DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to 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 1-20 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 1-9 are directed to a device (i.e., a machine), claims 10-11 are directed to a slot machine interface board (i.e., a machine), and claims 12-20 are directed to 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 recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a device comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a receipt of first data associated with an occurrence of a handpay lockup event associated with an electronic gaming machine, cause the processor to:
receive second data associated with any amount of any outstanding marker of a gaming establishment credit system associated with an identified player at the electronic gaming machine, and responsive to an amount of an outstanding marker of the gaming establishment credit system associated with the identified player at the electronic gaming machine, automatically and without deactivating a line of credit which the outstanding marker is drawn from:
cause, by a communication of third data, a reduction of an award amount associated with the handpay lockup event by the amount of the outstanding marker, and cause, based on the award amount associated with the handpay lockup event and by a communication of fourth data, at least part of the amount of the outstanding marker to be transferred to an account maintained by the gaming establishment credit system which is separate from any balance displayed by the electronic gaming machine.
Claim 10 recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a slot machine interface board comprising:
a first communication interface operable to serially communicate, in accordance with a slot accounting system protocol, with a master gaming controller of an electronic gaming machine having a housing configured to support the first communication interface;
a second communication interface operable to communicate with a server of a gaming establishment credit system;
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a receipt, via the first communication interface, of first data associated with an occurrence of an event associated with the electronic gaming machine that requires operator intervention, cause the processor to:
receive, via the second communication interface, second data associated with any amount of any outstanding credit marker of an identified player at the electronic gaming machine, and responsive to an amount of an outstanding credit marker of the identified player at the electronic gaming machine, automatically and without deactivating a line of credit associated with the outstanding credit marker:
cause, by a communication of third data via the first communication interface, a reduction of an award amount associated with the event by the amount of outstanding credit marker associated with the identified player at the electronic gaming machine, and cause, based on the award amount associated with the event and by a communication of data via the second communication interface, at least part of the amount of the outstanding credit marker associated with the identified player at the electronic gaming machine to be transferred to an account maintained by the gaming establishment credit system separate from any balance displayed by the electronic gaming machine.
Claim 12 recites (the abstract idea is underlined) a method of operating a device, the method comprising:
responsive to a receipt of first data associated with an occurrence of a handpay lockup event associated with an electronic gaming machine:
receiving second data associated with any amount of any outstanding marker of a gaming establishment credit system associated with an identified player at the electronic gaming machine, and responsive to an amount of an outstanding marker of the gaming establishment credit system associated with the identified player at the electronic gaming machine, automatically and without deactivating a line of credit which the outstanding marker is drawn from:
causing, by a processor via a communication of third data, a reduction of an award amount associated with the handpay lockup event by the amount of the outstanding marker, and causing, by a processor and based on the award amount associated with the handpay lockup event and via a communication of fourth data, at least part of the amount of the outstanding marker to be transferred to an account maintained by the gaming establishment credit system which is separate from any balance displayed by the electronic gaming machine.
The present claims are directed to systems and methods 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. The claimed limitations fall under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the limitations fall into the sub-category of fundamental economic practices because it involves the transfer of money to pay off a marker using money received during plays of games on an electronic gaming machine. The limitations also fall into the sub-category of commercial or legal interactions because it involves business relations involving the repayment of outstanding markers in a credit system. 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 memory, a processor, a memory device, a display device, a mobile device, a server, a slot machine interface board, a first communication interface, a second communication interface, a master gaming controller, and a housing. 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 memory, a processor, a memory device, a slot machine interface board, a display device, (Bradford et al., US 6,709,333 B1, game device 100 includes the normal and well known internals needed in order to have a functioning game, such as at least one central processor, associated memory, input/output interfaces, peripheral interfaces to the video display, control buttons and lever, monetary input devices, slot machine interface board (SMIB), together with the firmware and software needed to implement the full functionality of the game (these internals not shown) [C8:7-21]);
a mobile device, a server (Qureshi et al., US 2011/0145063 A1, examples of well known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use with aspects of the invention include, but are not limited to, mobile computing devices, personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, gaming consoles, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, mobile telephones, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like [0046]);
a slot machine interface board, a first communication interface, a second communication interface (Luciano, Jr., US 8,313,371 B1, a slot machine interface board (SMIB), a well-known game device part in the art; the SMIB, RGC (if any), and network are shown generally as connection 912; in addition to being the interface between the game device and a network, a SMIB will typically be able to read game data (game events, reel results, etc.) and user input/output (including plays and money input and won), which can then be sent over the serial connections to the RGC or floor controller [C13:42-67]);
a master gaming controller (Yoseloff et al., US 20070298854 A1, a main game controller motherboard may include a central microprocessor and related components well-known in the industry as computers using Intel brand Pentium.RTM. microprocessors and related memory or intelligence from any other manufacturing source [0091]), and
a housing (Smith, US 9,697,691 B2, a common denominator among these games is the use of a housing, a video monitor, processor, wager input system and a player input control system [C1:11-25]).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art Rejections
There are currently no prior art rejections against the claims as currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, filed August 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to prong 1 of step 2A, applicant argues:
As noted by In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., a "series of steps" can fall outside of a certain "method of organizing human activity." For example, although a human user may or may not have an amount of an outstanding marker paid back if a handpay lockup event occurs at an electronic gaming machine, the claimed device does not organize any user interactions. As such, the processor executed instructions that define these steps do not pertain to any personal behavior or relationships or rules for humans to engage in any social activity or rules for humans to interact and thus cannot be reasonably considered any methods of organizing human activity. (Response [p. 10])
The drug-formula applicant quotes illustrates steps that act on physical ingredients. Guldenaar itself held claims to rules for conducting a wagering game ineligible as a method of organizing human activity. The present steps act on financial obligations between a casino and a patron, not on physical matter. Applicant also argues that the claimed device “does organize any user interactions.” That argument misreads the grouping. The fundamental-economic practice and commercial/legal-interaction sub-groupings do not require that the claim regulate person-to-person conduct. Performing the settlement of an obligation by computer does not remove it from the grouping, as Alice itself shows.
Next applicant argues:
Applicant further submits that under the first prong of Step 2A, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. In this case, the Office's characterization of the claims as directed to "systems and methods 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" improperly abstracts the claims beyond the actual claim language. In this case, the claims recite a specific technical solution to a technical problem in gaming system architecture: identifying a handpay lockup event associated with an electronic gaming machine occurs when an outstanding marker of a gaming establishment credit system is associated with an identified player at the electronic gaming machine, and if so, automatically and without deactivating a line of credit which the outstanding marker is drawn from causing a reduction of an award amount associated with the handpay lockup event by an amount of the outstanding marker, and causing at least part of the amount of the outstanding marker to be transferred to an account maintained by the gaming establishment credit system. This technical problem and solution are rooted in computer technology, not in fundamental economic practices. (Response [p. 10])
Receiving data of an amount of an outstanding marker and deciding whether to suspend a player’s credit are business problems not one rooted in computer technology. Markers and deciding whether to suspend a player’s credit existed before computers. The problem does not arise in the realm of computer networks.
Applicant’s own restatement of the claimed solution confirms what the claims do:
identifying a handpay lockup event associated with an electronic gaming machine occurs when an outstanding marker of a gaming establishment credit system is associated with an identified player at the electronic gaming machine, and
if so, automatically and without deactivating a line of credit which the outstanding marker is drawn from causing a reduction of an award amount associated with the handpay lockup event by an amount of the outstanding marker, and
causing at least part of the amount of the outstanding marker to be transferred to an account maintained by the gaming establishment credit system.
That is setting of a debtor’s obligations against funds owed to the debtor, a fundamental economic practice and a commercial or legal interaction. It falls within the sub-groupings of fundamental economic practices because it involves the transfer of money to pay off a marker using money received during plays of games on an electronic gaming machine. The limitations also fall into the sub-category of commercial or legal interactions because it involves business relations involving the repayment of outstanding markers in a credit system.
With respect to prong 1 of step 2A, applicant states:
In this case, even if, arguendo, the claims were found to recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims are nonetheless integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because the techniques for operating the device and slot machine interface board recited in the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, thereby satisfying the subject matter eligibility requirement of § 101. Specifically, causing an automatic repayment of an amount of funds associated with an activated line of credit when a credit balance has exceeded jurisdictional limits (e.g., a handpay lockup event) without otherwise deactivating the line of credit saves users time in accessing lines of credit (i.e., a user does not need to spend the time reactivating a line of credit each time the user visits each gaming device as with prior systems that deactivated the line of credit with each time funds were removed from a gaming device) and thus prevents burdening the system with not repeatedly deactivating and reactivating the same line of credit (and the corresponding transfers of data associated with such funds between the gaming establishment credit system and the gaming establishment fund management system) as a user moves throughout a gaming establishment and uses the funds associated with the line of credit at different touchpoints.
More specifically, the claimed device improves upon prior inefficient avenues to repay an outstanding marker by enabling direct settlement from a handpay lockup event in a single coordinated transaction. Such a configuration minimizes any friction created by prior systems in paying back funds drawn from an issued line of credit when such funds were otherwise available from a handay lockup event. This architecture eliminates any intermediate fund transfer steps, thereby reducing the number of processing cycles, reducing network traffic between system components, and improving the efficiency of the settlement process. Such preventing an overburden on a computing system by eliminating inefficiencies (e.g., repeatedly deactivating and reactivating the same line of credit) is a clear improvement of the functioning of a computer that appreciably improves technology and further integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. (Response pp. 11-12])
Applicant’s assertion that the repeated deactivating and reactivating the same line of credit prevents burdening the system. The only changes are to the business method, not the functioning of the computer or other technology or technological field. The computer components of the system do not function differently.
The additional elements, viewed individually and as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With respect to step 2B, applicant states:
With respect to Step 2B, Applicant submits that even if the claims were not integrated into a practical application under Prong Two, the claims nonetheless recite 'significantly more' because the combination of elements-particularly the automatic settlement of an outstanding marker drawn from an activated line of credit responsive to a handpay lockup event without deactivating the line of credit-represents a specific technical solution not previously employed in the gaming industry. This specific ordered combination of claim elements, as opposed to the individual generic components, constitutes an 'inventive concept' under Berkheimer which is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. (Response [p. 12])
Applicant’s assertion that the combination was “not previously employed in the gaming industry” is a novelty argument. Novelty and eligibility are separate inquires. A new abstract idea, is still an abstract idea.
Berkheimer concerns whether the additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional. It does not ask whether the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, and conventional. As shown above, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The examiner maintains that claims 1-20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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