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
Applicant argues that dormant funds in retail accounts cause operational stresses and the solution is to move dormant funds to another account to centralized location (Remarks 7 filed 4/27/2026). “The centralization reduces excessive infrastructure loads on the overall system caused by the system needing to frequently interact with multiple touchpoints to retrieve funds. For example, automatically transferring funds away from a gaming establishment account reduces the load created on the system due to the system executing a number of account balance queries when funds are spread over multiple accounts but otherwise needed at the frequently transacted against gaming establishment account.” (Remarks 7). In other words, Applicant argues the claims disclose a practical application where the system load is mitigated when an anticipated need for funds causes a transfer from a dormant retail account to another gaming establishment account.
Examiner disagrees there is a practical application for a number of reasons:
a. The claims fail to recite any technological solution of an improvement to a computer or computer system. Rather, the scope of the claim is of a single refund transferred from a retail account to another gaming account using generic computing technology. Nothing in the claim suggests a technological solution that addresses an operational load on a system caused by frequent interactions with multiple touchpoints to retrieve funds. The above transfers rely on a generic computing environment, and Examiner can find no practical application recited in Claims 1, 10 or 12 that rise to the “self-referential table” of Enfish, the remote but secure ISP custom filtering of Bascom, or the unique rulesets for digital animation of McRO.
b. Relatedly, the claims describe ordinary fund transfers from one type of account to another and not of an improved computing environment that centralizes funds. The recitation of the transfer to “another gaming account” is reasonably construed in light of Applicant’s specification [0057], not as creating a central repository or consolidation of dormant refunds, but as a redistribution to any other account so long as it is “another gaming establishment account” that is active. Refunds are automatically transferred to another gaming accounts but not necessarily the same gaming account. See Spec. [0056-0057]).
c. Moreover, Claims 1, 10, and 12 bear a substantial resemblance to the claims in Ex parte Kevin Higgins and Jeffrey Shepherd (Appeal 2022-004307, Appl. No. 15/852,602). In that case, the Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of similar fund transfer claims using existing technology as abstract and lacking a practical application (“[w]e agree with the Examiner that the additional elements in independent claim 1 amount to using generic computer components to generically implement financial-transaction steps associated with a purchase that can be funded by the plural financial accounts citing Final Act. 5.”). Further, “[w]ith respect to Step 2B, we agree with the Examiner that the Specification evidences that the computer component used to implement the financial-transaction steps are conventional computer components arranged in a conventional manner to perform a conventional computer function” citing id. at 6, and Spec. para. 40-42, Fig. 1B). Here, we have the same Applicants, similar financial-transfer claims, and an equivalent generic computing environment.
Thus, the claims fail to recite a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the functional nature of the various accounts in the claim and Higgins’ lack of a transfer of funds from a retail wallet to a casino gaming wallet, are persuasive (Remarks 8). While Higgins transfers funds as part of the refund event, Applicant’s claims are directed towards independent refund transfer events such as when a sweep occurs. Thus, the rejections based on Higgins are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
7. Step 1
Claims 1-11 are directed to a system and Claims 12-20 are directed to a method
meeting the requirements for Step 1.
8. Step 2A Prong 1
In independent Claim 1 (below, and similarly for Claims 10 and 12), the claim recites a "refunding event" and a "balance being available" which are financial in nature and a certain method of organizing human activity.
Claim 1. 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 a refunding event associated in association with a gaming establishment retail account available to be transacted against as part of a gaming establishment retail purchase transaction, cause an automatic transfer of an amount of funds from the gaming establishment retail account to another gaming establishment account unavailable to be transacted against as part of any gaming establishment retail purchase transaction, wherein the refunding event occurs separate from an occurrence of a gaming establishment retail return transaction associated with a point-of-sale terminal, and
communicate data that results in a display device displaying a balance of the other gaming establishment account comprising at least the amount of funds transferred from the gaming establishment retail account, the balance being available for a transaction made against the other gaming establishment account.
9. Step 2A Prong II
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. According to MPEP 2106, 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).
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 account" and "another gaming establishment account" which are named accounts that would be subject to financial rules and are in furtherance of the technological field of gaming establishments and of extra-solution "displaying a balance" of account information.
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.
10. Step 2B
According to the MPEP 2106, 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.
11. Dependent Claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20
Claims 2-4 and 13-15 are further abstract rules in effectuating the refunding event of periods of inactivity, intervals of time, points in time. Claims 5-9, 11, and 16-20 are further abstract portions of funds and associations with retail transactions, bulk funding, balances and types of non-gaming establishment accounts and cashless wagering accounts 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.
Conclusion
12. 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 extension fee 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
14. 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.
15. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights