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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims represent an improvement over prior art systems because they:
Reduce certain security concerns associated with the use of cash in a gaming establishment diminishing associated safety risks
Protects users at risk of irresponsible gaming
Reduce the amount of cash transactions
Reduce the employment of other resources for processing cash
Reduce the wear and tear of cash-handling devices
The Office asserts that per MPEP 2105.06(a), the arguments are not persuasive.
The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. None of the applicant’s cited improvements are directed to the functioning of a computer itself or to any other technology or technical field. There is no change to the way in which the computers operate, and the other devices are not claimed.
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, 9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):.
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 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:
track a quantity of occurrences of an activity associated with the electronic gaming machine,
responsive to the tracked quantity of occurrences of the activity at least reaching a threshold quantity of occurrences and an identified user of the electronic gaming machine not being associated with any responsible gaming limitations:
determine a first refund amount of the fee amount assessed, and
cause the determined first refund amount to be made available, and
responsive to the tracked quantity of occurrences of the activity at least reaching the threshold quantity of occurrences and the identified user of the electronic gaming machine being associated with a responsible gaming limitation:
determine, based on the responsible gaming limitation associated with the identified user, a second refund amount of the fee amount assessed, the second refund amount being less than the first refund amount, and
cause the determined second refund amount to be made available.
The above underlined limitations are certain methods of organizing human activity, commercial interactions, sales activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations amount to adding the words "apply it", or the like, to the abstract idea with generic computer elements. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for the reasons above. Claim 12 is substantially similar.
The dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea and as a whole and in combination, comprise the abstract idea with the words “apply it” or the like.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694