provider” and “service provider” of Hinton are the mechanisms at which Hinton utilizes as endpoints for the accounts – not that the terms are explicitly representations of accounts. Additionally, regarding the Applicant’s argument that “Hinton already includes multiple accounts” (Remarks, p 12, para 3), the Examiner respectfully submits the discussion of these accounts within Hinton does not attenuate Hinton’s disclosure of creating accounts. Further explanation on Applicant’s statement, “such a mapping runs contrary to how one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably equate Hinton to the elements of the claimed system” (Remarks, p 12, para 3) would be necessary to further address the comment.
In response to Applicant's argument that, “Applicant also submits that the Office’s characterization of the gaming establishment aspects as “intended use” is improper” (Remarks, p 12, para 4), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Furthermore, regarding the Applicant’s argument that “the Office’s position appears to be contrary to the Federal Circuit’s position that “apparatus claims may appropriately use functional language”” (Remarks, p 13, para 1), the Examiner respectfully submits this is not accurate. The Examiner acknowledges that apparatus claims may appropriately use functional language and each functional limitation of a claim must be evaluated and considered, just like any other limitation of the claim, for what it fairly conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art in the context in which it is used. All limitations, even the limitations which recite functional language or intended use, were evaluated and considered during the prosecution of the instant application. The Examiner simply stated intended use recitations to not patentably distinguish applications from a prior art reference, which is in line with the Federal Circuit’s position.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that, “while Hinton includes an identity provider providing user attribute information to a service provider, Hinton does not disclose that such user attribute information includes, identifying information associated with the user in which a first part of the identifying information was provided by the user in association with the prior creation of a gaming establishment credit account” (Remarks, p 13, para 2), the Examiner respectfully submits that Hinton does recite said limitation as cited in the corresponding section above.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the combination of Hinton and Schneider does not disclose certain features of the instant application (Remarks, p 13, paras 3-5), the Examiner respectfully submits that the combination of Hinton and Schneider under 35 U.S.C. 103 disclose all features claimed within the instant application as cited in the corresponding section above.
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 ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm 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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights