Detailed Action
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the point-of-sale terminal.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is summarized as follows:
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. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998), 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).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
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 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/975749 (herein ‘749).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘749 claim 1 contains all of the limitations of claim 1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
18/975832 (This application)
18/975749
1. A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following a purchase transaction requested against a dedicated bank account associated with a gaming establishment account, cause the processor to: determine whether to apply any discounts in association with the purchase transaction, responsive to
1. A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following a purchase transaction requested against a dedicated bank account associated with a gaming establishment account, cause the processor to: determine whether to apply any discounts in association with the purchase transaction, responsive to a plurality of discounts being available and the determination being to apply a first discount of the plurality of discounts in association with the purchase transaction: communicate, to a component of a retail system, data associated with the applied first discount, and cause a first determination of whether to complete the purchase transaction to occur, the first determination being based, at least in part, on an amount of funds associated with the purchase transaction reduced by the applied first discount and an amount of funds associated with the dedicated bank account, and responsive to the plurality of discounts being available and the determination being to apply a second, different discount of the plurality of discounts in association with the purchase transaction: communicate, to the component of the retail system, data associated with the applied second, different discount, and cause a second determination of whether to complete the purchase transaction to occur, the second determination being based, at least in part, on the amount of funds associated with the purchase transaction reduced by the applied second, different discount and the amount of funds associated with the dedicated bank account.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
The claim(s) recite(s), inter alia,
determine whether to apply any discounts in association with a purchase transaction
responsive to the determination being to apply a discount in association with the purchase transaction. communicate, to a component of a retail system, data associated with the applied discount
cause a first determination of whether to complete the purchase transaction to occur, the first determination being based, at least in part, on an amount of funds associated with the purchase transaction reduced by the applied discount and an amount of funds associated with the dedicated bank account
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 1-20 relate to settling financial obligations, which has been held to be an abstract fundamental economic practice. See Alice, Id. at 220; In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Representative claim 1 recites the additional elements of a “processor,” “memory” and a “point-of-sale terminal.” Specifically, these additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, are not integrated into a practical application because:
Processor — is described in the published specification with a high degree of generality:
[0088] The at least one processor is any suitable processing device or set of processing devices, such as a microprocessor, a microcontroller-based platform, a suitable integrated circuit, or one or more application-specific integrated circuits (AS I Cs), configured to execute software enabling various configuration and reconfiguration tasks.
Thus, it would be reasonable to interpret them as generic computing devices.
Memory — is also described in the published specification with a high degree of generality:
[0089] The controller also includes at least one memory device, which includes: (1) volatile memory (e.g., RAM which can include non-volatile RAM, magnetic RAM, ferroelectric RAM, and any other suitable forms); (2) nonvolatile memory (e.g., disk memory, FLASH memory, EPROMs, EEPROMs, memristor-based non-volatile solid-state memory, etc.); (3) unalterable memory ( e.g., EPROMs); (4) read-only memory; and/or (5) a secondary memory storage device, such as a non-volatile memory device, configured to store software related information
Thus, it would again be reasonable to interpret them as generic computing devices.
Point-of-Sale Terminal — is described in the published specification with a high degree of generality and specific features are not claimed. Therefore, it would be reasonable to interpret this feature as a routine and conventional computing device.
The remaining claims are similarly related to settling financial obligations and do not contribute additional features that would qualify as “significantly more” under the Alice rubric.
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) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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, 9, 10, 12-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aissa (US 2012/0330744 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aissa discloses a system comprising a processor and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions (Fig. 3) that, when executed by the processor following a purchase transaction requested against a dedicated bank account (306) associated with a gaming establishment account (702: statement of intended use), cause the processor to determine whether to apply any discounts in association with the purchase transaction (Fig. 10: (2)), and responsive to the determination being to apply a discount in association with the purchase transaction communicate, to a component of a retail system, data associated with the applied discount (Fig. 10: (3)), and cause a first determination of whether to complete the purchase transaction to occur (Fig. 10: (5)), the first determination being based, at least in part, on an amount of funds associated with the purchase transaction reduced by the applied discount and an amount of funds associated with the dedicated bank account (Fig. 10: (5)).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Aissa discloses responsive to the determination being not to apply any discount in association with the purchase transaction, cause the processor to cause a second determination of whether to complete the purchase transaction to occur, the second determination being based at least in part, on the amount of funds associated with the purchase transaction and the amount of funds associated with the dedicated bank account (Fig. 10: (6)).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Aissa discloses communicating an authorization to the component of the retail system to complete the purchase transaction (Fig. 10: (7)).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Aissa discloses wherein the component of the retail system comprises a point-of sale terminal (100).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Aissa discloses wherein the determination whether to apply any discounts in association with the purchase transaction is based on a preconfigured discount associated with the retail system (Fig. 5: 501 – 504).
Regarding claim 10, Aissa discloses system comprising: a processor, and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions (Fig. 3) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to responsive to a receipt of data associated with a purchase transaction associated with a first amount of funds (Fig. 10: (2)) that is initiated at a point-of-sale terminal (100) in association with a dedicated bank account (306) associated with a gaming establishment account (702: statement of intended use), automatically apply a discount to the purchase transaction (Fig. 10: (3)) and enable the purchase transaction to be completed for a second amount of funds that is less than the first amount of funds (Fig. 10: (5)), and responsive to a receipt of data associated with a purchase transaction associated with the first amount of funds that is initiated at the point-of-sale terminal independent of any dedicated bank account associated with any gaming establishment account, enable the purchase transaction to be completed for the first amount of funds (Fig. 10: (6)).
Claim 12 recites a method comprising substantially the same steps as those in claim 1 above; it is according rejected for the same reasons given supra.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. If this application names joint inventors, Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-8, 11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aissa in view of Rowe et al (US 2005/0054439 A1).
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 16, Rowe suggests—where Aissa does not disclose—responsive to the first determination being to complete the purchase transaction, causing the processor to communicate a retail rating associated with the purchase transaction to a component of a gaming establishment system (¶ [0059]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Aissa and Rowe in order to identify high value customers.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Rowe suggests—where Aissa does not disclose—wherein the retail rating comprises at least one of an amount of fund associated with the purchase transaction, a location of the purchase transaction, an identification of a user associated with the purchase transaction, an identification of the point-of-sale terminal, a date of the purchase transaction, a time of the purchase transaction, an identification of each item associated with the purchase transaction, and an amount of funds associated with each item associated with the purchase transaction (¶ [0059]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Aissa and Rowe in order to identify high value customers.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Rowe suggests—where Aissa does not disclose— wherein the gaming establishment system comprises a patron management system (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Aissa and Rowe in order to identify high value customers.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Rowe suggests—where Aissa does not disclose—communicating data associated with a redemption of the applied discount to a component of a gaming establishment system (¶ [0131]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the disclosures of Aissa and Rowe in order to identify high value customers.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
Khatri et al (US 20230097213 A1) discloses a cash discount program for point-of-sale systems.
Celori0-Martinez et al (US 20160092908 A1) discloses a cash discount program for point-of-sale systems.
Gilman et al (US 20140081737 A1) discloses real-time discounts at point-of-sale terminals.
Bjorn et al (US 20130124287 A1) discloses point-of-sale terminal discounts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights