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 .
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 (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 12 recite the following abstract ideas:
an occurrence of a cashout event of a balance,
determine, in association with the occurrence of the cashout event and based on the balance (certain methods of organizing human activity, CMOHA, such as fundamental economic principles of receiving money from a wagering entity), to repay any portion of any outstanding amount of funds owed on any gaming establishment marker, and responsive to the determination being to repay at least a portion of an outstanding amount of funds owed on a gaming establishment marker (e.g., fundamental economic principles of transferring money from one account to another according to borrowing and paying back money),
cause at least one of:
modify the outstanding amount of funds owed on the gaming establishment marker (e.g., the loan is decreased upon a person paying back some the monies owed), and
a modification of a gaming establishment account, (as required by claim 11) in association with a transfer of funds from the gaming establishment account (e.g., a person withdraws or deposits funds, credits, or the like from his/her financial account), wherein a total modification comprising any modification of the outstanding amount of funds owed on the gaming establishment marker and any modification of the gaming establishment account is based on the balance associated with the occurrence of the cashout event (e.g., a person uses monies from their financial account to participate in a wagering event where the person wins funds then pay off some of the loan and deposits an amount of funds back to the financial account).
Claims 1, 11, and 12 fall under “certain methods of organizing human activity” related to a person repaying a loan via transferring money from one account to another according to terms and agreements of the loan, i.e., fundamental economic principles.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 does not recite additional elements that integrated into a practical application because the claimed “a processor”, a memory device”, “a computing component of a gaming establishment credit system”, and “a gaming device” are related to using computer components as tools to perform the abstract ideas.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exceptions because the claimed “a processor”, a memory device”, “a computing component of a gaming establishment credit system”, and “a gaming device” are related to using computer components as tools to perform the abstract ideas. The additional elements taken individually and in combination do not result in the claims as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 13-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to (a) integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and/or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because they recite additional limitations relating to “certain methods of organizing human activity”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-3, 6-8, 10-14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. 20050187012 to Walker et al (Walker).
Claims 1, 11, and 12. Walker discloses a system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor in association with an occurrence of a cashout event of a balance of a gaming device, cause the processor to:
determine, in association with the occurrence of the cashout event and based on the balance of the gaming device, to repay any portion of any outstanding amount of funds owed on any gaming establishment marker, and responsive to the determination being to repay at least a portion of an outstanding amount of funds owed on a gaming establishment marker (¶¶44 and 263 “After pressing the cashout button, the gaming device subtracts the amount of the loan from the balance in the machine”; also see ¶36 “the repayment of each such loan extended to a player of a gaming device”),
cause at least one of:
a computing component of a gaming establishment credit system to modify the outstanding amount of funds owed on the gaming establishment marker (¶¶140 and 261, “payment amount owed 670 may be decreased appropriately whenever the player repays all or a portion of the amount owed for electronic credits previously provided to the player”), and
a modification of a gaming establishment account (¶134 “casino financial account”), (as required by claim 11) in association with a transfer of funds from the gaming establishment account (¶134 “financial account identifier may be used to collect a payment from a player”), wherein a total modification comprising any modification of the outstanding amount of funds owed on the gaming establishment marker and any modification of the gaming establishment account is based on the balance of the gaming device associated with the occurrence of the cashout event (¶140 “payment amount owed 670 may be decreased appropriately whenever the player repays all or a portion of the amount owed”; and ¶¶260 and 270, “repaid by being automatically deducted from a player's winnings”).
Claims 2 and 13. Walker discloses wherein a determination of if any outstanding amount of funds are owed on the gaming establishment marker is based on data received from the computing component of the gaming establishment credit system (Fig. 12, and ¶252).
Claims 3 and 14. Walker discloses wherein the determination is based on at least one of:
an amount of time until the outstanding amount of funds owed on the gaming establishment marker are due, if the outstanding amount of funds owed on the gaming establishment marker exceed a threshold amount of funds, and a difference between the outstanding amount of funds owed on the gaming establishment marker and a target threshold amount of funds (¶253).
Claims 6 and 17. Walker discloses, wherein the outstanding amount of funds owed on the gaming establishment marker is different from a total amount of funds available in association with a line of credit (¶¶45 and 66 “credit card” and “loan”).
Claims 7 and 18. Walker discloses wherein the outstanding amount of funds owed on the gaming establishment marker comprises a percentage of the total amount of funds available in association with the line of credit (¶45 where the loan is a percentage of the amount of the credit card total).
Claim 8. Walker discloses wherein the processor comprises a processor (Fig. 3, and ¶117) of a gaming establishment fund management system (¶185).
Claims 10 and 20. Walker discloses wherein the modification of the outstanding amount of funds owed on the gaming establishment marker occurs independent of any inputs received associated with any repayment of any amount of funds owed on any gaming establishment marker (¶¶260 and 270 “repaid by being automatically deducted from a player's winnings”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20050187012 to Walker et al (Walker) in view of US Pub. 20040043814 to Angell et al (Angell).
Claims 4 and 15. Walker fails to explicitly disclose a cashless wagering account.
Angell teaches a cashless wagering account (¶41). The system of Walker would have motivation to use the teachings of Angell in order to make it easier to transfer funds between different electronic systems in hopes to improve player gaming experience.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Walker with the teachings of Angell in order to make it easier to transfer funds between different electronic systems in hopes to improve player gaming experience.
Claims 5 and 16. Walker in view of Angell teaches wherein the gaming device comprises one of an electronic gaming machine and a gaming table component associated with a gaming table (see Walker ¶55).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20050187012 to Walker et al (Walker) in view of US Pub. 20210110652 to Schwartz.
Claims 9 and 19. Walker fails to explicitly disclose wherein the modification of the outstanding amount of funds owed on the gaming establishment marker is associated with a first transaction identifier, the modification of the gaming establishment account is associated with a second, different transaction identifier, and a master transaction identifier is associated with both the first transaction identifier and the second, different transaction identifier (emphasis added).
Schwartz teaches a first transaction identifier (¶¶138 and 141 “Universal Unique Identifier (UUID)” and/or “peripheral device ID”), the modification of the gaming establishment account is associated with a second, different transaction identifier (¶90 “voucher ID” and/or ¶96 “tag ID”), and a master transaction identifier (¶84 “unique transaction ID”) is associated with both the first transaction identifier and the second, different transaction identifier. The system of Walker would have motivation to use the teachings of Schwartz in order to improve the transaction recordkeeping which would ensure the reliability of the system.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Walker with the teachings of Schwartz in order to improve tracking and recordkeeping of transactions which would ensure the reliability of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715