DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/949,700 filed on 11/15/2024.
3. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and has been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. IDSs are considered.
5. Drawings filed 11/15/2024 are noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention.
For example, in claim 19, Applicant has failed to clearly link and associate the “means for/to phrase” to any corresponding structure. To avoid additional 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph rejections, the Examiner recommends Applicant to review his claims.
It appears the Applicant is attempting to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph in claim 1 by using “means-plus-function” language, such as “means for applying” in the claims.
In order to successfully invoke the sixth paragraph, a three-prong test must be met. Namely, (1) the claim must use means-plus-function or step-plus-function language, (2) the claim itself must not provide structural limitations to the means-plus-function, or step-plus-function language, and (3) the specification must recite explicit physical structural limitations for the means-plus-function, or step-plus-function language in the claim. While the above claims pass the first two prongs of the three prong test, they do not pass the third prong.
There is no explicit recitation in the specification of any physical structures to perform the functions of the means-plus-function or step-plus-function limitations in the claim. The only “structure” for performing the functions in the above claims appears to be computer program modules (i.e virtual structure, not physical structure). Therefore, 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph has not been successfully invoked. The Examiner will consider the means or steps to perform the claimed functions as any means or steps, physical or virtual, which can perform the function.
If applicant whishes to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant is required to amend the claim so that the phase “step for” is clearly not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant is required to amend the claim so that it will clearly not be a means (or step) plus function limitation (e.g., deleting the phrase “means for”).
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 1-19 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 claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant invention appears to encompass two automated systems in claims 1 and 19. However, claims 1 and 19 are written in a way with no associated structure --- “in combination… by a computer system…” renders the claim not clear if the computer system is part of the claimed automated system and thus no physicality claimed for the automated system. Under this interpretation, claims 1-19 are NOT directed to one of the four statutory categories and do NOT meet the requirements of step 1.
If under the interpretation that the applicant is trying to claim an automated system comprising a computer system in claims 1 and 19, the instant invention encompasses an automated process in claims 1-19 (i.e., machine). Then claims 1-19 are directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the requirements of step 1.
Step 2A
Prong One
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-19 recite the rules steps for “use with loan and/or warrantying for the warrantying, settling, requesting, approving, processing, and/or managing of credit provided for use in wager gaming and related activities, including 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” [0003].
Claim 1. An automated casino wager gaming credit management system providing for a third party casino operator, in combination: in association with one or more wager games provide by the casino operator:
by a computer system, providing a plurality of individual virtual player wagering credit accounts;
by the computer system, consolidating into a single win/loss aggregate game period settlement pool all virtual player wagering account credit used by the plurality of players net of winnings during a predetermined time game period;
by the computer system, after the completion of a game period, having acquired from the third party casino operator at least a participation interest in at least a portion of one or more receivables associated with the single win/loss aggregate game period settlement pool.
These steps are directed to the process for requesting, approving, processing, and/or managing of credit associated with wagering activity for a player, which is fundamental economic principles or practices or commercial or legal interactions. Therefore, the claimed invention is grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity.
Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implement on a computer or mobile device, or merely using a computer or mobile device as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use is not considered integration into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a computer system. By failing to explain the details of the computer system, it is reasonable that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the system is limited to a generic computer implementation with generic network connection. The claims do not recite any elements that appear to limit the invention to a particular machine. Thus the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires 'more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words 'apply it."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].'" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a computer system. By failing to explain the details of the computer system, it is reasonable that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the system is limited to a generic computer implementation with generic network connection. The computer implementation merely helps to automate the commercial or legal interactions during wager gaming playing using the applied advance of money or value. The claim fails to improve the recited technological field.
The claims are generally linked to implement an abstract idea on a computer. When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an abstract idea without "significantly more", and thus not patent eligible.
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. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday; 6:30AM- 5:30PMPM. Hoteler.
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, 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