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
Priority
Applicant's claim for domestic priority benefit of Provisional Application no 63/507746, filed 6/13/23, is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is recommended to amend the phrase "The method" to "The computer-based method". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 9, 16,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations “an wagering account maintained by a gaming environment, wherein the gaming environment is a physical brick and mortar casino, and wherein the wagering account has a balance amount; a demand deposit account (DDA) maintained by a financial institution, wherein the demand deposit account has a ledger balance amount; and a transaction facilitator, wherein responsive to a wagering account deposit or withdrawal, the transaction facilitator facilitates synchronization of the ledger balance amount of the DDA based on the wagering account deposit or withdrawal, and wherein responsive to DDA activity, the transaction facilitator facilitates synchronization of the balance amount of the online wagering account based on the DDA activity” (claim 1), “receiving player information associated with a player, wherein the player information is received from the player during an enrollment process, wherein a wagering account for the player is created and maintained and wherein the wagering account has a balance amount; providing to a financial institution the player enrollment information, wherein based on the player information a demand deposit account (DDA) for the player is created and maintained by the financial institution, wherein the DDA has a ledger balance amount; displaying to the player, the ledger balance amount of the DDA and the balance amount of the wagering account; responsive to a wagering account deposit by the player on the online betting and gaming platform, increasing the balance amount of the wagering account based on an amount of the wagering account deposit; responsive to a transfer request, transferring at least a portion of the balance amount of the wagering account to the DDA to increase the ledger balance amount based on an amount requested in the transfer request” (claim 9), “a betting and gaming platform, wherein the betting and gaming platform maintains a plurality of zero-balance wagering accounts created on behalf of a player, wherein each of the plurality of zero-balance wagering accounts is associated with a respective gaming jurisdiction of a plurality of gaming jurisdictions; a universal demand deposit account (DDA), wherein the universal DDA stores funds on behalf of the player, wherein deposits made by the player flow through one of the plurality of zero-balance wagering accounts and into the universal DDA, wherein the one of the plurality of zero-balance wagering accounts is based on the physical location of the player at the time of the deposit, wherein when the player places a wager from within one of the plurality of gaming jurisdictions, funds flow from the universal DDA and through the zero-balance wagering account associated with the one of the plurality of gaming jurisdictions” (claim 16) are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (fundamental economic principles or practices). The mere nominal recitation of a social networking site, a virtual character and a virtual game area does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-7, 10-15, 17-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “in networked communication with the gaming environment and the financial institution, closed-loop communication channels, one or more computing devices comprising instructions stored in a memory, which when executed by one or more processors of the one or more computing devices, an online betting and gaming platform”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Stronach et al. (2004/0235542) teaches the recited additional elements (¶¶0104-0108).
In addition, with regards to the present claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-20, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of electronic recordkeeping in Alice, obtaining information about transactions using the internet in CyberSource, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and updating an activity log in Ultramercial.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stronach et al. (2004/0235542) in view of Mallela et al. (2021/0224794).
Re Claim 1,
Stronach discloses a synchronized account management system (Fig 11, ¶¶0117-0118), comprising:
an wagering account maintained by a gaming environment, wherein the gaming environment is a physical brick and mortar casino, and wherein the wagering account has a balance amount (¶¶0097, 0100; a user can set up a wager account with a kiosk or with a clerk at the gaming establishment, wherein an account balance is associated with the wager account);
a demand deposit account (DDA) maintained by a financial institution (¶¶0104-0105, 0107; when a user opens a wagering account, a financial account is such as a bank account, ATM card or a credit card is linked to the wagering account); and
a transaction facilitator in networked communication with the gaming environment and the financial institution, wherein responsive to a wagering account deposit or withdrawal, the transaction facilitator facilitates synchronization of the ledger balance amount of the DDA based on the wagering account deposit or withdrawal, and wherein responsive to DDA activity, the transaction facilitator facilitates synchronization of the balance amount of the online wagering account based on the DDA activity (¶¶0103-0105, 0107-0108; a user can deposit cash into the user’s account or withdraw cash from the user’s account, wherein the account balance is updated electronically via the internet).
Stronach does not explicitly disclose the demand deposit account has a ledger balance amount.
However, Mallela teaches the demand deposit account has a ledger balance amount (¶¶0004, 0020, 0039-0043). Mallela further teaches such a configuration provides a practically immutable, verifiably true audit trail (¶0003). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Mallela into the wagering system of Stronach in order to provide a practically immutable, verifiably true audit trail.
Re Claim 2,
Stronach discloses the wagering account is created subsequent to a player enrollment process within the gaming environment by a player (¶¶0097, 0100).
Re Claim 3,
Stronach discloses the DDA is automatically created for the player at the financial institution responsive to the enrollment process within the gaming environment by the player (¶¶0104-0105, 0107).
Re Claim 4,
Stronach discloses a payment vehicle associated with the DDA and issued to the player (¶¶0104-0105, 0107).
Re Claims 5, 10,
Stronach discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on API. However, Mallela teaches the DDA is created via API (¶¶0032, 0058, 0061). Mallela further teaches such a configuration provides a secure method for transactions (¶0036). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Mallela into the system of Stronach in order to provide a secure method for transactions.
Re Claims 6, 11,
Stronach discloses the information received from the player comprises a player name, date of birth, address, and identification number (¶¶0097, 0100, 0104-0105, 0107).
Re Claim 7,
Stronach discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on a closed-loop processing network maintained by the transaction facilitator, wherein the transaction facilitator utilizes the closed-loop processing network to synchronize the ledger balance amount of the DDA and the balance amount of the online wagering account. However, Mallela teaches a closed-loop processing network maintained by the transaction facilitator, wherein the transaction facilitator utilizes the closed-loop processing network to synchronize the ledger balance amount of the DDA and the balance amount of the online wagering account. However, Mallela teaches a closed-loop processing network maintained by the transaction facilitator, wherein the transaction facilitator utilizes the closed-loop processing network to synchronize the ledger balance amount of the DDA and the balance amount of the online wagering account. However, Mallela teaches a closed-loop processing network maintained by the transaction facilitator, wherein the transaction facilitator utilizes the closed-loop processing network to synchronize the ledger balance amount of the DDA and the balance amount of the online wagering account (¶¶0004, 0020, 0037-0043). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 8,
Stronach discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the synchronization of the ledger balance amount of the DDA and the balance amount of the wagering account occurs in real-time. However, Mallela teaches the synchronization of the ledger balance amount of the DDA and the balance amount of the wagering account occurs in real-time (¶¶0004, 0020, 0037-0043). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 9,
Stronach discloses a computer-based method of account management between an online wagering account and a demand deposit account via closed-loop communication channels, the method performed by one or more computing devices comprising instructions stored in a memory, which when executed by one or more processors of the one or more computing devices (Fig 11, ¶¶0117-0118), cause the one or more computing devices to perform the method comprising:
receiving from an online betting and gaming platform player information associated with a player, wherein the player information is received from the player during an enrollment process, wherein a wagering account for the player is created and maintained by the online betting and gaming platform, and wherein the wagering account has a balance amount (¶¶0104-0105, 0107; when a user opens a wagering account, a financial account is such as a bank account, ATM card or a credit card is linked to the wagering account);
providing to a financial institution the player enrollment information, wherein based on the player information a demand deposit account (DDA) for the player is created and maintained by the financial institution (¶¶0104-0105, 0107-0108; when a user opens a wagering account, a financial account is such as a bank account, ATM card or a credit card is linked to the wagering account);
responsive to a wagering account deposit by the player on the online betting and gaming platform, increasing the balance amount of the wagering account based on an amount of the wagering account deposit; responsive to a transfer request, transferring at least a portion of the balance amount of the wagering account to the DDA to increase the ledger balance amount based on an amount requested in the transfer request (¶¶0103-0105, 0107-0108; a user can deposit cash into the user’s account or withdraw cash from the user’s account, wherein the account balance is updated electronically via the internet).
Stronach does not explicitly disclose the DDA has a ledger balance amount and displaying the ledger balance amount and the balance amount. However, Mallela teaches the DDA has a ledger balance amount and displaying the ledger balance amount and the balance amount (¶¶0004, 0020, 0039-0043, 0061, 0075). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 12,
Stronach discloses all limitations as set forth above including responsive to a load request, transferring at least a portion of the DDA to the wagering account to increase the balance amount of the wagering account but is silent on the ledger balance. However, Mallela teaches the ledger balance (¶¶0004, 0020, 0039-0043). See claim 1 for motivation.
Re Claim 13,
Stronach discloses providing consumer data to the online betting and gaming platform based on DDA activity (¶¶0103-0105, 0107-0118).
Re Claim 14,
Stronach discloses the DDA activity is any of a point of sale transaction, a payment for services, an online transaction, and an ATM withdrawal (¶¶0103-0105, 0107-0118).
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stronach et al. (2004/0235542) in view of Mallela et al. (2021/0224794) and LeStrange et al. (2014/0057703).
Re Claim 15,
Stronach discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on providing interchange fees to the online betting and gaming platform. However, LeStrange teaches providing interchange fees to the online betting and gaming platform (¶¶0018, 0075, 0081, 0094). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of LeStrange into the system of Stronach in order to increase an operator’s revenue.
Re Claim 16,
Stronach discloses an account management system, comprising: an online betting and gaming platform, wherein the online betting and gaming platform maintains the plurality of zero-balance wagering accounts associated with a respective gaming jurisdiction of a plurality of gaming jurisdictions; a universal deposit account, wherein the universal deposit account stores funds on behalf of the player, wherein deposits made by the player flow through one of the plurality of zero-balance wagering accounts and into the universal deposit account, wherein the one of the plurality of zero-balance wagering accounts is based on the physical location of the player at the time of the deposit, wherein when the player places a wager from within one of the plurality of gaming jurisdictions, funds flow from the universal deposit account and through the zero-balance wagering account associated with the one of the plurality of gaming jurisdictions (¶¶0109-0115; a player can have a plurality wagering accounts associated with different jurisdiction, wherein a universal wagering can be created and used in different wagering facilities).
Stronach does not explicitly disclose a demand deposit account and maintaining wagering accounts on behalf of a player.
However, Mallela teaches a demand deposit account (¶¶0004, 0020, 0039-0043). See claim 1 for motivation.
LeStrange teaches maintaining wagering accounts on behalf of a player and using a single digital wallet with different wagering accounts (¶0200-0201). LeStrange further teaches such a configuration allows enables a player to access funds at multiple different casinos (¶0202). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of LeStrange into the wagering of Stronach in order to enables a player to access funds at multiple different locations.
Re Claim 17,
Stronach discloses the deposits made by the player that flow through one of the plurality of zero-balance wagering accounts and into the universal DDA funds are associated with a unique ID (¶¶0062, 0108, 0133).
Re Claim 18,
Stronach discloses the plurality of gaming jurisdictions comprises a first state and a second state, wherein gaming regulations of the first state differ from the gaming regulations of the second state (¶¶0051, 0109, 0120-0121).
Re Claim 19,
Stronach discloses a payment vehicle issued to the player and associated with the universal DDA (¶¶0103-0105, 0107-0108).
Re Claim 20,
Stronach discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on a closed-loop processing network, wherein funds are moved between the DDA to the plurality of zero-balance wagering accounts via the closed-loop processing network. However, Mallela teaches a closed-loop processing network, wherein funds are moved between the DDA to the plurality of zero-balance wagering accounts via the closed-loop processing network (¶¶0004, 0020, 0037-0043).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached on 571-272-4430. 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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715