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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Response filed on 2/12/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-FINAL.
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 (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the following claim terms are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Claim 1 and 12 recite a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). Claim 10 recites a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. Claim 1 and claim 12 recite a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following a user providing, via an input device, identifying information in association with an attempted gaming establishment retail transaction occurring at a point-of-sale terminal of a gaming establishment retail system, cause the processor to: receive the identifying information provided by the user in association with the attempted gaming establishment retail transaction, wherein the identifying information comprises user identifying information associated with the user prior to the attempted gaming establishment retail transaction, determine if the user is associated with any gaming establishment retail accounts, and responsive to the user not being associated with any gaming establishment retail accounts, independent of the user providing, via the input device, any additional identifying information: automatically create a gaming establishment retail account associated with the user, wherein the automatic creation of the gaming establishment retail account is at least partially based on the identifying information provided by the user in association with the attempted gaming establishment retail transaction and the automatic creation of the gaming establishment retail account bypasses dedicating any processing resources to maintaining any gaming establishment retail accounts associated with the user which are not transacted against, and automatically communicate a request to transfer an amount of funds to the created gaming establishment retail account. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and cover performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions, more specifically, sales activities and business relations. Also, under human activity, the claim limitations are managing interactions between people, more specifically, following instructions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a system, a processor, a memory device with instructions, a point-of-sale terminal, and a gaming establishment retail system. The additional elements of a system, a processor, a memory device with instructions, a point-of-sale terminal, and a gaming establishment retail system, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (a system, a processor, a memory device with instructions, a point-of-sale terminal, and a gaming establishment retail system) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 2 recites wherein the attempted gaming establishment retail transaction comprises a first attempted gaming establishment retail transaction by the user in association with the gaming establishment retail system. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of gaming establishment retail system are as addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 3 recites wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor in association with the attempted gaming establishment retail transaction, cause the processor to: request additional identifying information associated with the user from a gaming establishment component that maintains another gaming establishment account, and responsive to a receipt of the additional identifying information associated with the user from the gaming establishment component, modify, based on the additional identifying information, an attribute of the created gaming establishment retail account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of memory device, processor, and gaming establishment component are as addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites wherein the other gaming establishment account comprises a cashless wagering account and the additional identifying information was provided by the user in association with the creation of the cashless wagering account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites wherein the other gaming establishment account comprises a gaming establishment patron management system account and the additional identifying information was provided by the user in association with the creation of the gaming establishment patron management system account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor after a completion of the attempted gaming establishment retail transaction, cause the processor to: request additional identifying information associated with the user from a gaming establishment component that maintains another gaming establishment account, and responsive to a receipt of the additional identifying information associated with the user from the gaming establishment component, modify, based on the additional identifying information, an attribute of the created gaming establishment retail account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and the additional elements of memory device, processor, and gaming establishment component are as addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B in the claim 1 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites wherein the other gaming establishment account comprises a cashless wagering account and the additional identifying information was provided by the user in association with the creation of the cashless wagering account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 8 recites wherein the other gaming establishment account comprises a gaming establishment patron management system account and the additional identifying information was provided by the user in association with the creation of the gaming establishment patron management system account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 9 recites wherein the amount of funds are requested to be transferred to the created gaming establishment retail account from a non-gaming establishment account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 10 –
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03) Claim 10 recites a system, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Yes.
The claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and the abstract idea without bold. Underlined claim limitations denote newly added claim limitations:
Claim 10 recites a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a first attempted gaming establishment retail transaction, cause the processor to: determine if a user associated with the first attempted gaming establishment retail transaction is associated with any gaming establishment retail accounts, and responsive to the determination being that the user is not associated with any gaming establishment retail accounts: automatically create, independent of any inputs received via an input device, a gaming establishment retail account, and prior to a second attempted gaming establishment retail transaction associated with the user: request identifying information associated with the user from a gaming establishment component that maintains another gaming establishment account, the identifying information being at least partially inputted by the user in association with a creation of the other gaming establishment account which occurred prior to the first attempted gaming establishment retail transaction, and responsive to a receipt of the identifying information associated with the user from the gaming establishment component that maintains the other gaming establishment account, automatically modify, based on the identifying information associated with the user received from the gaming establishment component that maintains the other gaming establishment account and independent of any inputs received by the input device, an attribute of the created gaming establishment retail account. These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and cover performance via certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Under human activity, the limitations are commercial interactions, more specifically, sales activities and business relations. Also, under human activity, the claim limitations are managing interactions between people, more specifically, following instructions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The mere recitation of generic computer components in the claims do not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims recite an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). No.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a system, processor, memory device, input device, gaming establishment component, and plurality of instructions. The additional elements of a system, processor, memory device, input device, gaming establishment component, and plurality of instructions, are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer components are recited at such a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05). No.
The claims are next analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements of (a system, processor, memory device, input device, gaming establishment component, and plurality of instructions) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO; The claims do not provide significantly more, and are not patent eligible).
Claim 11 recites wherein the first attempted gaming establishment retail transaction comprises a return transaction. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 13 recites wherein the attempted gaming establishment retail transaction comprises a first attempted gaming establishment retail transaction by the user in association with the gaming establishment retail system. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and the additional elements of gaming establishment retail system are as addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B in the claim 12 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claim 14 recites further comprising, in association with the attempted gaming establishment retail transaction: requesting additional identifying information associated with the user from a gaming establishment component that maintains another gaming establishment account, and responsive to a receipt of the additional identifying information associated with the user from the gaming establishment component, modifying, by the processor and based on the additional identifying information, an attribute of the created gaming establishment retail account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and the additional elements of processor, and gaming establishment component are as addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B in the claim 12 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claim 15 recites wherein the other gaming establishment account comprises a cashless wagering account and the additional identifying information was provided by the user in association with the creation of the cashless wagering account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claim 16 recites wherein the other gaming establishment account comprises a gaming establishment patron management system account and the additional identifying information was provided by the user in association with the creation of the gaming establishment patron management system account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claim 17 recites further comprising, after a completion of the attempted gaming establishment retail transaction: requesting additional identifying information associated with the user from a gaming establishment component that maintains another gaming establishment account, and responsive to a receipt of the additional identifying information associated with the user from the gaming establishment component, modifying, by the processor and based on the additional identifying information, an attribute of the created gaming establishment retail account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and the additional elements of processor, and gaming establishment component are as addressed in the Steps 2A2 and B in the claim 12 analysis above. Therefore, this claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claim 18 recites wherein the other gaming establishment account comprises a cashless wagering account and the additional identifying information was provided by the user in association with the creation of the cashless wagering account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claim 19 recites wherein the other gaming establishment account comprises a gaming establishment patron management system account and the additional identifying information was provided by the user in association with the creation of the gaming establishment patron management system account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Claim 20 recites, wherein the amount of funds are requested to be transferred to the created gaming establishment retail account from a non-gaming establishment account. These limitations are also part of the abstract idea identified in claim 12, and is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 12, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the system for gaming account creation provides a technical solution via “eliminating the need to dedicate storage resources to saving the same information in multiple databases.” Applicant further notes that the currently recited claims provide a “solution to the recognized problem with prior systems that dedicated valuable processing and storage resources to preemptively creating and maintaining gaming establishment retail accounts” (Applicant arguments, pg. 9-10). Ex Parte Smith was eligible because they added a timer to transactions in order to handicap electronic transactions and be fair with physical transactions. Simply changing trading decisions is not an improvement to computer functionality, such as specific UI improvements and improved data management, or a solution to a technical problem. Technical details must be in the claim and the specification. For a trading method to be patent-eligible under USPTO Section 101, merely "improving computational resources" is not enough to overcome the abstract idea exception established in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. The claim must specify a concrete, technological improvement to the computer's functionality, rather than simply implementing a conventional trading practice on a generic computer.
Unlike Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (“Enfish”), where the claims were focused on a specific improvement in how the computer functioned, the claim here merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract concepts. Therefore, based on the similarity of the concept described in this claim to abstract idea identified by the courts, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: Yes). The court also emphasized that the "directed to" inquiry applies a filter to claims, when interpreted in view of the specification, based on whether their character as a whole is directed to a patent ineligible concept. The Federal Circuit cautioned against describing a claim at a high level of abstraction untethered from the language of the claim when determining the focus of the claimed invention.
Further, in Enfish, the court asked whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database), or instead on a process that qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. To make the determination of whether these claims are directed to an improvement in existing computer technology, the court looked to the teachings of the specification. Specifically, the court identified the specification's teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements.
The Federal Circuit in Enfish stated that certain claims directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software, are not necessarily abstract (Step 2A). The court specifically noted that some improvements in computer-related technology, such as chip architecture or an LED display, when appropriately claimed, are undoubtedly not abstract. Explaining that software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware can, the court noted that claims directed to software, as opposed to hardware, also are not inherently abstract.
In DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, the claims were found eligible as they reflected improvements to the functioning of a computer, i.e. a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage. In contrast, the current claims do not contain limitations reflective of an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In Finjan, the claims to a “behavior-based virus scan” were found to provide greater computer security and were thus directed to a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality. In contrast, the current claims do not contain limitations reflective of an improvement to computer functionality and instead merely recite the computer elements at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693