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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments in the Response dated July 2, 2026 directed to the Non-Final Office Action dated April 6, 2026. Claims 1-8 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of claims 1-8 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The determination of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, relies on the Mayo/Alice two-step analysis.
In step 1 of the analysis, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In the present case, claims 1-4 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine) and claims 5-8 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). The claims are, therefore, directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner is directed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims are compared to groupings of subject matter that have been found by courts as abstract ideas. These groupings include
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 is considered representative and recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a gaming establishment fund management system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor after an occurrence of a line of credit activation event associated with a first amount of funds drawn from a line of credit maintained, independent of the gaming establishment fund management system, by a computing component of a gaming establishment credit system, cause the processor to:
responsive to receipt of an input made to repay at least part of the first amount of funds drawn from the line of credit:
cause a decrease of a first gaming establishment account based on a second amount of funds,
cause a decrease of a second, different gaming establishment account based on a third amount of funds, and
communicate data to the computing component of the gaming establishment credit system which results in the first amount of funds drawn from the line of credit to be decreased by the second amount of funds and decreased by the third amount of funds.
The present claims are directed to a system that operates to monitor for a line of credit settlement event and, responsive to an occurrence of such an event, pay off an amount of funds accessed from a gaming establishment credit system. These steps fall under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, they are directed to the sub-category of fundamental economic practices because they involve concepts relating to the economy and commerce. The limitations also fall into the sub-category of commercial or legal interactions because they recite business relations between a party and a creditor. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the examiner considers whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (not considered relevant to the present claims);
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses 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.
The additional elements in the present claims are a processor and a memory device. The additional elements do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional elements do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The additional elements do not 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. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The examiner considers if the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional, as shown: a processor and a memory device are well-understood, routine, and conventional (Vagner, US 2015/0302482 A1, a general computer can include a memory, a processor, input/out components, and other components that are common for general computers, all of which are well known in the art [0099]).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, 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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by .
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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nee et al., US 2007/0293306 A1 (hereinafter Nee) in view of Ellis et al., US 2020/0410820 A1 (hereinafter Ellis).
Regarding Claim 1 (Currently Amended): Nee discloses a gaming establishment fund management system comprising:
a processor (Nee, the casino server 12, better illustrated in FIG. 2 may include a processor 18 [0034]); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor by a computing component of a gaming establishment credit system (Nee, the casino server 12, better illustrated in FIG. 2 may include a processor 18, one or more input and output devices 20, a timer 22, memory 24, with programs 26 and databases 28 therein [0034]) after an occurrence of a line of credit activation event associated with a first amount of funds drawn from a line of credit (Nee, the gaming device 16 may be configured to allow a player to select one of two "modes" of the gaming device 16, and to enable the selected mode; if a player selects a "standard" mode, the gaming device 16 may be configured to operate in a manner similar to how it operated before the installation of the module (e.g., the gaming device 16 operates in a conventional manner, such that aspects of the present disclosure may not be utilized); if a player selects a "negative credit game play" mode, the gaming device 16 may then be operable to execute game play in accordance with one or more aspects of the present disclosure [0071]), cause the processor to:
responsive to receipt of an input made to repay at least part of the first amount of funds drawn from the line of credit (Nee, the gaming device 16 may be configured to output one or more display or menu screens designed to facilitate such reconciliation; for example, turning to an exemplary illustration of a gaming device display screen 56 output depicted by FIG. 12, in one embodiment, a player may utilize a touch-screen to select any or all of a method of repayment (e.g., "game credits" or "comp points"), an amount to be repaid in association with a method, and so on [0144]):
cause a decrease of a first gaming establishment account based on a second amount of funds (Nee, a player may repay any credits owed by providing further payment via a gaming device payment accepting mechanism (e.g., a player inserts a cashless gaming ticket, inserts cash, inserts coins, draws funds from an electronic account, and so on, such that an amount of credits owed may be repaid using the newly-provided funds) [0142]),
cause a decrease of a second, different gaming establishment account based on a third amount of funds (Nee, additionally, a player may reconcile an amount owed by exchanging one type of credits for another; for example, a player may possess 20 loaned credits and 30 standard credits; the player may then "pay off" the loaned credits using the standard credits (e.g., in a one-to-one ratio), such that the player may no longer owe any loaned credits (e.g., an thereby possess only 10 standard credits) [0142]; gaming devices 16 and other coin operated devices (e.g., arcade games) normally have meters associated with them that account for financial activity on the machine; these meters, called "coin-in meters" and "coin-out meters" (referred to collectively herein as coin tracking meters), measure the wagers placed on the gaming device and the payouts provided by the gaming device respectively; other meters, such as the "bill-in meter" account for cash inserted into the gaming device; by way of contrast, the term "credit meter" refers to the current equity the player has in the gaming device usually by counting available units of wager as that term is defined in the Rules of Interpretation below [0171]).
Nee fails to explicitly disclose
a computing component of a gaming establishment credit system maintained, independent of the gaming establishment fund management system, by a computing component of a gaming establishment credit system
communicate data to the computing component of the gaming establishment credit system which results in the first amount of funds drawn from the line of credit to be decreased by the second amount of funds and decreased by the third amount of funds.
Ellis teaches
a computing component of a gaming establishment credit system maintained, independent of the gaming establishment fund management system, by a computing component of a gaming establishment credit system (Ellis, the wager account 115 can be funded, at least in part, from one or more credit accounts 130, can add to or pay down the balance in the one or more associated credit accounts 130, or both; this adding or paying down of the credit account 130 can be effected by player 120 at player's discretion via interfacing with the end user credit management app 125, the gaming device 110 interface, or both; in some instances, the adding or paying down of the credit account 130 occurs, at least in part, automatically upon the occurrence of certain events, such as, for example, an attempted cash out event; in some embodiments, the one or more credit accounts 130 are associated with a bank account 135 which can be accessed via a banking app 140 displaying credit account information 9200 (e.g., see FIG. 92); in some instances, one or more credit accounts 130 are directly accessible via the banking app 140 [0192] and [Fig. 1]);
communicate data to the computing component of the gaming establishment credit system which results in the first amount of funds drawn from the line of credit to be decreased by the second amount of funds and decreased by the third amount of funds (Ellis, the controller 219 requests data by sending general polls and long polls to the gaming devices 220; when the controller 219 desires accounting information, such as the gaming device's managed credit meter total, it issues a long poll requesting the specific data; when responding to a host long poll, the gaming device 110 message can include its address, host command, requested data, and a two-byte cyclical redundancy check (CRC) [0197]).
Nee discloses a gaming device may be configured to: (i) determine a current credit balance, (ii) determine a wager amount, (iii) determine whether the wager amount would result in a negative balance of credits, (iv) determine if it is permissible to allow a negative balance of credits, and if so (v) adjust a current balance such that is equal to the negative balance, and (vi) display an indication of the negative balance (Nee [Abstract]).
Ellis teaches a system and method providing, in some embodiments, at least partially automated processing for warrantying, settling, requesting, approving, processing, advancing, collecting, and/or managing of credit provided for use in wager gaming and related activities, including, in some instances, one or more of loan transactions, loan warrantying services, operator receivable participation interest, receivable purchase associate with patron's repayment of the receivable, third-party provision of advances to an operator patron limited for use within the operator property or properties for designated gaming activities, associated fees, activity tracking, activity reporting, credit approval throttling, fund advancement throttling, credit account packaging and transfer, automated collections, and responsible wager gaming (Ellis [Abstract]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the gaming device configured to: (i) determine a current credit balance, (ii) determine a wager amount, (iii) determine whether the wager amount would result in a negative balance of credits, (iv) determine if it is permissible to allow a negative balance of credits, and if so (v) adjust a current balance such that is equal to the negative balance, and (vi) display an indication of the negative balance as disclosed by Nee with the method of automated processing for warrantying, settling, requesting, approving, processing, advancing, collecting, and/or managing of credit provided for use in wager gaming and related activities, including, in some instances, one or more of loan transactions, loan warrantying services, operator receivable participation interest, receivable purchase associate with patron's repayment of the receivable, third-party provision of advances to an operator patron limited for use within the operator property or properties for designated gaming activities, associated fees, activity tracking, activity reporting, credit approval throttling, fund advancement throttling, credit account packaging and transfer, automated collections, and responsible wager gaming as taught by Ellis in order to allow players to easily receive credit to continue playing games of chance.
Regarding Claim 2 (Currently Amended): Nee further discloses wherein the input designates a selection of at least one of the first gaming establishment account and the second, different gaming establishment account (Nee, additionally, a player may reconcile an amount owed by exchanging one type of credits for another; for example, a player may possess 20 loaned credits and 30 standard credits; the player may then "pay off" the loaned credits using the standard credits (e.g., in a one-to-one ratio), such that the player may no longer owe any loaned credits (e.g., an thereby possess only 10 standard credits) [0142]; gaming devices 16 and other coin operated devices (e.g., arcade games) normally have meters associated with them that account for financial activity on the machine; these meters, called "coin-in meters" and "coin-out meters" (referred to collectively herein as coin tracking meters), measure the wagers placed on the gaming device and the payouts provided by the gaming device respectively; other meters, such as the "bill-in meter" account for cash inserted into the gaming device; by way of contrast, the term "credit meter" refers to the current equity the player has in the gaming device usually by counting available units of wager as that term is defined in the Rules of Interpretation below [0171]).
Regarding Claim 3 (Currently Amended): Nee further discloses wherein the input designates a selection of at least one of the second amount of funds and the third amount of funds (Nee, the gaming device 16 may be configured to output one or more display or menu screens designed to facilitate such reconciliation; for example, turning to an exemplary illustration of a gaming device display screen 56 output depicted by FIG. 12, in one embodiment, a player may utilize a touch-screen to select any or all of a method of repayment (e.g., "game credits" or "comp points"), an amount to be repaid in association with a method, and so on [0144]).
Regarding Claim 4 (Currently Amended): Nee further discloses wherein the input designates the processor to determine at least one of the first gaming establishment account, the second, different gaming establishment account (Nee, additionally, a player may reconcile an amount owed by exchanging one type of credits for another; for example, a player may possess 20 loaned credits and 30 standard credits; the player may then "pay off" the loaned credits using the standard credits (e.g., in a one-to-one ratio), such that the player may no longer owe any loaned credits (e.g., an thereby possess only 10 standard credits) [0142]; gaming devices 16 and other coin operated devices (e.g., arcade games) normally have meters associated with them that account for financial activity on the machine; these meters, called "coin-in meters" and "coin-out meters" (referred to collectively herein as coin tracking meters), measure the wagers placed on the gaming device and the payouts provided by the gaming device respectively; other meters, such as the "bill-in meter" account for cash inserted into the gaming device; by way of contrast, the term "credit meter" refers to the current equity the player has in the gaming device usually by counting available units of wager as that term is defined in the Rules of Interpretation below [0171]), the second amount of funds and the third amount of funds (Nee, the gaming device 16 may be configured to output one or more display or menu screens designed to facilitate such reconciliation; for example, turning to an exemplary illustration of a gaming device display screen 56 output depicted by FIG. 12, in one embodiment, a player may utilize a touch-screen to select any or all of a method of repayment (e.g., "game credits" or "comp points"), an amount to be repaid in association with a method, and so on [0144]).
Regarding Claim 5 (Currently Amended): Nee discloses a method of operating a gaming establishment fund management system, the method comprising:
after an occurrence of a line of credit activation event associated with a first amount of funds drawn from a line of credit (Nee, the gaming device 16 may be configured to allow a player to select one of two "modes" of the gaming device 16, and to enable the selected mode; if a player selects a "standard" mode, the gaming device 16 may be configured to operate in a manner similar to how it operated before the installation of the module (e.g., the gaming device 16 operates in a conventional manner, such that aspects of the present disclosure may not be utilized); if a player selects a "negative credit game play" mode, the gaming device 16 may then be operable to execute game play in accordance with one or more aspects of the present disclosure [0071]) and responsive to receipt of an input made to repay at least part of the first amount of funds drawn from the line of credit by a computing component of a gaming establishment credit system (Nee, the gaming device 16 may be configured to output one or more display or menu screens designed to facilitate such reconciliation; for example, turning to an exemplary illustration of a gaming device display screen 56 output depicted by FIG. 12, in one embodiment, a player may utilize a touch-screen to select any or all of a method of repayment (e.g., "game credits" or "comp points"), an amount to be repaid in association with a method, and so on [0144]):
causing, by a processor, a decrease of a first gaming establishment account based on a second amount of funds (Nee, a player may repay any credits owed by providing further payment via a gaming device payment accepting mechanism (e.g., a player inserts a cashless gaming ticket, inserts cash, inserts coins, draws funds from an electronic account, and so on, such that an amount of credits owed may be repaid using the newly-provided funds) [0142]),
causing, by the processor, a decrease of a second, different gaming establishment account based on a third amount of funds (Nee, additionally, a player may reconcile an amount owed by exchanging one type of credits for another; for example, a player may possess 20 loaned credits and 30 standard credits; the player may then "pay off" the loaned credits using the standard credits (e.g., in a one-to-one ratio), such that the player may no longer owe any loaned credits (e.g., an thereby possess only 10 standard credits) [0142]; gaming devices 16 and other coin operated devices (e.g., arcade games) normally have meters associated with them that account for financial activity on the machine; these meters, called "coin-in meters" and "coin-out meters" (referred to collectively herein as coin tracking meters), measure the wagers placed on the gaming device and the payouts provided by the gaming device respectively; other meters, such as the "bill-in meter" account for cash inserted into the gaming device; by way of contrast, the term "credit meter" refers to the current equity the player has in the gaming device usually by counting available units of wager as that term is defined in the Rules of Interpretation below [0171]).
Nee fails to explicitly disclose
a computing component of a gaming establishment credit system maintained, independent of the gaming establishment fund management system, by a computing component of a gaming establishment credit system:
communicating data to the computing component of the gaming establishment credit system which results in the first amount of funds drawn from the line of credit to be decreased by the second amount of funds and decreased by the third amount of funds.
Ellis teaches
maintained, independent of the gaming establishment fund management system, by a computing component of a gaming establishment credit system (Ellis, the wager account 115 can be funded, at least in part, from one or more credit accounts 130, can add to or pay down the balance in the one or more associated credit accounts 130, or both; this adding or paying down of the credit account 130 can be effected by player 120 at player's discretion via interfacing with the end user credit management app 125, the gaming device 110 interface, or both; in some instances, the adding or paying down of the credit account 130 occurs, at least in part, automatically upon the occurrence of certain events, such as, for example, an attempted cash out event; in some embodiments, the one or more credit accounts 130 are associated with a bank account 135 which can be accessed via a banking app 140 displaying credit account information 9200 (e.g., see FIG. 92); in some instances, one or more credit accounts 130 are directly accessible via the banking app 140 [0192] and [Fig. 1]):
communicating data to the computing component of the gaming establishment credit system which results in the first amount of funds drawn from the line of credit to be decreased by the second amount of funds and decreased by the third amount of funds (Ellis, the controller 219 requests data by sending general polls and long polls to the gaming devices 220; when the controller 219 desires accounting information, such as the gaming device's managed credit meter total, it issues a long poll requesting the specific data; when responding to a host long poll, the gaming device 110 message can include its address, host command, requested data, and a two-byte cyclical redundancy check (CRC) [0197]).
As recited above with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the gaming device configured to: (i) determine a current credit balance, (ii) determine a wager amount, (iii) determine whether the wager amount would result in a negative balance of credits, (iv) determine if it is permissible to allow a negative balance of credits, and if so (v) adjust a current balance such that is equal to the negative balance, and (vi) display an indication of the negative balance as disclosed by Nee with the method of automated processing for warrantying, settling, requesting, approving, processing, advancing, collecting, and/or managing of credit provided for use in wager gaming and related activities, including, in some instances, one or more of loan transactions, loan warrantying services, operator receivable participation interest, receivable purchase associate with patron's repayment of the receivable, third-party provision of advances to an operator patron limited for use within the operator property or properties for designated gaming activities, associated fees, activity tracking, activity reporting, credit approval throttling, fund advancement throttling, credit account packaging and transfer, automated collections, and responsible wager gaming as taught by Ellis in order to allow players to easily receive credit to continue playing games of chance.
Regarding Claim 6 (Previously Presented): Nee further discloses wherein the input designates a selection of at least one of the first gaming establishment account and the second, different gaming establishment account (Nee, additionally, a player may reconcile an amount owed by exchanging one type of credits for another; for example, a player may possess 20 loaned credits and 30 standard credits; the player may then "pay off" the loaned credits using the standard credits (e.g., in a one-to-one ratio), such that the player may no longer owe any loaned credits (e.g., an thereby possess only 10 standard credits) [0142]; gaming devices 16 and other coin operated devices (e.g., arcade games) normally have meters associated with them that account for financial activity on the machine; these meters, called "coin-in meters" and "coin-out meters" (referred to collectively herein as coin tracking meters), measure the wagers placed on the gaming device and the payouts provided by the gaming device respectively; other meters, such as the "bill-in meter" account for cash inserted into the gaming device; by way of contrast, the term "credit meter" refers to the current equity the player has in the gaming device usually by counting available units of wager as that term is defined in the Rules of Interpretation below [0171]).
Regarding Claim 7 (Previously Presented): Nee further discloses wherein the input designates a selection of at least one of the second amount of funds and the third amount of funds (Nee, the gaming device 16 may be configured to output one or more display or menu screens designed to facilitate such reconciliation; for example, turning to an exemplary illustration of a gaming device display screen 56 output depicted by FIG. 12, in one embodiment, a player may utilize a touch-screen to select any or all of a method of repayment (e.g., "game credits" or "comp points"), an amount to be repaid in association with a method, and so on [0144]).
Regarding Claim 8 (Previously Presented): Nee further discloses wherein the input designates the processor to determine at least one of the first gaming establishment account, the second, different gaming establishment account (Nee, additionally, a player may reconcile an amount owed by exchanging one type of credits for another; for example, a player may possess 20 loaned credits and 30 standard credits; the player may then "pay off" the loaned credits using the standard credits (e.g., in a one-to-one ratio), such that the player may no longer owe any loaned credits (e.g., an thereby possess only 10 standard credits) [0142]; gaming devices 16 and other coin operated devices (e.g., arcade games) normally have meters associated with them that account for financial activity on the machine; these meters, called "coin-in meters" and "coin-out meters" (referred to collectively herein as coin tracking meters), measure the wagers placed on the gaming device and the payouts provided by the gaming device respectively; other meters, such as the "bill-in meter" account for cash inserted into the gaming device; by way of contrast, the term "credit meter" refers to the current equity the player has in the gaming device usually by counting available units of wager as that term is defined in the Rules of Interpretation below [0171]), the second amount of funds and the third amount of funds (Nee, the gaming device 16 may be configured to output one or more display or menu screens designed to facilitate such reconciliation; for example, turning to an exemplary illustration of a gaming device display screen 56 output depicted by FIG. 12, in one embodiment, a player may utilize a touch-screen to select any or all of a method of repayment (e.g., "game credits" or "comp points"), an amount to be repaid in association with a method, and so on [0144]).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, applicant's arguments filed July 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Against this backdrop, Applicant submits that the techniques for operating the gaming establishment fund management system recited in the claims, even if somehow directed to the alleged abstract idea, integrates that abstract idea into a practical application, thereby satisfying the subject matter eligibility requirement of § 101. Specifically, the particular manner which the gaming establishment fund management system of representative independent Claim 1 operates provides a solution to the recognized problem with prior systems that were limited in settlement of an outstanding line of credit liability. That is, where prior systems encountered limited options to settle a line of credit liability, the claimed gaming establishment fund management systems and methods succeeds by utilizing funds available from multiple gaming establishment accounts and in doing so, eliminate processing resources needed to be dedicating to consolidating funds to a single gaming establishment prior to settlement of the line of credit liability. In other words, rather than a user needing to first transfer funds from multiple gaming establishment accounts to a single gaming establishment to pay off a line of credit (which includes processing resources spent at multiple touchpoints prior to any repayment event occurring), the gaming establishment fund management system enables such multiple gaming establishment accounts to be directly accessed to individually pay off portions of the line of credit. (Response [pp. 5-6])
Under prong 2 of step 2A, limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An 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);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a 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);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using 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).
According to MPEP 2106.05(a):
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
According to applicant, “the particular manner which the gaming establishment fund management system of representative independent Claim 1 operates provides a solution to the recognized problem with prior systems that were limited in settlement of an outstanding line of credit liability” (Response [p. 6]). In the present instance, the “problem” addressed is not a technical problem. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. At best, this is a business problem, not a technical problem.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner directs applicant to the rejections recited above under 35 USC 103.
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 WERNER G GARNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7147. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-15:30 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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/WERNER G GARNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights