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 .
Status of Claims
This action is response to the amendment filed on August 10, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination” to determine whether there are additional elements that “transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claims 1, 9, and 13 are directed to systems and a method. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad categories of invention. However, even claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309 (1980).
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, “the systems and methods of the present disclosure enable one or more opportunities to win a prize based on an amount of pool funded via the redemption of cashless ticket vouchers.” [See, Specification at ¶1].
Representative claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
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 each of an occurrence of a ticket voucher redemption award opportunity event associated with a ticket voucher received at a ticket voucher redemption kiosk and an occurrence of a ticket voucher redemption contribution event:
prior to a play of a game, cause the ticket voucher to be designated in a ticket voucher database as redeemed without causing an amount of the ticket voucher to be dispensed by the ticket voucher redemption kiosk,
cause, based on at least part of the amount of the ticket voucher designated as redeemed, a modification of an amount of a contribution pool, and
responsive to an occurrence of an award triggering event associated with the designation of the ticket voucher as redeemed, determine, based on the modified amount of the contribution pool, a prize to be made available.
The underlined portions of claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially identical features in the system of 13 and substantially identical features in the system of claim 9 implemented at an electronic gaming machine instead of a Kiosk and the limitation responsive to a cashout input being received at a gaming device, an occurrence of a credit meter cashout award opportunity event, and without an occurrence of a credit meter cashout contribution event, communicate data that causes an issuance of a ticket voucher in association with the cashout input received at the gaming device. The dependent claims further define the abstract idea by introducing various additional abstract details of the voucher/credit meter redemption and/or prize awarded. The abstract idea may be viewed, for example, as:
a method of exchanging financial obligations (e.g., awarding a prize based on chance in response redeeming an amount associated with a ticket voucher or credit meter, which are effectively means of exchanging and resolving financial obligations based on probabilities created during the game) as discussed in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014), In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2018),
a fundamental economic practice (e.g., rules for conducting a game) as discussed in In re Smith, and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., and
a method of organizing human activities (e.g., allowing a human player to play an award-providing game according to rules of the game method) as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
The claimed abstract idea reproduced above is effectively providing opportunities to win a prize based on an amount of pool funded via the redemption of a remaining amount of funds of cashless ticket voucher or credit (see Smith, Marco Guldenaar, and Alice). Based on the reasoning in Smith, and Marco Guldenaar, the recited steps of conducting a game in the instant claims relate to the “fundamental economic practice” of rules for conducting a game. The claims also allow a player to win an award, which is a financial transaction based on the rules of the game. Such transactions are akin to the sort of organizing of human activities, i.e., risk hedging, discussed in Bilski (and shadow accounts in Alice).
Under prong 1, the above analysis demonstrates that the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. Under prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely provide instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, add only extra solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. While certain physical elements (e.g., elements that are not an abstract idea such as server devices) are present in the claims, such features do not effect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. Similarly, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. The claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) are not applied with any particular machine (only generic gaming components), (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., a client-server environment), such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims encompass the following additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se: a processor, a memory, and a kiosk or gaming device to carry out the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The specification describes with regard to the kiosks and gaming devices that a processor “is any suitable processing device or set of processing devices, such as a microprocessor, a microcontroller-based platform, a suitable integrated circuit, or one or more application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), configured to execute software enabling various configuration and reconfiguration tasks.” Similarly, the memory may include “(1) volatile memory (e.g., RAM 1009, which can include non-volatile RAM, magnetic RAM, ferroelectric RAM, and any other suitable forms); (2) non-volatile memory 1019 (e.g., disk memory, FLASH memory, EPROMs, EEPROMs, memristor-based non-volatile solid-state memory, etc.); (3) unalterable memory (e.g., EPROMs 1008); (4) read-only memory; and/or (5) a secondary memory storage device 1015, such as a non-volatile memory device, configured to store gaming software related information (the gaming software related information and the memory may be used to store various audio files and games not currently being used and invoked in a configuration or reconfiguration).” In general, the specification at ¶¶95-103, among others, lists various off the shelf computer components that make up the gaming system. In addition, see Schwartz, US 2021/0082244, Par. 4, which teaches where it is conventional to include kiosks for voucher generation and redemption. . Furthermore, recitation of “a ticket voucher database” and updating the “ticket voucher database” when claimed generically at such a high level is simply reciting a computer as a tool to implement recordkeeping, or at most amounts to insignificant extra solution activity of performing the recordkeeping in a computer. As such these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In addition, the courts have held that “Electronic Recordkeeping” (See Alice Corp.) and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” (See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.) are well-understood routine and conventional functionality. As such, even when considered as a whole, the claims fail to add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, the specification describes the gaming controller, EGMs, and kiosks in generic and functional terms, which illustrates that these are merely off-the-shelf computer components arranged in conventional ways. As a result, nothing in Applicant’s specification indicates the computer system performs anything other than well understood, routine, and conventional functions, such as receiving, storing, and processing data. See, Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (ed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the [S]pecification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”); see also Alice, 573 US. at 224—26 (receiving, storing, sending information over networks insufficient to add an inventive concept); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1340, 1355 (ed. Cir, 2014) (That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”). At best, Applicant’s claimed subject matter simply uses generic processing circuitry to perform the abstract idea of converting input data from one form to another (e.g., a residual credit or fund to a wagering opportunity/outcome). As noted above, the use of a generic computer system does not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As our reviewing court has observed, “after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 223).
Taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. The claims do not purport to improve the functioning of a computer itself, nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional features merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
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 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 1-7 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2022/0139165 by McHugh et al. (“McHugh).
In re claims 1 and 13, McHugh discloses a method and system for implementing the method [Figs. 1 and 3, 4A], comprising: a processor [¶20]; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor [¶20] to: responsive to each of an occurrence of a ticket voucher redemption award opportunity event associated with a ticket voucher received at a ticket voucher redemption kiosk and an occurrence of a ticket voucher redemption contribution event [Fig. 3, 4A, S4, S7-12, S13-S20, ¶¶93-112, 135, among others, describe a player presents a ticket/voucher to a kiosk for redemption and is then presented with an offer to wager the fractional value of their ticket upon cashout of the ticket. The offer (event) can result in dispensing additional winnings or prizes as a result of the wager (i.e., a ticket voucher redemption award opportunity event). In addition, the redemption wagering event might be configured to be self-funding from the fractional value wagers (i.e., a ticket voucher redemption contribution event since the fractional value of the wager is contributed to the pool)]: prior to a play of a game, cause the ticket voucher to be designated in a ticket voucher database as redeemed without causing an amount of the ticket voucher to be dispensed by the ticket voucher redemption kiosk [Fig. 3-4a and Par. 50, 60, 93, 107-112, 131, 132, which teach that if the player accepts the offer for entry tickets to a promotional event the player is dispensed those tickets. Where the outcome of the promotional game or event is determined “at some point” and the winner is notified such as through contact information. That is redemption of the ticket and the purchase of the tickets for the promotional event occurs prior to playing a promotional game, such as a drawing, associated with the award. Further, with respect to step S11 and dispensing of the “remaining currency value of voucher/ticket” in a manner “as illustrated in FIG. 3 as well, and described above in more details”, although McHugh teaches still dispensing the whole dollar amount of the ticket or voucher see Par. 71 which teaches a voucher of “$0.82” as an example ticket value. In the case of tickets with a value of less than one dollar none of the value of the voucher will be dispensed as the entirety of the voucher value will be “less the fractional value used to purchase entry tickets,” See Par. 82-84 and 109, meaning that the kiosk will dispense nothing of the value for a voucher with a fractional value less than one dollar (or at least the amount of the ticket voucher). Finally see Par. 131 which teaches that “In this regard, the invention may be said to facilitate “coinless” redemption of a ticket (in that the invention facilitates redemption of tickets in a manner which results in payment of only whole currency values and not fractional currency values, e.g. an amount of dollars and no cents, although it is possible to eliminate even payment for other fractional values such as dollar portions of five, ten or twenty dollars or the like and Par. 132 “For example, prior to the invention, a player might not bother redeeming a ticket having a value of $.50. Now, however, the player is given the chance for winnings by redeeming the ticket, thus increasing the probability that the player will present the ticket for redemption.” which teaches a player “redeeming” a ticket with a fractional value under one dollar. Finally see Par. 55 and 60 which teaches that the accounting system includes records of which tickets have been redeemed or not, which examiner considers a ”voucher database”]; cause, based on at least part of the amount of the ticket voucher designated as redeemed, a modification of an amount of a contribution pool [Figs. 3-4A, ¶¶19, 23, 63, 40 135, among others, describes reducing value of the ticket by a fractional amount associated with the wager and forming a self-funding award pool from the fractional amounts], and responsive to an occurrence of an award triggering event associated with the designation of the ticket voucher as redeemed, determine, based on the modified amount of the contribution pool, a prize to be made available [Figs. 3-4A, 16, 19, 23, 63 75-77, 82-84, 110-112, describe in determining a winning outcome in response to the fractional wager (e.g. $0.50 remaining on a ticket for redemption) including prizes, where set the odds of winning each event and the size of the awards so that winnings are paid from the pool of fractional monetary value wagers (e.g. the redemption wagering event might be configured to be self-funding from a pool of the fractional value wagers. After redemption of the voucher to purchase entries an “award triggering event” occurs to pick a winner of the promotional event, such as a random draw].
In re claims 2 and 14, McHugh discloses wherein the determination of the prize is further based on an input received via an input device [Fig. 3, ¶73 describes player touching a screen (input) to play the game associated with the fractional wagering event. For example, selecting yes allows the player to play the game in which determination of an award or prize is based].
In re claims 3 and 15, McHugh discloses wherein the determination of the prize is further based an identity of a user of the ticket voucher redemption kiosk [¶¶95, 104, describe a player is only able to utilize their fractional currency value to participate in the game if they have an associated player tracking/loyalty account and determining a player’s identity].
In re claims 4 and 16, McHugh discloses wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the occurrence of the award triggering event, cause the processor to cause the prize to be associated with a gaming establishment account of a user of the ticket voucher redemption kiosk [¶¶84,113, among others, describe awards are associated with a “player tracking account” and that the award associated with a player tracking account with a wallet may be transferred directly to the player’s wallet].
In re claims 5 and 17, McHugh discloses the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the occurrence of the award triggering event, cause the processor to cause the ticket voucher redemption kiosk to issue another ticket voucher redeemable for the prize [¶¶84, 85, among others, describes the player might be awarded an award, such as a ticket which might be redeemed for a prize or the like].
In re claims 6 and 18, McHugh discloses the ticket voucher redemption award opportunity event occurs based on the amount of the ticket voucher being less than a threshold amount [¶¶10, 16, 20, 131, 132, among others, describe presenting opportunity to wager, play a game, enter a promotion event (award opportunity events) when the ticket has a fractional value (which is less than the threshold of a whole amount), e.g., a payer having a ticket having a value of $.50 (less than a dollar) is given the chance for winnings by redeeming the ticket].
In re claims 7 and 19, McHugh discloses a probability of the award triggering event occurring is based on the amount of the ticket voucher [¶¶79,80, describe the player might be presented with the option of wagering their $0.88 by spinning a wheel having 6 segments. Two (2) of the segments might be blank (and thus losing) and the other segments might display the values of $1.00, $4.00 and $10.00. In other words, in recognition of the fact that the second player is wagering more (as compared to the first player's wager in the above example), the odds of winning and/or the awards might differ (such as by being higher)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over McHugh in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,401,070 to Young et al. (“Young”).
In re claims 8 and 20, McHugh disclose an occurrence of a credit cashout award opportunity event associated with an input received at a device and an occurrence of a credit cashout contribution event, cause the processor to modify, based on at least part of an amount of a credit of the device, the amount of the contribution pool [Fig. 3, 4A, ¶¶82-84, 135, among others, describes reducing value (credit) of a ticket by a fractional amount associated with the wager and forming a self-funding award pool (contribution pool) from the fractional amounts based on a wagering game presented at cashout of the ticket].
McHugh discloses providing a user cashing out a voucher at a kiosk an opportunity to play a game or wager a fractional amount rather than receiving a cash payout of the fractional amount. While the kiosk can provide access to the game, McHugh does not explicitly disclose that the kiosk is a gaming machine or that the cashout opportunity is at a gaming machine based on credit in the gaming machine and its credit meter.
Young, like McHugh, teaches providing a gaming opportunity when cashing out a fractional denomination (e.g., less than the least available recognized denomination in the target currency). In addition, the fractional amount may be contributed to a prize pool and winner is paid out of the pool. However, Young teaches the opportunity may be performed at an electronic gaming machine based on the amount indicated by the credit meter when the player is cashing out of the machine and has a fractional denomination [Fig. 4, steps 445, 450, 460, col. 7, ll. 5-col. 8, l.4 and col. 8 l., 39-col. 9, l. 2 which describe if the player decides to cash out at step 445, the player presses cash out button 505 on display 105 and the process moves to step 450. At that point, it is determined whether there is a nonzero fractional credit portion, as shown above, in the total credits that the player has posted on meter 117. In the case that the player decides to cash-out and not continue playing in the example above, the player does have a nonzero strictly fractional credit portion of 5 credits in both the case that s/he lost or, alternatively, as shown on FIG. 5D, if s/he won. In either case, the player would then play a fractional denomination cash-out game after selecting the “wager 5 credits to cash out” button on display 105 as shown on FIG. 5D. The player may wager the entirety of the nonzero strictly fractional portion, either as one wager or as multiple wagers by playing a fractional denomination cash-out game at step 460. However, instead of a wager, the player may have the option to buy-in to a community jackpot wherein, for example, 1 ticket may be purchased for one credit. All credits in the nonzero strictly fractional credit portion go into the jackpot pool. It may be set up such that a portion of the credits go into the prize pool and a portion of the credits go into the seed refund pool. In the case that this is a mystery jackpot it would be configured to hit by a certain, payable, credit amount. In any case, whoever draws the winning ticket will win the entire prize pool up to the greatest payable credit amount. The remainder would then be rolled over into the next prize pool].
McHugh and Young are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic wagering opportunities, games, and casino management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the kiosk implemented fractional gambling system of McHugh to be implemented at cashout of a fractional value on an credit meter of an electronic gaming machine, as taught by Young, in order to increase user enjoyment or excitement by providing additional wagering opportunities and improve casino management by reducing accounting overhead associated with tracking fractional amounts, reduce waste, for example by needing to creating tickets for small fractional amounts that the user is less likely to redeemed, see, e.g., McHugh ¶132 and Young col. 2, ll. 5-10. col. 6 ll. 17-38.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,401,070 to Young et al. (“Young”) in view of McHugh.
In re claim 9, a system [Fig. 3] comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor [col. 4, ll. 30-52], cause the processor to: responsive to each of the cashout input being received at the gaming device, the occurrence of the credit meter cashout, award opportunity event, and the occurrence of the credit meter cashout contribution event [Fig. 4 shows cash out input 445, Fractional portion of credit (award opportunity) and credit meter contribution event 460-fraction amount is credited to play game and credit meter is reduced by the amount, see, col. 7 ll. 35-57]: communicate data that causes the gaming device to reduce an amount of a credit meter [col. 7 ll. 35-57], modify, based on at least part of the reduced amount of the credit meter, an amount of a contribution pool [col. 8. l. 39-col. 9 l. 2], and responsive to an occurrence of an award triggering event, determine, based on the modified amount of the contribution pool, a prize to be made available [col. 8. l. 39-col. 9 l. 2] [Fig. 4, steps 445, 450, 460, col. 7, ll. 5-col. 8, l.4 and col. 8 l., 39-col. 9, l. 2 which describe if the player decides to cash out at step 445, the player presses cash out button 505 on display 105 and the process moves to step 450. At that point, it is determined whether there is a nonzero fractional credit portion, as shown above, in the total credits that the player has posted on meter 117. In the case that the player decides to cash-out and not continue playing in the example above, the player does have a nonzero strictly fractional credit portion of 5 credits in both the case that s/he lost or, alternatively, as shown on FIG. 5D, if s/he won. In either case, the player would then play a fractional denomination cash-out game after selecting the “wager 5 credits to cash out” button on display 105 as shown on FIG. 5D. The player may wager the entirety of the nonzero strictly fractional portion, either as one wager or as multiple wagers by playing a fractional denomination cash-out game at step 460. However, instead of a wager, the player may have the option to buy-in to a community jackpot wherein, for example, 1 ticket may be purchased for one credit. All credits in the nonzero strictly fractional credit portion go into the jackpot pool. It may be set up such that a portion of the credits go into the prize pool and a portion of the credits go into the seed refund pool. In the case that this is a mystery jackpot it would be configured to hit by a certain, payable, credit amount. In any case, whoever draws the winning ticket will win the entire prize pool up to the greatest payable credit amount. The remainder would then be rolled over into the next prize pool].
Young teaches a contribution when at cashout there is a fractional credit amount. However, even though the system eliminates fractional credits, when the ticket voucher is dispensed after the award opportunity there may still be a fractional dollar amount, see, e.g., col. 7, where $10.12 is dispensed on the voucher.
McHugh discloses a similar concept to Young except the award opportunity event is based on a fractional dollar amount when redeeming the ticket with an opportunity to play a game based on the fractional dollar amount.
McHugh and Young are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic wagering opportunities, games, and casino management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the EGM implementing the fractional gambling system of Young to be modified to present an award opportunity at cashout based on a fractional dollar value, as taught by McHugh, in order to increase user enjoyment or excitement by providing additional wagering opportunities and improve casino management by reducing accounting overhead associated with tracking fractional amounts, reduce waste, for example by needing to creating tickets for small fractional amounts that the user is less likely to redeemed, see, e.g., McHugh ¶132. In addition, such modification would result in no ticket voucher in the instance when the fraction amount is less than a dollar, the user accepts the additional wager opportunity (the contribution event) and the user does not win the award; or, if when winning the award or opportunity the user account is updated to notified instead of issuing a ticket voucher (e.g., ¶¶84, 86).
In re claim 10, Young in view of McHugh discloses the occurrence of the credit meter cashout award opportunity event is based on the amount of the credit being less than a threshold amount [¶¶10, 16, 20, 132, among others, describe presenting opportunity to wager, play a game, enter a promotion event (award opportunity events) when the ticket has a fractional value (which is less than the threshold of a whole amount), e.g., a payer having a ticket having a value of $.50 (less than a dollar) is given the chance for winnings by redeeming the ticket].
In re claim 11, Young in view of McHugh discloses the determination of the prize is further based on at least one of an input received via an input device and an identity of a user of the gaming device [Fig. 3, ¶73, 95, 104 describe a player touching a screen (input) to play the game associated with the fractional wagering event. For example, selecting yes allows the player to play the game in which determination of an award or prize is based. In addition, a player is only able to utilize their fractional currency value to participate in the game if they have an associated player tracking/loyalty account and determining a player’s identity].
In re claim 12, McHugh in view of Young discloses at least one of the prize to be associated with a gaming establishment account of a user of the device and cause the device to issue a ticket voucher redeemable for the prize [¶¶84, 85, among others, describes a player might be awarded an award. The award might be monetary value, points, credits or even goods or services. Such an award might be associated with the player's player tracking account (such as if the player used their player card as part of redeeming their ticket or voucher), such as by associating winnings in the form of player tracking or rewards points with their account. Such an award might also be provided to the player in the form of an award ticket or voucher which is printed and presented to the player. That ticket might, for example, be bar coded or otherwise contain or include information regarding the award. The ticket or voucher might be redeemable at a gaming machine (such as if the award comprised credits that could be used at such a machine to play a game), or at a cashier station (such as if the award is monetary value that can be paid in coins/currency), or a prize station or booth (such as if the award is one or more promotional goods or services; such might comprise goods such as a t-shirt or jacket, a buffet pass, a show ticket, a free massage or spa pass, etc.)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 10, 2026 have been fully considered.
The rejection of claims 1-20 for double patenting is withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer filed August 10, 2026.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under Section 101 is maintained. The rejection has been updated in view of Applicant’s amendments. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Specifically, the particular manner in which the system of representative independent Claim 1 operates provides a solution to the recognized problem with users holding relatively low value cashless ticket vouchers, such as ticket vouchers issued from gaming devices that had balances of credit meters that were below a minimum wager amount. For example, as described in the specification, the redemption of relatively low value cashless ticket vouchers at ticket voucher redemption kiosks can be difficult or impossible, such as if certain ticket voucher redemption kiosks lack the necessary currency (e.g., coins) to dispense for the value of the ticket vouchers.” While this may be a problem, this is not a technical problem. This is a financial, transactional, or legal problem.
Applicant remarks, in solving at least these technical limitations and as also described in the specification, to improve the operation of ticket voucher redemption kiosks, the claimed systems and methods use ticket voucher redemption award opportunity events and ticket voucher redemption contribution events to cause these relatively low value cashless ticket vouchers to be designated in a ticket voucher database as redeemed without dispensing an amount of the ticket voucher (thus reducing wear and tear on the ticket voucher redemption kiosk otherwise tasked with dispensing funds). In doing so, the systems and methods modify an amount of a contribution pool based on at least part of the amount of the ticket voucher, and determine a prize to be made available (responsive to an occurrence of an award triggering event associated with the designation of the ticket voucher as redeemed). Such a configuration provides users the option to exchange relatively low value cashless ticket vouchers for chances to win a prize that results in improved operation of ticket voucher redemption kiosks that do not need to dispense currency in association with each redemption of a cashless ticket voucher occurring at such ticket voucher redemption kiosks. The examiner respectfully disagrees. This is not an improvement to the operation of the kiosk. If every player decides to cashout and not play the game, the kiosk still dispenses money in the same way. The improvement (if any) is in the abstract behavior of the players, which is not a technical problem or solution.
Applicant continues “The claimed systems further recite specific technological elements for achieving these improvements that go beyond mere computer implementation. For example, the system of Claim 1 requires the ticket voucher to be designated ‘in a ticket voucher database as redeemed without causing an amount of the ticket voucher to be dispensed by the ticket voucher redemption kiosk’- a specific operational configuration of the database and kiosk hardware that changes how the physical kiosk dispenser operates in response to database state changes. This represents a particular machine implementation rather than a general instruction to apply an abstract concept on any generic computer. Moreover, the temporal requirement that this designation occurs ‘prior to a play of a game’ establishes a specific technical sequence that prevents the kiosk's dispensing mechanism from being activated before pool contributions are recorded-a technical constraint on machine operation that improves system efficiency by ensuring consistent database states. These are not merely business improvements achieved through automation; they are specific technical configurations of interrelated hardware and software components that produce a different operational sequence than conventional ticket redemption systems.”
Examiner disagrees; there is no change in the hardware of the kiosk or gaming machine. Any change is solely in the software. Moreover, the supposed additional element which integrates the abstract idea into a practical application appears to be simply generic and high level updating electronic recordkeeping associated with the ticket redemption. In the examiner’s opinion designating a ticket voucher as redeemed in database amounts to little more the using a computer to keep records regarding the commercial transaction. The courts have held that electronic recordkeeping represents well-known, routine and generic computer activity. As such these limitations fail to either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more than the abstract idea. Likewise, “without causing an amount of the ticket voucher to be dispensed by the ticket voucher redemption kiosk” is simply reciting that no money is paid out, and is an abstract element in the commercial or legal interaction, which is then is generally linked to the kiosk or gaming machine, given that the kiosk or gaming machine is being used as a tool to implement the abstract commercial interaction. To the extent that there is a problem being solved it appears to be an abstract commercial one rather than a technological one. Moreover, an equally plausible abstract problem that is being solved is how does the casino keep more of the player’s money. In addition, it is already a known-solution in the art of record to present an award opportunity that eliminates fractional amounts (e.g., coins) from being dispensed to the player. Therefore, Applicant’s solution is not a technical improvement. As such these limitations, even when considered with the claims as a whole fail to either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims 1-20 is maintained.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under Sections 102/103 is maintained. The rejection has been updated in view of Applicant’s amendments. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues as seen in Figs. 3, 4A and 4B of McHugh, each available pathway appears to result in dispensing a currency value to the player, with the different pathways determining that specific value. More specifically, McHugh describes that after a ticket including a fractional amount is presented to a kiosk for redemption and is validated at steps Si and S2, a player is "presented with the option to wager the fractional wager value" at step S6 (see paragraphs [0069] to [0073], Fig. 3). If the player elects to place a wager with the fractional amount, one or more game events are presented to the player at step S7, and if the outcome of the game at step S10 is losing, the "monetary value of the ticket or voucher, less the player's wager, is preferably paid to the player" at step S11. Alternatively, if the outcome of the game at step S10 is winning, "the player is paid the value of their ticket or voucher, less their wager, plus winnings" at step S12 (see paragraphs [0075], [0081] to [0084], Fig. 3). That is, only after a game is played in McHugh is a ticket including a fractional amount redeemed without dispensing the wager corresponding to the fractional amount. As such, while McHugh describes redeeming a ticket including a fractional amount, such redemptions of the ticket that do not include dispensing the fractional amount from a kiosk only occur in McHugh following the play of a game (e.g., Steps S10, S11, and S 12).
However, this ignores the embodiment of McHugh shown in Fig. 4A, which happens prior to S6. In this embodiment the player is entered into an event or draw determined (i.e., played) at future time (S18) and may be notified of any win via their player account. Therefore, the redemption occurs prior to the play of the game (i.e., the future event or drawing). Moreover, if the fractional amount is less than a dollar (e.g., .50), no voucher S11 is dispensed as the entirety of the fractional amount is used for the opportunity to participate in the promotional event or pool.
The arguments with regard to McHugh in view of Young are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
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 Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights