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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 05/22/2024.
The Examiner acknowledges the preliminary amendment filed on 09/10/2024 in which amendments were submitted.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 05/22/2024 are noted.
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 and a method in Claims 1-20. 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 recites: “1. A system comprising:
a processor; 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, 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, and
communicate data associated with the determined refund amount of the fee to a component of a ticket voucher system, wherein responsive to an occurrence of a refund realization event, the component of the ticket voucher system causes a ticket voucher associated with at least the determined refund amount of the fee to be issued.”
As indicated above, the underlined portions of representative Independent Claim 1, and similarly recited Independent Claims 10 and 12, generally encompass the abstract ideas, which may be viewed, for example, as fundamental economic practices.
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, and a plurality of instructions, 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 “[t]hese computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer” [0070] and memory not limited to one memory device, which includes: (1) volatile memory (e.g., RAM which can include non-volatile RAM, magnetic RAM, ferroelectric RAM, and any other suitable forms); (2) non-volatile memory (e.g., disk memory, FLASH memory, EPROMs, EEPROMs, memristor-based non-volatile solid-state memory, etc.);” [0072]. 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).
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 the refunding and fee process 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0197526 A1 to Higgins et al. (hereinafter Higgins).
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claim 12, Higgins discloses a system comprising:
a processor (fig. 8); and
a memory device (fig. 8) 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 (paras. [0045], [0050], [0053]-[0055]), 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 (paras. [0045], [0050], [0053]-[0055]); and
communicate data associated with the determined refund amount of the fee to a component of a ticket voucher system, wherein responsive to an occurrence of a refund realization event, the component of the ticket voucher system causes a ticket voucher associated with at least the determined refund amount of the fee to be issued (paras. [0045], [0050], [0053]-[0055]).
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited Claim 13, Higgins discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the gaming establishment device comprise an electronic gaming machine (fig. 1B).
Regarding Claim 3, and similarly recited Claims 11 and 14, Higgins discloses the system of Claim 2, wherein the refund realization event comprises a cashout input received by the electronic gaming machine (figs. 1B, paras. [0040]).
Regarding Claim 4, and similarly recited Claim 15, Higgins discloses the system of Claim 3, wherein the issued ticket voucher is associated with the determined refund amount of the fee and a credit balance of the electronic gaming machine (fig. 1B, paras. [0045], [0048]).
Regarding Claim 5, and similarly recited Claim 16, Higgins discloses the system of Claim 2, 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 (paras. [0040]-[0041]).
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly recited Claim 17, Higgins discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the refund realization event comprises a ticket voucher request received by the gaming establishment device and the issued ticket voucher is associated with the determined refund amount of the fee (paras. [0045], [0050], [0053]-[0055]).
Regarding Claim 7, and similarly recited Claim 18, Higgins discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the determined refund amount comprises a portion of the fee amount assessed (paras. [0045], [0050], [0053]-[0055]).
Regarding Claim 8, and similarly recited Claim 19, Higgins discloses the system of Claim 1, 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 (paras. [0045], [0050], [0053]-[0055]).
Regarding Claim 9, and similarly recited Claim 20, Higgins discloses the system of Claim 1, 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 (paras. [0038], [0043], [0045], [0050], [0053]-[0055]).
Regarding Claim 10, Higgins discloses a system comprising:
a processor (fig. 8); and
a memory device (fig. 8)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 an electronic gaming machine and following a fee amount being assessed in association with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the electronic gaming machine, cause the processor to:
responsive to a refund triggering activity event occurring in association with the electronic gaming machine, determine a refund amount of the fee amount assessed (paras. [0045], [0050], [0053]-[0055]), and
responsive to a refund realization event subsequently occurring in association with the electronic gaming machine, cause at least the determined refund amount to be made available in association with a ticket voucher issued by a component of a ticket voucher system (paras. [0045], [0050], [0053]-[0055]).
Regarding Claim 11, Higgins discloses the system of Claim 10, wherein the refund realization event comprises a cashout input received by the electronic gaming machine (fig. 1B).
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are examined above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References cited.
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, David Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715