DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 28, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
Step 1 – Statutory category?
Claims 1-12 are directed to processes and claim 13 is directed to an apparatus, each which constitute at least one of the four statutory classes of invention and therefore pass step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One – Abstract idea?
Claim 1 is treated as representative of the independent claims. Claims 2-12 depend therefrom.
Claim 1 recites, as summarized:
receiving, by a computing device, an indication that a token is associated with a gaming account;
associating the gaming account with the token;
receiving an indication that the token has been presented to a first gaming device, and in response, transferring funds from the gaming account to a first temporary account at the first gaming device;
receiving an indication that the token has been removed from the first gaming device and, in response, transferring remaining funds back from the first temporary account to the gaming account so that the gaming account contains “second funds”;
receiving an indication that the token has been presented to a second gaming device and, in response, transferring at least a portion of the second funds from the gaming account to a second temporary account at the second gaming device.
These steps collectively describe managing monetary value between a central gaming account and device-level specific temporary accounts responsive to when a player’s token is currently in use.
This is a form of:
fundamental economic practice or funds / account management (e.g. receiving funds, attributing them to an account, transferring portions between accounts, reconciling balances, etc.); and
organizing human activity in a gaming context (e.g. controller how a player’s bankroll is distributed as the player moved between gaming devices).
Such financial and accounting schemes and methods of organizing human activity are recognized as abstract ideas under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The operations of receiving indications, deciding where funds reside, and updating balances are also information processing and mathematical concepts (e.g. maintain ledge balances for a main account and device-level accounts) that can, at a conceptual level, be carried out as mental steps or wit pen and paper.
Dependent claims 2-12:
Claims 2 & 4 recite possible potential forms of user identifiers;
Claim 3 recites funding wagers with money from accounts;
Claims 5-7 recite varying operators and gaming device types or wager tracking;
Claims 8-11 recite multi-jurisdictional authentication management; and
Claim 12 recites a label for the generic computing device (i.e. a server).
All of these remain within the scope of economic practices, legal or regulatory compliance, and management of gaming behavior. They do not introduce non-abstract subject matter.
Accordingly, claims 1-13 are directed to an abstract idea encompassing fundamental economic practices and methods of organizing human activity (e.g. accounts and funds management, wagering limits, regulator checks, etc.) and associated mental and/or mathematical concepts.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Integration into a practical application?
The additional elements in the claims beyond the abstract idea include:
a computing device or one or more computing devices (e.g. a server of an account service provider, claim 12);
gaming devices (e.g. first and second gaming devices that are publicly available slot machines); and
a “token” (e.g. a card or phone) associated with a gaming account which is “presented to” and “removed from” the gaming devices.
The elements are recited generically, and the claims do not require i) any particular improvement to the functioning of a computer, server, or gaming devices, ii) any specific data structures, messaging or communication protocols, or security mechanisms that go beyond standard receiving and processing of transaction communications; or iii) any improvement to the operation of the slot machines or the computing devices.
Instead, the claims merely use conventional computers and gaming devices as a platform on which the abstract account and funds management is implemented. This is the type of “apply it on a computer” implementation that the Guidance identifies is insufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. The presence of real world slot machines, sportsbooks, different gaming operators, and such in the claim language are environmental context for where the economic activity occurs, rather than any significant limitations that transform the claimed subject matter into a technological invention.
Accordingly, claims 1-3 do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B – Inventive step?
As discussed above, the hardware and implementation elements are generic.
The computing device(s) perform routine operations of receiving, indications, updating account records and transferring balances. The gaming device(s) that fund wagers from a balance and send presence/removal indications based on a “token” are standard capabilities of networked gaming systems. The “token” is used merely to identify players and link them to accounts, which is common in payment and player-tracking systems. The novelty, if any, lies in the business logic of how funds are allocated between a central gaming account and device-level temporary accounts and how those balances move as the player’s token is presented and removed from one gaming device to another. This is precisely the kind of abstract financial and regulatory scheme that cannot supply an inventive step when implemented on generic computing equipment.
The dependent claims adding wager funding behavior, cross-operator restriction tracking, multi-jurisdictional authentication, operator notifications, etc. refine the business logic but do not introduce any unconventional computing components or technical improvements.
Considering the elements as an ordered combination, the claims recite nothing more than a conventional centralized account system applied to gaming device, where a server maintains a main account and device-level accounts temporarily store funds for local temporary use and the server updates funds tracking in response to token in or token out device generated indications. This is not “significantly more” than the underlying abstract idea as it only requires well-understood, routine, and conventional implementation via generic computing elements as claimed. (See Schueller of record, and as cited in the rejection below, for support).
For at least these reasons, claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 12, & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schueller et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0065666; hereinafter “Schueller”).
Claims 1 & 13: Schueller discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device (figures 1, 4), a first indication that a token is associated with a gaming account (paragraphs 0016-0017, wherein Schueller discloses associating an eTITO device to a gaming account, the eTITO device interpreted as a token equal to Applicant’s definition of a token in Applicant’s specification at paragraph 0018, wherein a token includes such items as a card, an RFID device, an NFC-enabled cell phone, or the like; Schueller similarly discloses the eTITO device may be an NFC enabled cell phone or a card with a chip, however regardless of the form the eTITO device takes, the device includes means to identify the player and an associated gaming account; see also abstract, paragraph 0003);
in response to receiving the first indication, associating, by the computing device, the gaming account with the token (i.e. when issuing the eTITO device to the player, the gaming account of the player is associated with the token or eTITO device; see paragraphs 0007, 0044);
receiving, by the computing device, funds for the gaming account (paragraphs 0017, 0020, wherein Schueller discloses a user may deposit funds into their gaming account, such as via a kiosk);
in response to receiving the funds, attributing, by the computing device, the funds to the gaming account (i.e. deposited funds at a kiosk are associated with the eTITO device and thus associated with the gaming account of the eTITO device);
receiving, by the computing device, a second indication from a first gaming device that the token has been presented to the first gaming device (paragraphs 0015-0077, wherein Schueller is replete in disclosing the tokens or eTITO devices are presented to electronic gaming machines, such as a first EGM, the presentation may include proximity to an NFC transmitter, insertion of a card, or the like depending upon the form of the eTITO device, nonetheless, an indication is received that the eTITO device has been presented to the first EGM to facilitate funds transfer services);
in response to receiving the second indication from the first gaming device, transferring, by the computing device, at least a portion of the funds from the gaming account to a first temporary account at the first gaming device (i.e. in response to the eTITO device being presented at the first EGM, at least a portion of the funds in the player’s gaming account can be moved to the first EGM for performing wagering or the like on the first EGM; notably Schueller is replete with disclosure indicating movement of funds into and out of EGMs, such that a user ‘cashes out’ of a first EGM before moving to a second EGM, thus clearly indicating at least a portion of the funds from a player’s gaming account are transferred to a first temporary account at the first EGM, such as a credit meter on a slot machine);
receiving, by the computing device, a third indication from the first gaming device that the token has been removed from the first gaming device (paragraphs 0064, 0075, wherein based on the form of the eTITO device, Schueller discloses various indications that the token has been “removed from” the first EGM, such as when a player wishes to cash out of the first EGM, in one embodiment of an NFC enabled cell phone as the token, the player can be prompted to hold their cell phone near the NFC transmitter to close the session, or in an alternative embodiment where a card is the token, the card may be resident within the first EGM and be physical removed during the cash out process; it is noted that Applicant’s specification recites “In some embodiments, a user may when a token is removed and/or a user otherwise finishes gaming with a gaming operator operating gaming device 403, such as by the user leaving the gaming device, log off, removing the token, and/or take any other ending action, money may be moved from one account into another account.” – which appears to set forth substantially similar mechanisms for the token being “removed from” the first EGM);
in response to receiving the third indication from the first gaming device, transferring, by the computing device, remaining funds in the first temporary account to the gaming account so that the gaming account contains a second funds (i.e. the cashing out from the first EGM moves the funds back to the gaming account associated with the token, such that the gaming account now contains seconds funds, such as higher or lower funds resulting from any wagering activity on the first EGM);
receiving, by the computing device, a fourth indication from a second gaming device that the token has been presented to the second gaming device (paragraphs 0015-0077, wherein Schueller repeatedly indicates the eTITO device is utilized for moving from machine to machine, such that the same process identified above would occur again when the player presents their token at a second EGM); and
in response to receiving the fourth indication from the second gaming device, transferring, by the computing device, at least a portion of the second funds from the gaming account to a second temporary account at the second gaming device (i.e. as discussed above, the same process occurs in response to the player presenting the token at a second EGM, such that some or all of the funds in the player’s gaming account are transferred to the second EGM for use at the second EGM; notably TITO in the context of Schueller explicitly means transfer-in and transfer-out, such that clearly the electronic TITO device is used to transfer funds into and out of EGMs),
wherein the first gaming device comprises a first publicly available slot machine, and wherein the second gaming device comprises a second publicly available slot machine (paragraphs 0002, 0006, and generally the entirety of the Schueller discusses electronic gaming machines facilitating funds transfers from machine-to-machine using the eTITO device in a casino environment, as such the first and second gaming devices or first and second EGMs are publicly available slot machines to patrons within said casino environment).
Regarding claim 13, all of the above applies, where Schueller similarly discloses an apparatus comprising one or more computing devices and a non-transitory medium having stored thereon a plurality of instructions that when executed by the computing device causes the one or more computing devices to perform the method detailed above.
Claims 2 & 4: As detailed above, Schueller discloses a variety of tokens or eTITO devices including a card and a phone (paragraphs 0015-0077).
Claim 3: Schueller discloses funding wagers at the first EGM using funds in the first temporary account (i.e. as discussed above, the eTITO device enables moving some or all funds from the player’s gaming account to the first EGM’s credit meter or the like, and using the funds thereon for wagering).
Claim 12: Schueller discloses the computing device includes a server of an account service provider (figure 1[SAS Host 116]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schueller et al. in view of Burman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0102956; hereinafter “Burman”).
Claim 5: Schueller discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for explicitly disclosing that the first gaming device is a first gaming device of a first gaming operator and the second gaming device is a second gaming device of a second gaming operator. Nonetheless, Burman discloses a first gaming device is a first gaming device of a first gaming operator and a second gaming device is a second gaming device of a second gaming operator (paragraph 0111, wherein Burman discloses that casinos are often related to other casinos, thus implementing use of a portal device across different casinos or properties would have been beneficial to the related properties, providing a teaching that those skilled in the art would have found it obvious to utilizing portal devices, such as the eTITO device of Schueller across different casinos or the like, thus a first EGM may be operated by one gaming operator while a second EGM may be operated by a second gaming operator). In addition, those skilled in the art would have found it obvious in view of the state of the gaming industry to utilize the eTITO device or token of Schueller across multiple gaming operators (e.g. different casinos) as the same has been implemented for loyalty or player tracking systems for decades. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schueller to enable use of the eTITO devices across EGMs operated by a plurality of gaming operators in order to facilitate loyalty to a particular set of game operators based on the teachings of Burman and common knowledge to skilled artisans before the time of Applicant’s invention.
Claim 6: Schueller discloses tracking wagering restrictions across both the first and second gaming device (i.e. in a broadest reasonable interpretation, the eTITO device tracking the available funds equates to tracking wager restrictions across the first and second EGM, such that the player is able to wager the amount of available funds as the player moves from EGM to EGM, granted more money may be deposited, however, without such a deposit the tracking of available funds equates to tracking of wagering restrictions).
Claim 7: Schueller discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the first gaming device being a sportsbook and that the second gaming device being a slot machine. Schueller does disclose a variety of EGM types (paragraph 0002), but fails to disclose a sportsbook. Nonetheless, Burman teaches the first gaming device can include a "sportsbook” or “"horse racing” and second gaming device can include slot machines (paragraphs 0037, 0093). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the eTITO device and processes disclosed by Schueller in a variety of gaming devices within a casino or the like, such as a sportsbook, as taught by Burman, as these devices are well-known types of gaming devices within casinos and the operator would have benefited from enabling the eTITO device to be utilized at a sportsbook machine similarly to at a slot machine.
Claims 8-11: Schueller discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for explicitly disclosing authenticating a user associated with the token according to at least two different jurisdictional requirements, in which authenticating includes at least one of verifying proof of age and verifying proof of address; and in response to receiving the second indication, verifying that the user has authenticated in accordance with a first jurisdictional requirement of the first gaming device and notifying the first gaming device that the user is authenticated according to the first jurisdictional requirement. Nonetheless, Burman teaches tracking jurisdictional restrictions across a gaming network based on location of gaming devices (paragraphs 0049, 0050, 0064-0073, 0114, 0119 and figures 5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further implement jurisdictional requirement tracking shown by Burman into the Schueller as detailed above, in order to comply with jurisdictional restrictions that are in place within a number of different gaming areas, such as different states or countries having respective jurisdictional requirements. Utilizing the teachings of Burman, those skilled in the art would have possessed the common knowledge and routine skill to assess multiple jurisdictional requirements, such as when the eTITO device of Schueller is to be utilized across gaming operators located in different jurisdictional areas (e.g. casino properties in New Jersey and Las Vegas abide by different jurisdictional restrictions governed by respective gaming commissions). Regarding claim 9, in view of the above obviousness to integrate jurisdictional restrictions, the combination of Schueller and Burman additionally make obvious that in response to the fourth indication (i.e. when the player is at the second EGM), verifying the player has authenticated in accordance with a second jurisdictional requirement of the first gaming device and notifying the second gaming device that the user is authenticated according to the second jurisdictional requirement. Regarding claim 10, in view of the above obviousness to integrate jurisdictional restrictions, clearly the first and second jurisdictional requirements may differ based on the respective jurisdictions, such as in the example above of Las Vegas versus New Jersey and their respective gaming commissions setting forth differing jurisdictional requirements. Regarding claim 11, in view of the above obviousness to integrate jurisdictional restrictions, it would have been obvious that notifying the first gaming device includes providing information used to meet the first jurisdictional requirements to the first gaming device (e.g. information is transmitted from the eTITO device of Schueller to the EGM for authentication, thus including the jurisdictional requirements in the authentication process would have been obvious; see paragraph 0019 of Schueller).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILAP SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1723. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:30-6PM.
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, Kang Hu can be reached on 571-270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights