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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 05/11/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn. New rejections are made under 35 USC 112(b) in view of amendments, see detailed analysis below.
Claims 1-20 are now 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 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1 to 20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a system in Claims 1-11 and a method in Claims 12-20. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) 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) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Specifically, independent Claim 1 (and similarly recited Claims 10 and 12) recites: “1. (original) A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to an attempted gaming establishment retail transaction associated with a first amount of funds:
automatically determine, based on a quantity of individual gaming establishment retail transactions anticipated to be separately transacted over a period of time against a gaming establishment retail account associated with a user, a second amount of funds that is greater than the first amount of funds, and
cause a transfer of the second amount of funds to the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user.”
Independent Claim 10 recites: “10. (original) A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
maintain a gaming establishment retail account in association with a user, and
responsive to an attempted gaming establishment retail transaction against the gaming establishment retail account when a balance of the gaming establishment retail account is less than an amount of funds associated with the attempted gaming establishment retail transaction, cause a transfer of an amount of funds from a cashless wagering account associated with the user to the gaming establishment retail account, wherein the transferred amount of funds is greater than the amount of funds associated with the attempted gaming establishment retail transaction and the transferred amount of funds is based on a quantity of gaming establishment retail transactions anticipated to occur against the gaming establishment retail account.”
Independent Claim 12 recites: “12. (original) A method of operating a system, the method comprising:
responsive to an attempted gaming establishment retail transaction associated with a first amount of funds:
automatically determining, by a processor and based on a quantity of individual gaming establishment retail transactions anticipated to be separately transacted over a period of time against a gaming establishment retail account associated with a user, a second amount of funds that is greater than the first amount of funds, and
causing, by the processor, a transfer of the second amount of funds to the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user.”
As indicated above, the underlined portions of representative Independent Claim 1, and similarly recited Independent Claims 10 and 12, but for the generic computer recitations, recites: responsive to an attempted retail transaction associated with a first amount of funds, determining – based on a quantity of individual retail transactions anticipated to be separately transacted over a period of time against a retail account associated with a user – a second amount of funds greater than the first amount, and causing a transfer of that second amount to the account. These limitations generally encompass a certain method of organizing human activity, specifically a fundamental economic practice and a commercial interaction: funding a customer account in anticipation of purchases. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. According to 2019 PEG, a consideration indicative of integration into a practical application includes improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular application (a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Here, a processor, memory, plurality of instructions, and display are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than in name only) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Applicant’s Specification does not disclose that the processor, memory, set of instructions or display are directed to a technological solution to a technological problem that “overcome some sort of technical difficulty.” citing ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 768 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
According to Applicant’s specification discloses “any suitable processing device [0060] where “[t]hese computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer” [0066] and memory not limited to RAM, ROM, FLASH, EEPROM, CD-ROM, and “[a]ny other suitable magnetic, optical, and/or semiconductor memory may operate in conjunction with the component of the system and/or the gaming establishment device disclosed herein.” [0061, 0062]. Consequently, these devices and programming are viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer or as a means to automate the steps. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
What remains of Claim 1 is recitation of “gaming establishment retail transaction” and “a gaming establishment retail account” which are merely labels linking the machinery to the technological field of gaming establishments.
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the steps needed to be performed, using the one of more computer components as tools. While this type of automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality).
Accordingly, each claim, as a whole, does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claim 1, and similarly Claims 10 and 12, lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present (MPEP 2106.05(d)); 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 (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
According to the 2019 PEG, in addition to the considerations discussed in Step 2A, an additional consideration indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) is the addition of a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Conversely, an additional consideration not indicative of an inventive concept is simply appending well-understood, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The extra-solution displaying is well-known, routine, and conventional activity. (See Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility Life Sciences & Data Example 46 Claim 1, P. 35 regarding “displayed on the display”. “This limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, a conclusion that the step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is further supported under Berkheimer. Therefore, displaying remains an insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Thus, Claim 1, and similarly Claims 10 and 12, do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, Claims 1, 10 and 12 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20
Claims 2-5 and 13-16 are further abstract rules in effectuating transfer of funds to the gaming establishment retail account. Claims 6-9, 11, and 17-20 are further abstract portions of associations with retail transactions, bulk funding, rounding up, attempted retail purchase transaction, periods of time in the technological field of gaming establishments. Additionally, the combination of additional elements adds nothing that is not already present when considered individually where the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, Claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20 are ineligible.
AIA Notice
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0197526 A1 to Higgins et al. (hereinafter Higgins) in view of U.S. Patent 7,889,052 to Berardi et al. (hereinafter Berardi) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0117177 A1 to MacMillan et al.
Regarding Claim 1 and similarly recited Claim 12, (original):, Higgins discloses a system comprising:
a processor (¶¶ [0058], [0060] discloses a processing system includes a controller circuit 802 having… a processor circuit 806); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (¶¶ [0058], [0060] discloses a processing system includes a controller circuit 802 having a memory 804…processor circuit 806 for carrying out program instructions stored in the memory …), cause the processor to:
responsive to an attempted gaming establishment retail transaction associated with a first amount of funds (fig. 2, steps 236-240, ¶ [0043]: a user 230 initiates a purchase transaction at a point of sale (PoS) terminal 232 coupled to a PoS system 234, for example by scanning and/or swiping a card and/or mobile device at the PoS terminal 232 (step 236). The PoS terminal 232 initiates a retail purchase transaction (for $100 in this example) with the PoS system 234 (step 238), which in turn requests the $100 in funds from the retail wallet 206 associated with the user 230 (step 240); ¶¶ [0038]-[0039], [0041] – the transaction is a gaming establishment retail transaction because the retail wallet is one of the wallets of a casino resort wallet 102/202 and the point-of-sale devices 122 are casino checkout registers and retail kiosk) (The $100 is the claimed “first amount of funds”):
“… against a gaming establishment retail account associated with a user…” (fig. 1A, ¶¶ [0038]-[0039], [0043] discloses a cashless retail wallet 106 associated with a user and maintained as part of the resort wallet, i.e., an account of the gaming establishment used for non-gaming retail purchases) … and
cause a transfer of the second amount of funds to the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user (fig. 2, steps 244-250, ¶¶ [0043]-[0044] discloses If it is determined that the retail wallet 206 has an insufficient balance to complete the purchase (step 242), the retail wallet 206 and the casino gaming wallet 204 perform a two-phase transaction).
Higgins does not explicitly disclose
“automatically determine, based on a quantity of individual gaming establishment retail transactions anticipated to be separately transacted over a period of time …, a second amount of funds that is greater than the first amount of funds.”
In a related invention, Berardi generally discloses
automatically determine, based on a quantity of individual gaming establishment retail transactions anticipated to be separately transacted over a period of time …, (Col. 23:5-13, 19-28, 29-36 discloses once the preloaded value data is depleted such that the minimum depletion level is reached, the PLAS 1016 may trigger an automatic reload to reload the preloaded value account from funds retrieved from the funding source 1104 (1112). The amount of funds retrieved may be sufficient for loading the preloaded value account to the minimum amount described above or to some other predetermined reload value … the automatic reloading may occur where the transaction exceeds the amount stored in or remaining in the preloaded value account. In this way, the preloaded value account may be restored to an amount necessary for completion of the transaction. For example, where automatic reloading restores the preloaded value account to a value suitable for transaction completion, the preloaded value account may be automatically reloaded prior to processing the transaction… Other automatic reload criteria may include, but are not limited to, reloading until a defined maximum load amount in a defined time period is reached. … reloading at a selected reoccurring time interval (e.g., once a month), reloading as permitted until a defined maximum number of reloads in a specified time period is reached) (Here a reloading criteria of a maximum number of reloads permitted within a time window is interpreted as referencing how many funding events – and therefore how many purchases – are expected within a specific time window. This equates to the same as a quantity of individual gaming establishment retail transactions anticipated to be separately transacted over a period of time).
Higgins discloses that regulations may prohibit transfers of funds into a retail wallet beyond a predetermined threshold, such as a predetermined maximum number of transfers and/or a predetermined maximum amount of funds ([0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Higgin’s cover the request transfer process with Berardi’s predetermined, automatic reload value approach to prevent a potential transaction from being denied. This simple substitution of one known account funding technique for another to thus obtains the predictable result of fewer funding transactions per visit.
The combination of Higgins and Berardi, however does not explicitly discloses “, … a second amount of funds that is greater than the first amount of funds.”
MacMilan discloses a second amount of funds that is greater than the first amount of funds (¶¶ [0035]-[0036] discloses gateway subsystem 130 can include load processing module 131 that can receive a load request … a load request can include a load amount; … risk management module 132 that operates on a payment amount, payment frequency, payment date, aggregated payment amounts over a period of time, etc. In this way, limits can be placed by the user (e.g., through browser module 111) on the amount and/or frequency of funds loaded to the stored value account. In some embodiments, risk management will only perform an analysis on auto-pay transactions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of MacMilan with the combined system of Higgins/Berardi in order to improve upon the account funding of a user’s account by the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement (Higgin’s resort wallet) to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited Claim13, (original): Higgins in view of Berardi and MacMilan discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the second amount of funds is transferred from a cashless wagering account associated with the user (Higgins, ¶¶ [0038], [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding Claim 3, and similarly recited Claim 14, (original): Higgins in view of Berardi and MacMilan discloses the system of Claim 2, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to another attempted gaming establishment retail transaction associated with a third amount of funds, cause the processor to transact against the gaming establishment retail account without transacting against the cashless wagering account associated with the user (Higgins, ¶¶ [0043], fig. 2, step 242; Berardi, Col. 23:5-13).
Regarding Claim 4, and similarly recited Claim 15, (original): Higgins in view of Berardi and MacMilan discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the second amount of funds is transferred from an external account associated with the user and maintained by a component of a financial institution (Higgins, ¶¶ [0039], [0062]).
Regarding Claim 5, and similarly recited Claim 16, (original): Higgins in view of Berardi and MacMilan discloses the system of Claim 4, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to another attempted gaming establishment retail transaction associated with a third amount of funds, cause the processor to transact against the gaming establishment retail account without transacting against the external account associated with the user (Higgins, ¶¶ [0043]).
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly recited Claim 17, (original): Higgins in view of Berardi and MacMilan discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the period of time is associated with an amount of time the user is anticipated to be at a gaming establishment (Higgins, ¶¶ [0036], [0048]; Berardi, Col. 23:29-36 discloses reload criteria defined over a time period).
Regarding Claim 7, and similarly recited Claim 18, (original): Higgins in view of Berardi and MacMilan discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the second amount of funds comprises the first amount of funds rounded up to a nearest multiple of a designated number (Berardi, Col. 23:5-13).
Regarding Claim 8, and similarly recited Claim 19, (original): Higgins in view of Berardi and MacMilan discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the attempted gaming establishment retail transaction comprises an attempted gaming establishment retail purchase transaction (Higgins, ¶¶ [0043], [0041]).
Regarding Claim 9, and similarly recited Claim 20, (original): Higgins in view of Berardi and MacMilan discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the quantity of individual gaming establishment retail transactions anticipated to be separately transacted over the period of time comprises one gaming establishment retail transaction (Higgins, ¶¶ [0045]).
Regarding Claim 10 (original): Higgins discloses a system comprising:
a processor (¶¶ [0058], [0060] discloses a processing system includes a controller circuit 802 having… a processor circuit 806); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (¶¶ [0058], [0060] discloses a processing system includes a controller circuit 802 having a memory 804…processor circuit 806 for carrying out program instructions stored in the memory …), cause the processor to:
maintain a gaming establishment retail account in association with a user (¶¶ [0039]-[0042] discloses server 114 coupled to database 116, maintains the resort wallet 102 including retail wallet 106 for the player), and
responsive to an attempted gaming establishment retail transaction against the gaming establishment retail account when a balance of the gaming establishment retail account is less than an amount of funds associated with the attempted gaming establishment retail transaction, (¶¶ [0043], fig. 2, step 242, [0043]), cause a transfer of an amount of funds from a cashless wagering account associated with the user to the gaming establishment retail account (¶¶ [0043]-[0044]).
Higgins does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the transferred amount of funds is greater than the amount of funds associated with the attempted gaming establishment retail transaction and the transferred amount of funds is based on a quantity of gaming establishment retail transactions anticipated to occur against the gaming establishment retail account.
Berardi and MacMilan discloses wherein the transferred amount of funds is greater than the amount of funds associated with the attempted gaming establishment retail transaction and the transferred amount of funds is based on a quantity of gaming establishment retail transactions anticipated to occur against the gaming establishment retail account (Berardi, Col. 23:5-36, MacMilan, ¶¶ [0032], [0036], [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of MacMilan with the combined system of Higgins/Berardi in order to improve upon the account funding of a user’s account by the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement (Higgin’s resort wallet) to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 11 (original): The system of Claim 10, wherein subsequent to the transfer, the cashless wagering account is not transacted against in association with the quantity of gaming establishment retail transactions anticipated to occur (Higgins, ¶¶ [0043], fig. 2, step 242).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered.
On pages 6-8, Applicant argues that the techniques for operating the systems and methods recited in the claims, even if somehow directed to the alleged abstract idea, integrates that abstract idea into a practical application, thereby satisfying the subject matter eligibility requirement of § 101. Applicant argues that the claims integrate any judicial exception into a practical application because bulk loading reduces the number of transfers and number of account balance queries and reduced cash handling yields security, health , and device-wear benefits. Examiner has fully considered these arguments and respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 recites “… responsive to an attempted gaming establishment retail transaction associated with a first amount of funds: automatically determine, based on a quantity of individual gaming establishment retail transactions anticipated to be separately transacted over a period of time against a gaming establishment retail account associated with a user, a second amount of funds that is greater than the first amount of funds, and cause a transfer of the second amount of funds to the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user.” The claim does not recite any of the asserted improvements cited by Applicant and no improvement in the operation any processor, memory, or network. The reduction in transfers and balance queries urged at pages 7-8 is an effect asserted in the specification and not a limitation recited in the claim. MPEP 2106.05(a)(improvement must be reflected in the claims, not merely alleged in the specification).
The “Such reduction in the use of cash at a gaming establishment provides a relatively more secure environment for a user (via reducing or eliminating a user carrying cash on their person and thus diminishing the risks that such cash may be lost or stolen), overcomes various health concerns associated with cash-based transactions (e.g., protecting patrons from using forms of currency that act as transmission vehicles for contagions), and benefits the gaming establishment by reducing the use of certain kiosks that accept and dispense cash (e.g., reducing the wear and tear on such devices and prolonging the operational life on these devices)” – as recited on page 8, are consequences of a patron/player’s behavior, not of any claimed technical operation and are likewise absent from the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Applicant’s reliance on Enfish, is also not persuasive. In Enfish, the claims recited the specific self-referential table structure that produced the asserted benefit. Here by contrast, the claims recite the funding decision and the resulting transfer, and nothing about how any data structure or protocol or hardware operates differently as a result. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
On page 9, Applicant arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is found to be persuasive. This rejection is hereby withdrawn.
On pages 9-10, Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) are persuasive and this rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are examined above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights