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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant characterizes the claimed invention as a solution to a recognized problem via automation and thus integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant additionally arguing that the reduction in cash transactions also integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner disagrees and notes that the MPEP cites “[e}xamples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: … iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);” these two examples of data automation and reduction in physical presence have been rejected as rendering claims patent eligible and for the same reasons Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the ticket vouchers in prior art Azzam are not “associated” with the fee mitigation as claimed. Examiner disagrees and notes that “associated” is a broad relationship and the issued ticket reflects the discounted fees and anticipates the claimed invention as noted below. Accordingly, the claims remain rejected.
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. The claims will be analyzed with respect to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test at MPEP§2106.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 1 (see MPEP§2106.03)
The claims recite one of the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 1 (see MPEP§2106.04(a-c))
The claims recite abstract ideas in the following categories;
Methods of organizing human activity such as commercial or legal interactions including “advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors” (MPEP§2106.04(a)(2)II).
The abstract ideas have been noted in the claims below.
Regarding claim 1, responsive to a receipt, from a first device, of data associated with a transfer of an amount of funds from a financial institution account maintained in association with a financial institution to the first device and a receipt of data associated with a fee amount being assessed in association with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the first device, cause a storage, in a ticket voucher database, of fund data comprising the amount of funds and fee data comprising the fee amount assessed, and cause a ticket voucher to be issued, and responsive to a receipt, from a second, different device, of data associated with a redemption of the ticket voucher at the second, different device, communicate data which results in a tracking of a quantity of occurrences of an activity associated with the second, different device, wherein responsive to the tracked quantity of occurrences of the activity at least reaching a threshold quantity of occurrences, a determination of a refund amount of the fee amount assessed occurs (the above steps are an abstract promotional fee refund for players of an EGM and amounts to abstract “advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors”).
Regarding claim 2, the system of Claim 1, wherein the first device comprise at least one of a ticket voucher kiosk and an automated teller machine (these are abstract requirements for the promotional offer to take effect).
Regarding claim 3, the system of Claim 1, wherein the second, different device comprises an electronic gaming machine (these are abstract requirements for the promotional offer to take effect).
Regarding claim 4, the system of Claim 3, wherein the refund amount is made available in association with an increase of a balance of the electronic gaming machine (these are abstract requirements for the promotional offer to take effect).
Regarding claim 5, the system of Claim 3, 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 (these are abstract requirements for the promotional offer to take effect).
Regarding claim 6, the system of Claim 1, wherein the refund amount is made available in association with an increase of a balance of a gaming establishment account (these are abstract requirements for the promotional offer result).
Regarding claim 7, the system of Claim 1, wherein the refund amount comprises a portion of the fee amount assessed (these are abstract requirements for the promotional offer result).
Regarding claim 8, the system of Claim 1, wherein a holder of the ticket voucher comprises a user anonymous to a gaming establishment patron management system (these are abstract requirements for the promotional offer to take effect).
Regarding claim 9, the system of Claim 1, wherein the ticket voucher comprises a virtual ticket voucher (these are abstract requirements for the promotional offer to take effect).
Regarding claims 10-20, these claims recite abstract ideas as noted above regarding claims 1-9.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 2 (see MPEP§2106.04(d))
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are generic computer hardware; insignificant extra solution activity such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data; and the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. These additional elements individually and in combination provide for limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements (1) add “insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) and (2) generally link “the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I).
These additional elements individually and in combination are not limitations that provide for “improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) apply or use the “judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) implement the “judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) effect “a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) or apply or use “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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I). As such the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2B (see MPEP§2106.05)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional generic computer hardware and insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP§2106.05).
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2022/0343726 by Azzam.
Regarding claim 1, Azzam discloses a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: responsive to a receipt, from a first device, of data associated with a transfer of an amount of funds from a financial institution account maintained in association with a financial institution to the first device and a receipt of data associated with a fee amount being assessed in association with the transfer of the amount of funds from the financial institution account to the first device (Fig. 1B; para. 22, 29, 39, 60-66 – see transfer from external bank accounts to EGMs and associated fees); cause a storage, in a ticket voucher database, of fund data comprising the amount of funds and fee data comprising the fee amount assessed (Fig. 1B; para. 22, 29, 39, 60-66, 130 – see data ticket information and ticket data storage), and cause a ticket voucher associated with the fund data and the fee data to be issued, and responsive to a receipt, from a second, different device, of data associated with a redemption of the ticket voucher at the second, different device, communicate data which results in a tracking of a quantity of occurrences of an activity associated with the second, different device, wherein responsive to the tracked quantity of occurrences of the activity at least reaching a threshold quantity of occurrences, a determination of a refund amount of the fee amount assessed occurs (Fig. 1B; para. 22, 29, 39, 60-66 – see redemption of tickets and gameplay qualifications for fee refund).
Regarding claim 2, Azzam discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the first device comprises at least one of a ticket voucher kiosk and an automated teller machine (para. 62-65 – see kiosk).
Regarding claim 3, Azzam discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the second, different device comprises an electronic gaming machine (Fig. 1B; para. 22, 29, 39, 60-66 – see gaming machine).
Regarding claim 4, Azzam discloses the system of Claim 3, wherein the refund amount is made available in association with an increase of a balance of the electronic gaming machine (Fig. 1B; para. 22, 29, 39, 60-66 – see gameplay qualifications).
Regarding claim 5, Azzam discloses the system of Claim 3, 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 (Fig. 1B; para. 22, 29, 39, 60-66 – see gameplay qualifications).
Regarding claim 6, Azzam discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the refund amount is made available in association with an increase of a balance of a gaming establishment account (Fig. 1B; para. 22, 29, 39, 60-66 – see gameplay qualifications).
Regarding claim 7, Azzam discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the refund amount comprises a portion of the fee amount assessed (Fig. 1B; para. 22, 29, 39, 60-66 – see refund of the fee).
Regarding claim 8, Azzam discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein a holder of the ticket voucher comprises a user anonymous to a gaming establishment patron management system (Fig. 1B; para. 22, 29, 39, 60-66 – see player tracking, Examiner notes that a certain amount of anonymity is associated with any user account and this meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “anonymous to a gaming establishment patron management system”. If a lack of registration is required, it should be stated.).
Regarding claim 9, Azzam discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the ticket voucher comprises a virtual ticket voucher (para. 66 – see virtual ticket voucher).
Regarding claims 10-20, these claims are rejected as noted above regarding claims 1-9, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PETER J IANNUZZI whose telephone number is (571)272-5793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/PETER J IANNUZZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights