Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 2/12/2026, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a system, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: during a first period of time: identify a user at a gaming establishment device operating independent of the processor, and track an amount of activity associated with the identified user at the gaming establishment device, the tracked amount of activity being independent of any play of any game available at the gaming establishment device, and after the first period of time and responsive to an occurrence of a gaming establishment loyalty benefit determination event: determine a gaming establishment loyalty benefit based on a random determination applied to the tracked amount of activity that previously occurred during the first time period / wherein the random determination applied to a first tracked amount of activity during the first period of time results in a first gaming establishment loyalty benefit and the random determination applied to a second, different tracked amount of activity during the first period of time results in a second, different gaming establishment loyalty benefit / responsive to a gaming establishment loyalty benefit realization event, associate the determined gaming establishment loyalty benefit with a gaming establishment account of the identified user / when an opening of an access door of the gaming establishment device is detected, tracking activity associated with the identified user at the gaming establishment device is disabled until a closing of the access door of the gaming establishment device is detected . Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “In various embodiments, the systems and methods of the present disclosure track, during a first period of time, non-game play activity of a user at a gaming establishment device, and after the first period of time, determine a gaming establishment loyalty benefit based on a random determination and the tracked activity”, “In certain embodiments, the systems and methods of the present disclosure track one or more events occurring in association with a user at a gaming establishment and employ one or more random determinations to determine one or more loyalty benefits, such as a quantity of gaming establishment loyalty program points (e.g., player tracking points) and/or player comps, earned from such tracked events. That is, rather than applying a static loyalty benefit accrual rate to one or more tracked events to determine one or more loyalty benefits, the systems and methods of the present disclosure apply a variable loyalty benefit accrual rate to one or more tracked events to determine one or more loyalty benefits. As such, for the same activity occurring at the same gaming establishment device by the same user at different points in time, the system of the present disclosure determines, based on one or more random determinations made at (and/or subsequent to) such different points in time, different amounts of loyalty benefits, such as different amounts of player tracking points, to associate with such activities”, “Such a configuration thus drives additional traffic to gaming establishment devices to benefit both the users of these gaming establishment devices (in the form of increased loyalty benefits) and the gaming establishment (in the form of increased use of one or more gaming establishment devices)”, “to increase the level of anticipation of certain users whom have earned loyalty benefits but are unsure of the specifics of such a loyalty benefit, when the system determines that one or more events being tracked in association with a user qualify that user for a loyalty benefit, the system delays the determination of any loyalty benefits until a later point in time. In these embodiments, upon a subsequent decision to determine a loyalty benefit, the system then randomly determines such a loyalty benefit. That is, while the system determines that a loyalty benefit is earnable at a first point in time (i.e., an occurrence of a loyalty benefit eligibility event), the system waits for another event to occur (i.e., a loyalty benefit determination event) to randomly determine the attributes of the loyalty benefit earned. In different embodiments, the other event which causes the determination of the parameters of a loyalty benefit is based on time, additional tracked activities of the user (or a lack thereof), tracked activities of another user (or a lack thereof), and/or one or more separate random determinations”, “Accordingly and in recognition that certain users prefer random events over static events (even if the random event potentially yields a lower loyalty benefit to the user), the systems and methods of the present disclosure introduce a degree of volatility to the accumulation of loyalty benefits. Additionally and in recognition that certain users appreciate the anticipation associated with waiting to find out the details of an otherwise earned benefit, the systems and methods of the present disclosure employ one or more delayed random determinations in the realization of one or more loyalty benefits. Such a configuration of employing random determinations to loyalty benefits and further altering the timing of when such earned loyalty benefits are realized offers an operational modification to the system not otherwise available. That is, the modified timing aspects of the present disclosure coupled with the modified loyalty benefit determination aspects of the present disclosure represent an unconventional employment of how loyalty benefits are quantified and provided”. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – I.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: when an opening of an access door of the gaming establishment device is detected, tracking activity associated with the identified user at the gaming establishment device is disabled until a closing of the access door of the gaming establishment device is detected. This claimed limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation , covers performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of a processor/memory that stores a plurality of instructions/gaming establishment device including a security monitoring circuit, which represent generic computing elements. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 10, 12 are directed to a system and method for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. The claims recite the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claims 10, 12 perform the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 10, 12 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2-9, 11, 13-20 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims further recite the additional elements of a POS terminal / e-gaming machine , which represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant prior art: The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1-20. Little (20220156872) does teach: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: during a first period of time: identify a user at a gaming establishment device operating independent of the / and track an amount of activity associated with the identified user at the gaming establishment device, the tracked amount of activity being independent of any play of any game available at the gaming establishment device, / and after the first period of time and responsive to an occurrence of a gaming establishment loyalty benefit determination event: determine a gaming establishment loyalty benefit based on a random determination applied to the tracked amount of activity that previously occurred during the first period of time / and responsive to a gaming establishment loyalty benefit realization event, associate the determined gaming establishment loyalty benefit with a gaming establishment account of the identified user, as noted above; however, Little does not teach the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/10/12. When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant respectfully submits that the gaming establishment loyalty benefit management system of claim 1 recites additional elements including at least "when an opening of an access door of the gaming establishment device is detected, via a security monitoring circuit of the gaming establishment device, tracking activity associated with the identified user at the gaming establishment device is disabled until a closing of the access door of the gaming establishment device is detected via the security monitoring circuit of the gaming establishment device". Such elements are not generic, conventional, or well-known in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(d); MPEP 2106.07(a); Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Applicant also submits that at least the additional elements of disabling, upon an access door of a gaming establishment device being detected to be opened by a security monitoring circuit, the tracking of activity occurring in association with an identified user at the gaming establishment device until the access door is detected to be closed is not extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements impose meaningful limits on the claims and thus are not activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Specifically, these additional elements entirely alter a flow of operation of the claimed gaming establishment loyalty benefit management system in that whether or not the tracking of activity at a gaming establishment continues is based on whether the security monitoring circuit detects the opening of the access door or if so, a subsequent closing of the access door. As such, at least these additional elements impose meaningful limits on the claims and thus are not activities incidental to the primary process that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Applicant further submits that, in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(b), the claimed gaming establishment loyalty benefit management systems are necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising when an access violation occurs (which results in suspension of operation and a loss of information) but certain operational aspects have been realized and displayed during prior operation of the gaming establishment loyalty benefit management system. In solving these problems, the claimed gaming establishment loyalty benefit management system of representative Claim 1 enables the suspension of operation to occur (in accordance with regulatory security requirements) but does so in a way that ensures that when operation is resumed upon a resolution of the access violation, tracked activities that occurred prior to the access violation are still employed to at least partially determine a gaming establishment loyalty benefit. Accordingly, since the claims are directed to these specific improvements in technology whereby the specific claimed features allow for the improvement to be realized, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and are patent eligible. For at least these reasons (and the reasoning submitted with the previously filed Responses to Office Actions), Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 1 to 20 are not directed to an abstract idea under the Mayo Alice test and are therefore patent-eligible.
The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above. Determining loyalty benefits based on gathered gaming activity data/criteria and associating the benefits with user accounts represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus, improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, at best, optimize a business practice/goal: “In various embodiments, the systems and methods of the present disclosure track, during a first period of time, non-game play activity of a user at a gaming establishment device, and after the first period of time, determine a gaming establishment loyalty benefit based on a random determination and the tracked activity”, “In certain embodiments, the systems and methods of the present disclosure track one or more events occurring in association with a user at a gaming establishment and employ one or more random determinations to determine one or more loyalty benefits, such as a quantity of gaming establishment loyalty program points (e.g., player tracking points) and/or player comps, earned from such tracked events. That is, rather than applying a static loyalty benefit accrual rate to one or more tracked events to determine one or more loyalty benefits, the systems and methods of the present disclosure apply a variable loyalty benefit accrual rate to one or more tracked events to determine one or more loyalty benefits. As such, for the same activity occurring at the same gaming establishment device by the same user at different points in time, the system of the present disclosure determines, based on one or more random determinations made at (and/or subsequent to) such different points in time, different amounts of loyalty benefits, such as different amounts of player tracking points, to associate with such activities”, “Such a configuration thus drives additional traffic to gaming establishment devices to benefit both the users of these gaming establishment devices (in the form of increased loyalty benefits) and the gaming establishment (in the form of increased use of one or more gaming establishment devices)”, “to increase the level of anticipation of certain users whom have earned loyalty benefits but are unsure of the specifics of such a loyalty benefit, when the system determines that one or more events being tracked in association with a user qualify that user for a loyalty benefit, the system delays the determination of any loyalty benefits until a later point in time. In these embodiments, upon a subsequent decision to determine a loyalty benefit, the system then randomly determines such a loyalty benefit. That is, while the system determines that a loyalty benefit is earnable at a first point in time (i.e., an occurrence of a loyalty benefit eligibility event), the system waits for another event to occur (i.e., a loyalty benefit determination event) to randomly determine the attributes of the loyalty benefit earned. In different embodiments, the other event which causes the determination of the parameters of a loyalty benefit is based on time, additional tracked activities of the user (or a lack thereof), tracked activities of another user (or a lack thereof), and/or one or more separate random determinations”, “Accordingly and in recognition that certain users prefer random events over static events (even if the random event potentially yields a lower loyalty benefit to the user), the systems and methods of the present disclosure introduce a degree of volatility to the accumulation of loyalty benefits. Additionally and in recognition that certain users appreciate the anticipation associated with waiting to find out the details of an otherwise earned benefit, the systems and methods of the present disclosure employ one or more delayed random determinations in the realization of one or more loyalty benefits. Such a configuration of employing random determinations to loyalty benefits and further altering the timing of when such earned loyalty benefits are realized offers an operational modification to the system not otherwise available. That is, the modified timing aspects of the present disclosure coupled with the modified loyalty benefit determination aspects of the present disclosure represent an unconventional employment of how loyalty benefits are quantified and provided”. There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec., including the paras referenced above by the Applicant, that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
While Little includes a system that initiates a promotional award period, monitors gaming and purchasing activities of casino patrons as the patrons are physically located within a casino property to detect qualifying gaming and purchasing activities performed by patrons that qualify the patron for a promotional award and upon detecting a qualifying promotional event performed by a patron, randomly selects a promotional award, such as a promotional award charm ID (see paragraphs [0016] and [0017]), the promotional award of Little is not determined based on a random determination applied to the monitored gaming and purchasing activities such that the same random determination applied to different gaming and purchasing activities results in different randomly selected promotional award. In other words, while Little includes a random selection of a promotional award which occurs when the system detects a qualifying promotional event based on gaming and purchasing activities performed by the patron, as implied by the reliance on Walker, Little does not include that this random selection is applied to the amounts of gaming and purchasing activities such that different promotional awards result from the same random selection (of a promotional award) to different amounts of gaming and purchasing activities. Walker does not cure these deficiencies of Little because while Walker includes a player being awarded reward points at a first rate during a first portion of a play session and the player being awarded reward points at a second, greater rate during a second portion of the play session if the player qualifies for the second rate by satisfying one or more predetermined conditions (see Abstract and paragraphs [0024] and [0030]), Walker does not include the same portion of the play session providing different amounts of reward points based on different rates. Putting aside that Walker does not appear to include any random determination applied to any tracked activity of a play session to determine any quantity of reward points, the application of different rates in Walker pertains to different portions of a play session (and not the same portion of the play session). Accordingly, in addition to the combination of Little and Walker lacking disabling, upon an access door of a gaming establishment device being detected to be opened by a security monitoring circuit, the tracking of activity occurring in association with an identified user at the gaming establishment device until the access door is detected to be closed, Little in view of Walker does not render obvious (without the benefit of improper hindsight reconstruction) the gaming establishment loyalty benefit management system of Claim 1. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that independent Claim 1 is patentably distinguished over Little in view of Walker and is in condition for allowance. Claims 2 and 4 to 8 depend from Claim 1 and are also allowable for the reasons given with respect to independent Claim 1, and because of the additional features recited in these claims. Independent Claim 12 includes certain elements similar to certain elements of independent Claim 1. For reasons similar to the reasoning discussed above with respect to independent Claim 1, independent Claim 12 (and dependent Claims 13 and 15 to 20) are each patentably distinguished over Little in view of Walker and are in condition for allowance.
The Office Action rejected Claim 3 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Little in view of Walker in view of U.S. 2018/0005483 to Washington. Applicant submits that based on the above-described interpretation of Little in view of Walker, Washington does not appear to cure the above-described deficiencies of Little in view of Walker. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 3 and 14 are each patentably distinguished over Little in view of Walker in view of Washington and are in condition for allowance. An earnest endeavor has been made to place this application in condition for allowance and is courteously solicited. Moreover, while the Office Action makes various statements regarding the pending claims and the cited references that are now moot in light of the above, Applicant expressly reserves the right to challenge such statements in the future should the need arise (e.g., if any such statement should become relevant by appearing in a rejection of any current or future claim). If the Examiner has any questions related to this Response, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner contact the undersigned.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1-20. Little (20220156872) does teach: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: during a first period of time: identify a user at a gaming establishment device operating independent of the / and track an amount of activity associated with the identified user at the gaming establishment device, the tracked amount of activity being independent of any play of any game available at the gaming establishment device, / and after the first period of time and responsive to an occurrence of a gaming establishment loyalty benefit determination event: determine a gaming establishment loyalty benefit based on a random determination applied to the tracked amount of activity that previously occurred during the first period of time / and responsive to a gaming establishment loyalty benefit realization event, associate the determined gaming establishment loyalty benefit with a gaming establishment account of the identified user, as noted above; however, Little does not teach the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/10/12. When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
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 extension fee 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 ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
2/18/2026