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 .
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
3. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/936,691 filed on 11/04/2024.
4. This application is a continuation of U.S. application No. 18/936,691 filed on 05/23/2023 now U.S Patent 12,170,001 See MPEP 201.07. In accordance with MPEP 609.02 A.2 and MPEP 2001.06 (b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP 2001.06 (b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Patent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP 609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Patent Application is relevant in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. IDS filed on 11/04/2024 is considered.
6. Drawings filed on 11/04/2024 are noted.
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.
8. Claims 1, 10, 12, and all dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the limitation of: “a method of operating a system”.
The limitation of operating a system , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claims preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element – using a processor to determine whether an event occurs in association with an account, wherein a first amount of funds are maintained in association with the account and the first amount of funds are not withdrawable from the account for a first corresponding amount of government-issued currency to perform both operating and determining steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer facilitating access to financial transactions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In the instant case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of responsive to the determination being that the event occurs, causing, by the processor, a transfer of a second amount of funds from the account to a cashless wagering account, wherein the transferred second amount of funds are not withdrawable from the cashless wagering account for a second corresponding amount of government-issue currency. Thus, taken alone, the additional element fails to ensure the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Double Patenting
9. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970);and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 of this application no. 18/936,691 recites:
A system comprising:
A processor; and
A memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
Determine whether an event occurs in association with an account, wherein a first amount of funds are maintained in association with the account and the first amount of funds are not withdrawable from the account for a first corresponding amount of government-issued currency, and
Responsive to the determination being that the event occurs, cause a transfer of a second amount of funds from the account to a cashless wagering account, wherein the transferred second amount of funds are not withdrawable from the cashless wagering account for a second corresponding amount of government-issued currency.
Claim 1 of patent no. 12,170,001 recites:
A system comprising:
A processor; and
A memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
Maintain a balance of funds in association with a gaming establishment retail account, wherein the balance of funds are not withdrawable from the gaming establishment retail account for a corresponding amount of currency, and
Responsive to an occurrence of an event, automatically cause a transfer of at least part of the balance of funds from the gaming establishment retail account to a cashless wagering account.
The difference between claim 1 of application no. 18/936,691 and US patent no. 12,170,001 is the addition of the limitations of: cause a transfer of a second amount of funds from the account to a cashless wagering account, wherein the transferred second amount of funds are not withdrawable from the cashless wagering account for a second corresponding amount of government-issued currency.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Pat. 12,170,001. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to those in possession of the invention defined by claims 1-20 to observe that the limitations described in claims 1-20 are already incorporated in claims 1-20 of U.S. Pat. No.12,170,001. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that by addition the limitations of: “: cause a transfer of a second amount of funds from the account to a cashless wagering account, wherein the transferred second amount of funds are not withdrawable from the cashless wagering account for a second corresponding amount of government-issued currency” is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PIERRE E ELISCA whose telephone number is (571) 272-6706 and email address: pierre.elisca@uspto.gov. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday; 6:30 AM- 5:30 PM. Hoteler.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Hu Kang 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.
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.
/PIERRE E ELISCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights