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 . This office action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 7/14/26. Claims 1-9, and 12-20 are pending.
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 1-9, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 12 recites a method of operating a system, the method comprising: following an establishment of a plurality of gaming establishment credit accounts associated with a plurality of users. The limitation of for each of the plurality of users associated with at least one of the plurality of gaming establishment credit accounts, requesting, by a processor, identifying information associated with that user from a component of a gaming establishment credit system that maintains the plurality of gaming establishment credit accounts, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “requesting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally taking note of physical characteristics of another user to establish a credit account. Similarly, the limitations of: causing are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 12. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – a processor. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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 element of using a processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claim 1-9, and 13-20.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2024/0112175 A1 to Shekhar et al. (hereinafter “Shekhar”).
Concerning claim 1, Shekhar discloses a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following an establishment of a plurality of gaming establishment credit accounts associated with a plurality of users (paragraph [0006]), cause the processor to:
for each of the plurality of users associated with at least one of the plurality of gaming establishment credit accounts, request identifying information associated with that user from a component of a gaming establishment credit system that maintains the plurality of gaming establishment credit accounts (paragraphs [0052], [0053], [0060], [0079], [0131], [0181]-[0187] – when one or more users enters player identification information into the system, a plurality of credit accounts from the one or more users is accessed and used to establish a credit account), and
responsive to a receipt of the identifying information from the component of the gaming establishment credit system, automatically and independent of any inputs received from any of the plurality of users, cause a bulk creation of a plurality of gaming establishment accounts associated with the plurality of users, wherein for each of the plurality of users associated with at least one of the plurality of gaming establishment credit accounts, the creation of the gaming establishment account for that user is at least partially based on the identifying information associated with that user (paragraphs [0052], [0053], [0060], [0079], [0131], [0170], [0181]-[0187] – a digital wallet is established linking the plurality of user accounts for one or more players causing a bulk creation of gaming accounts for one or more users).
Concerning claims 2 and 13, Shekhar discloses wherein at least one of the gaming establishment accounts comprises a cashless wagering account (paragraph [0076] – accounts comprise cashless wagering accounts).
Concerning claims 3 and 14, Shekhar discloses wherein at least another one of the gaming establishment accounts comprises a gaming establishment retail account (paragraph [0079]-[0084] – casino enterprise comprises retail).
Concerning claims 4 and 15, Shekhar discloses wherein for at least one of the gaming establishment accounts associated with at least one of the plurality of users, an enablement of that gaming establishment account to be transacted against is subject to an input received from that user (paragraphs [0052], [0053], [0060], [0079], [0131], [0181]-[0187] – transaction occur when a user wagers on a gaming device).
Concerning claims 5 and 16, Shekhar discloses wherein the input is associated with an acceptance of the gaming establishment account (paragraphs [0052], [0053], [0060], [0079], [0131], [0181]-[0187] – a user must enter player identification to establish the gaming account).
Concerning claims 6 and 17, Shekhar discloses wherein for at least one of the gaming establishment accounts associated with at least one of the plurality of users, an enablement of that gaming establishment account to be transacted against is subject to an input received independent of that user (paragraphs [0052], [0053], [0060], [0079], [0131], [0181]-[0187] – transaction occur when a user wagers on a gaming device).
Concerning claims 7 and 18, Shekhar discloses wherein the bulk creation of the gaming establishment accounts occurs independent of the establishment of the plurality of gaming establishment credit accounts (paragraphs [0052], [0053], [0060], [0079], [0131], [0181]-[0187] – accounts are created for a plurality of users).
Concerning claims 8 and 19, Shekhar discloses wherein for at least one of the plurality of users associated with at least one of the plurality of gaming establishment credit accounts, at least part of the identifying information associated with that user was provided by that user in association with the creation of the gaming establishment credit account (paragraphs [0052], [0053], [0060], [0079], [0131], [0181]-[0187] – user input is required to establish credit account).
Concerning claims 9 and 20, Shekhar discloses wherein at least another part of the identifying information associated with that user was provided by that user prior to the creation of the gaming establishment credit account (paragraphs [0052], [0053], [0060], [0079], [0131], [0181]-[0187] – prior user information from another casino is used to create the account).
Concerning claim 12, see the rejection of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argue that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and provide specific improvements in technology and therefore patent eligible. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “requesting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally taking note of physical characteristics of another user to establish a credit account. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – a processor. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection, Applicant argues that Shekhar does not include any of the player accounts are gaming establishment credit accounts maintained by a gaming establishment credit system. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In at least paragraphs [0049] and [0071], Shekhar discloses the PAM wallet is associated with localize wallet accounts associated with properties in the same corporation/casino enterprise. Therefore, Shekhar discloses the player accounts are gaming establishment credit accounts maintained by a gaming establishment credit system. Applicant argues that Shekhar does not disclose a bulk creation of gaming accounts. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In at least paragraphs [0181]-[0187], Shekar discloses a digital wallet is established linking the plurality of user accounts for one or more players causing a bulk creation of gaming accounts for one or more users. Therefore, Shekhar discloses a bulk creation of gaming accounts.
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 MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights