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
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits…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 server of a financial institution, an electronic gaming machine, and a processor of the 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 the electronic gaming machine. That is, the claimed gaming establishment systems represent an advancement in computing technology by utilizing the tracking of an activity associated with an electronic gaming machine by a processor of the gaming establishment system to effectuate different refund amounts 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.
The Office asserts that the applicant conflates a technological improvement with a business workflow solution. The applicant claims that the system acts as a bridge between different technically incompatible systems. However, the claims do not recite any technical mechanisms explaining how this bridge is built or technically operates beyond conventional components used as a tool to automate the tracking of gaming data and the refund policy. The Office asserts that the claims do not recite the specific technological solution but merely the outcome. The limitation being overcome is not the a computer malfunction or deficiency but the gaming venue’s business policies were not previously integrated with the financial institution and, merely connecting two systems which were not previously connected is not an inventive concept.
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. (currently amended) A gaming establishment system comprising:
a processor operable with and independent from a server 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 the financial institution account maintained in association with the 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.
Claim 2 (currently amended): The gaming establishment system of Claim 1, wherein the identified user of the electronic gaming machine is associated with the responsible gaming limitation based on an inclusion of the user on a responsible gaming exclusion list prior to the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the electronic gaming machine.
Claim 3 (currently amended): The gaming establishment system of Claim 1, wherein the second refund amount is based on the responsible gaming limitation associated with a total refund amount over an interval of time.
Claim 4 (currently amended): The gaming establishment system of Claim 1, wherein the second refund amount is based on the responsible gaming limitation associated with a total quantity of refund amounts made available over an interval of time.
Claim 5 (currently amended): The gaming establishment system of Claim 1, wherein the determined first refund amount comprises a portion of the fee amount assessed.
Claim 6 (currently amended): The gaming establishment system of Claim 1, wherein the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the electronic gaming machine 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 electronic gaming machine and at least one of any determined first refund amount and any determined second refund amount is made available in association with an increase of a balance of the gaming establishment account.
Claim 7 (currently amended): The gaming establishment system of Claim 1, wherein the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the electronic gaming machine occurs, independent of any gaming establishment account, in association with an electronic funds transfer and at least one of any determined first refund amount and any determined second refund amount is made available in association with an increase of a balance of the electronic gaming machine.
Claim 8 (currently amended): The gaming establishment system of Claim 1, 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.
Claim 9 (currently amended): The gaming establishment system of Claim 1, wherein responsive to the identified user of the electronic gaming machine being associated with the responsible gaming limitation, different threshold quantities of occurrences are associated with different second refund amounts.
The above underlined limitations are certain methods of organizing human activity, commercial interactions, sales activities. Particularly, reducing fees in the claimed way encourages the transfer of funds from the financial institution to the gaming account.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations 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. For example, claim 2 links the user with the associated responsible gaming limitation which is merely a link of information and not a technical improvement. Claims 3-9 merely state rules by which the refunds are determined. Claims 13-20 are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights