DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This office action is in response to RCE filed 4/2/2026.
2. Claims 1-8, 10-19 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/12/2026 has been entered.
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 1-8, 10-19
Claims 1-8, 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-11 are directed to a system; claims 12-20 are directed to a method – each of which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A: A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Groupings of Abstract Ideas:
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
A. Mathematical Relationships
B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations
C. Mathematical Calculations
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
A. Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
III. MENTAL PROCESSES.
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-10.2019]
The limitations recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 12 –
following a transfer of an amount of funds from the financial institution account maintained in association with the financial institution to a [gaming establishment device] and following a fee amount being assessed in association with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the gaming establishment device, cause the [processor] to:
track a quantity of occurrences of an activity associated with the gaming establishment device following the transfer of the amount of funds, and
responsive to the tracked quantity of occurrences of the activity at least reaching a threshold quantity of occurrences:
determine a refund amount of the fee amount assessed in association with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the gaming establishment device, wherein a first threshold quantity of occurrences is associated with a first refund amount of the fee amount assessed and a second, different threshold quantity of occurrences is associated with a second, different refund amount of the fee amount assessed, and
cause the determined refund amount to be made available
– constitutes Fundamental Economic Practices and/or Commercial/Legal Interactions and thus fall under the abstract idea category Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea to – portion of the fee as refund; funds transferred from financial institution account to gaming establishment account and a portion to the gamin device; increase balance of the gaming establishment account; transfer funds from financial institution to the gaming establishment device independent of any gaming establishment account; types of activity; first threshold quantity of occurrences associated with a first refund amount, and a second threshold quantity of occurrences associated with a second refund amount – that also constitute Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception.
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e)
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Additional elements recited by the claims, beyond the abstract idea, include: gaming establishment system comprising a processor, and memory device; gaming establishment device; electronic gaming machine; electronic funds transfer. Examiner finds that any additional element(s), beyond the judicial exception, has been recited at a high level of generality such that the claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The combination of additional elements does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional elements do no more than “use the computer as a tool” and/or “link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas – following a transfer of an amount of funds from the financial institution account maintained in association with the financial institution to a gaming establishment device and following a fee amount being assessed in association with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the gaming establishment device;, track a quantity of occurrences of an activity associated with the gaming establishment device following the transfer of the amount of funds, and responsive to the tracked quantity of occurrences of the activity at least reaching a threshold quantity of occurrences: determine a refund amount of the fee amount assessed in association with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the gaming establishment device, wherein a first threshold quantity of occurrences is associated with a first refund amount of the fee amount assessed and a second, different threshold quantity of occurrences is associated with a second, different refund amount of the fee amount assessed, and cause the determined refund amount to be made available – that merely use generic computers as tools. Steps that do no more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility. “Indeed, nothing in claim 1 improves the functioning of the computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem.” See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Hence, under Prong Two of Step 2A, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A.
Step 2B: In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As discussed in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components, which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept.
When considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the abstract idea of – following a transfer of an amount of funds from the financial institution account maintained in association with the financial institution to a gaming establishment device and following a fee amount being assessed in association with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the gaming establishment device;, track a quantity of occurrences of an activity associated with the gaming establishment device following the transfer of the amount of funds, and responsive to the tracked quantity of occurrences of the activity at least reaching a threshold quantity of occurrences: determine a refund amount of the fee amount assessed in association with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the gaming establishment device, wherein a first threshold quantity of occurrences is associated with a first refund amount of the fee amount assessed and a second, different threshold quantity of occurrences is associated with a second, different refund amount of the fee amount assessed, and cause the determined refund amount to be made available – into significantly more.
See MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019].
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-19
Claims 1-8, 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lutnick (US20240144775A1) in view of Walker et al. (US20110244950A1).
Claim 1:
A gaming establishment system comprising:
a processor operable with and independent from a processor of a financial institution that maintains a financial institution account; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following a transfer of an amount of funds from a financial institution account maintained in association with a financial institution to a gaming establishment device and following a fee amount being assessed in association with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the gaming establishment device, cause the processor to:
track a quantity of occurrences of an activity associated with the gaming establishment device following the transfer for the amount of funds, and
(See Lutnick: Para [0323] (“Then, when the player uses the player card at any gaming device, the system can track the player's activity.”)
responsive to the tracked quantity of occurrences of the activity at least reaching a threshold quantity of occurrences:
determine a refund amount of the fee amount assessed in association with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the gaming establishment device, wherein a first threshold quantity of occurrences is associated with a first refund amount of the fee amount assessed and a second, different threshold quantity of occurrences is associated with a second, different refund amount of the fee amount assessed, and
cause the determined refund amount to be made available.
(See Walker: Para [0070] (“The refund rate field 110 lists an effective refund percentage based on the insurance that the contract provides. In some embodiments, a refund amount, which may be based on a determined loss amount, may be provided to a player at the conclusion of a gaming contract. Accordingly, a refund rate associated with a gaming contract may specify a refund amount payable to a player based on a determined loss amount. For example, a refund rate associated with a gaming contract may be a percentage of a determined loss amount (e.g., if a refund rate is 50% and a player loses $160 during contract play, a determined refund amount is $80). In some embodiments, a refund rate may be 100% of a player's determined loss amount (e.g., the entirety of a player's gambling losses during a contract period are reimbursed). In an alternate embodiment, a flat payout amount may be specified in lieu of a refund (e.g., if a player agrees to play 12 hours of slots, the player receives a $50 bonus payment at the conclusion of the contract). In another alternate embodiment, a player may receive no refund. In yet another embodiment, a refund rate may be greater than 100% (e.g., “We'll refund all your losses plus pay you 5%!”). In yet another embodiment, a gaming contract may entitle a player to receive a payment based on a win amount (e.g., “Get double your winnings!”).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above noted disclosure of Lutnick as it relates to gaming access and authorization interface to include the above noted disclosure of Walker as it relates to determining compliance status of game play. The motivation for combining the references would have been to offer insurance for plays that are compliant with gaming contract.
Claims 10, 12 are similar to claim 1 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 2:
wherein the determined refund amount comprises a portion of the fee amount assessed.
(See Walker: Para [0124])
Claim 13 is similar to claim 2 and rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 3:
wherein the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the gaming establishment device comprises the amount of funds being transferred from the financial institution account to a gaming establishment account and at least a portion of the amount of funds being transferred from the gaming establishment account to the gaming establishment device.
(See Lutnick: Para [0618])
Claim 14 is similar to claim 3 and rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 4:
wherein the determined refund amount is made available in association with an increase of a balance of the gaming establishment account.
(See Walker: Para [0126])
Claim 15 is similar to claim 4 and rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 5:
wherein the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the gaming establishment device occurs, independent of any gaming establishment account, in association with an electronic funds transfer.
(See Lutnick: Para [0312])
Claim 16 is similar to claim 5 and rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 6:
wherein the determined refund amount is made available in association with an increase of a balance of the gaming establishment device.
(See Azzam: Para [0126])
Claim 17 is similar to claim 6 and rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 7:
wherein the gaming establishment device comprises an electronic gaming machine.
(See Lutnick: Para [0433])
Claim 18 is similar to claim 7 and rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 8:
wherein the activity comprises at least one of an amount of games played, an amount wagered, an amount won, an amount lost, a game outcome obtained, and an amount of time spent playing a game.
(See Lutnick: Para [0724])
Claim 19 is similar to claim 8 and rejected on similar grounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant argues that, as described in the specification, gaming establishment systems and financial institution systems for transfer of funds are disparate electronic/computing environments which are not configured to communicate with each other and not integrated with each other for various technical reasons. In view of such a disconnect between these different systems, the claims represent a technical improvement to a computing system or environment via acting as a bridge between these different technically incompatible systems. Specifically, the claimed gaming establishment systems offer an improvement in computing technology by operating with various disparate computing devices (e.g., a computing component of a financial institution, a gaming establishment device, and a processor of a gaming establishment system) to enable, in a way not previously possible, an avenue for providing, by a processor of the gaming establishment system, a refund amount of a fee amount assessed in association with a transfer of funds from a financial institution account maintained by a financial institution to a gaming device. That is, the claimed gaming establishment systems represent an advancement in computing technology by utilizing the tracking of an activity associated with a gaming establishment device by a processor of the gaming establishment system to effectuate a refund of an amount of a fee assessed in association with a financial institution in a way not previously available. Accordingly, the claims represent patent eligible subject matter by overcoming the technical limitations (e.g., the inability to refund a fee amount associated with a financial institution based on certain activity occurring separate from and independent of the financial institution) encountered by prior systems while still enabling funds to freely flow between different systems in a secured environment. Since the claims are directed to these specific improvements in technology whereby the specific claimed features allow for the improvement to be realized, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and are patent eligible.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive.
It is difficult to see how the steps of – tracking and determining a first and second threshold quantity of occurrences of an activity associated with a gaming establishment device; determining a first and second refund amounts from financial institution account to gaming device associated with the first and second threshold – improves a computer or technology. This is not a technological hurdle and nor does the invention purport to overcome technological challenges. Issuing a refund is a Commercial/Legal Interaction and not technological problem. The claimed steps do no more than implement a judicial exception which is not sufficient to bring about patent eligible technical improvement. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“But merely ‘configur[ing]’ generic computers in order to ‘supplant and enhance’ an otherwise abstract manual process is precisely the sort of invention that the Alice Court deemed ineligible for patenting.”) (“Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”).
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other. The present claims are directed to issuing refunds based on threshold number occurrences associated with a gaming establishment and merely use generic computers to improve the performance of that determination not the performance of a computer. Indeed, nothing in the claims improves the functioning of a computer, makes it operate more efficiently, or solves any technological problem. See Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“To be a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, we have required the claims to be directed to an improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform.”).
Applicant argues citing para [0013], [0015], [0016] of the specification, that claim 1 provides a solution to problems associated with the employment of cash within a gaming establishment. Examiner finds this unpersuasive because the purported advantages highlighted by the above sections – such as reduction or elimination of cash – relate to improving Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as opposed to improving computers or technology. Tracking the occurrences of an activity associated with a gaming establishment and issuing a refund of the fee associated with the transfer of funds from financial institution to gaming establishment in response to tracked occurrences – may facilitate the functioning of a gaming session but it does not improve the performance of a computer or processor. See SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“No matter how much of an advance in the … field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.”); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[P]atent law does not protect such claims[, i.e., claims to an asserted advance in the realm of abstract ideas], without more, no matter how groundbreaking the advance.”). Eliminating gaming establishment personnel from distributing cash may protect both the player as well as the gaming establishment from corruption and fraud but it does nothing to improve computers or technology.
The claim limitations do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field; (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception; (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state; or (iv) any other meaningful limitation. See MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e)-(h). Hence, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1646. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
