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 . This CON case does not have a co-pending or prior issued parent application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
4. Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to an apparatus or method meeting the requirements for Step 1.
5. Step 2A Prong 1
In independent Claim 1 (and similarly for Claims 9 and 13), the following bolded steps recite an abstract idea of financial processes which is an abstract certain method of organizing human activity. This claim is similar to the claim of naming various casino accounts and measures to open accounts and move funds from one place to another found abstract (See PTAB Appeal 2022-0004307 Decision on Application 15/852,602 affirm Examiner’s rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 reproduced here for comparison to the instant claims).
In Reference to Claim 1
A gaming establishment fund management system comprising:
a processor distinct from and operable with each of a server of a hotel payment system and a server of a gaming establishment credit system; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to a receipt, from the server of the hotel payment system operating independent of the processor, of data determined by the processor to correspond to an anticipated line of credit use event occurring in association with a first hotel activity associated with the hotel payment system, communicate, to the server of the gaming establishment credit system operating independent of the processor, user data obtained in association with the first hotel activity that, subject to approval of the server of the gaming establishment credit system, enables the gaming establishment credit system in opening a gaming establishment line of credit associated with a user, wherein the user data is obtained independent of any gaming establishment line of credit application and the gaming establishment line of credit associated with the user is opened via a first quantity of inputs received from the user that is less than a second quantity of inputs received from the uscr in association with an opening of the gaming establishment line of credit occurring independent of the anticipated line of credit use event occurring in association with the first hotel activity, and
responsive to a receipt, from the server of the hotel payment system, of data associated with a second hotel activity occurring in association with the hotel payment system:
automatically determine, based on data received from the server of the gaming establishment credit system, any amount of any outstanding gaming establishment line of credit liability of the user,
responsive to an amount of an outstanding gaming establishment line of credit liability of the user, cause a line of credit settlement event to automatically occur in association with the second hotel activity, and
responsive to the line of credit settlement event automatically occurring in association with the second hotel activity and independent of any inputs received from the user to settle the amount of the outstanding gaming establishment line of credit liability of the user, communicate, to the server of the gaming establishment credit system, data that enables the amount of the outstanding gaming establishment line of credit liability of the user being automatically settled via a payment instrument selected by the user prior to the second hotel activity.
In Reference to Claim 9
9. A system comprising:
a processor distinct from and operable with each of a server of a hotel payment system and a server of a gaming establishment credit system; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
responsive to a receipt, from the server of the hotel payment system operating independent of the processor, of data determined by the processor to correspond to an anticipated line of credit use event occurring based on a hotel activity occurring in association with the hotel payment system:
independent of any inputs received from a user to apply for a gaming establishment line of credit, automatically communicate user data to the server of the gaming establishment credit system operating independent of the processor, the user data being obtained during the hotel activity, and
responsive to a reccipt of data associated with the gaming establishment credit system preapproving, based on the user data obtained during the hotel activity, a gaming establishment line of credit associated with the user, communicate data which results in a display device displaying an amount of credit available to be activated by the user in association with the gaming establishment line of credit.
In Reference to Claim 13
13. A method of operating a gaming establishment fund management system, the method comprising:
responsive to a receipt, from a server of a hotel payment system operating independent of a processor of the gaming establishment fund management system, of data determined by the processor to correspond to an anticipated line of credit use event occurring in association with a first hotel activity associated with the hotel payment system, communicating, to a server of a gaming establishment credit system operating independent of the processor gaming establishment fund management system, user data obtained in association with the first hotel activity that, subject to approval of the server of the gaming establishment credit system, enables the gaming establishment credit system in opening a gaming establishment line of credit associated with a user, wherein the user data is obtained independent of any gaming establishment line of credit application and the gaming establishment line of credit associated with the user is opened via a first quantity of inputs received from the user that is less than a second quantity of inputs received from the user in association with an opening of the gaming establishment line of credit occurring independent of the anticipated line of credit use event occurring in association with the first hotel activity, and
responsive to a receipt, from the server of the hotel payment system, of data associated with a second hotel activity occurring in association with the hotel payment system:
automatically determining, by the processor of the gaming establishment fund management system and based on data received from the server of the gaming establishment credit system, any amount of any outstanding gaming establishment line of credit liability of the user,
responsive to an amount of an outstanding gaming establishment line of credit liability of the user, causing a line of credit settlement event to automatically occur in association with the second hotel activity, and
responsive to the line of credit settlement event automatically occurring in association with the second hotel activity and independent of any inputs received from the user to settle the amount of the outstanding gaming establishment line of credit liability of the user, communicating, to the server of the gaming establishment credit system, data that enables the amount of the outstanding gaming establishment line of credit liability of the user being automatically settled via a payment instrument selected by the user prior to the second hotel activity.
For Reference, Application 15/585,602, the PTAB opined (Decision 6 filed 3/28/2024) “[w]ith respect to Prong One of Step 2A, we agree with the Examiner that independent claim 1 recites a "fundamental economic practice" and thus recites an "abstract idea." (Final Act. 4.) Independent claim 1 sets forth financial-transaction steps that would be performed when transacting a purchase that can be funded by plural financial accounts. Specifically, claim 1 sets forth receiving "a request to withdraw a first amount of currency from a first financial account as part of a purchase transaction," "determining whether to transfer a second amount of currency from a second financial account to the first financial account," "responsive to determining to transfer the second amount of currency, automatically transferring the second amount of currency from the second financial account to the first financial account," and "withdrawing the first amount of currency from the first financial account as part of the purchase transaction.” (Appeal Br. Claims App.)” (Dec. 7). The PTAB also found that the identification of various financial accounts “[a]s financial accounts are subject to regulatory rules, and are commonly categorized by descriptive names, these recited features are embedded in the fundamental economic practice of transacting a purchase that can be funded by plural financial accounts and as to the transfer determination the PTAB found “[a]s financial-transfer determinations are commonly based on relevant balances, and are legally obligated to follow regulatory rules, these recited features are also embedded in the fundamental economic practice of transacting a purchase that can be funded by plural financial accounts.” (Dec. 7).
Claim 1 is as follows:
1. (Previously Presented) A method comprising:
receiving, at a server comprising a processing device, a request to withdraw a first amount of currency from a first financial account as part of a purchase transaction, the first financial account being a retail account that is subject to a first set of regulatory rules;
responsive to receiving the request, determining whether to transfer a second amount of currency from a second financial account to the first financial account based on a balance of the first financial account, the first set of regulatory rules, and a second set of regulatory rules associated with the second financial account, the second financial account being a cashless wagering account that is subject to the second set of regulator rules;
responsive to determining to transfer the second amount of currency, automatically transferring the second amount of currency from the second financial account to the first financial account; and
withdrawing the first amount of currency from the first financial account as part of the purchase transaction.
Thus, Claims 1, 9 and 10 are abstract certain methods of organizing human activity and are similar to the PTAB Decision.
6. Step 2A Prong II
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. According to MPEP 2106 (incorporating 2019 PEG), a consideration indicative of integration into a practical application includes improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular application (a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Here, Applicant discloses that the use of processors, memory, and instructions are merely used as tools to create a computing environment where ”[t]he 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 (ASICs), configured to execute software enabling various configuration and reconfiguration tasks.” [0071] Also, “[t]hese computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable instruction execution apparatus, create a mechanism for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.” [0078]. Lastly, “[i]n various embodiments, part or all of the program code and/or the operating data described above is stored in at least one detachable or removable memory device including, but not limited to, a cartridge, a disk, a CD ROM, a DVD, a USB memory device, or any other suitable non-transitory computer readable medium.” [0079].
Applicant’s specification does not disclose that the processor, memory, or instructions are directed to a technological solution to a technological problem that “overcome some sort of technical difficulty.” citing ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 768 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Consequently, these devices are viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions (abstract financial process/abstract rules of a game) to the technological environment of a computer or as a means to automate the steps. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
There does not appear to be any extra-solution activity but for the above devices employed as tools.
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the steps needed to be performed, using the system and processor as tools. While this type of automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality).
Accordingly, Claims 1, 9, and 13, as a whole, do not integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application and the Claims remain directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 1, and similarly Claims 9 and 13, lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
7. Step 2B
According to MPEP 2106, in addition to the considerations discussed in Step 2A, an additional consideration indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) is the addition of a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Conversely, an additional consideration not indicative of an inventive concept is simply appending well-understood, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
As Examiner has noted above as part of Step 2A, there are no elements evaluated under Step 2A but for the devices used as tools i.e., no extra-solution activity elements to be re-evaluated.
Thus, Claim 1, and similarly Claims 9 and 13, do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, Claims 1, 9 and 13 are ineligible.
8. Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-12, and 14-20
Claims 2-8, 10-12, and 14-20 recite additional abstract rules.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0225710 to Paelinck in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0187012 to Walker.
In Reference to Claims 1 and 13
Paelinck discloses a gaming establishment fund management system (Fig. 2), comprising:
a processor distinct from and operable with each of a server of a hotel payment system (servers of LMS 150 and CMS 140) and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (programming [0046], storage [0044, 0048]), cause the processor to:
responsive to a receipt, from the server of the hotel payment system operating
independent of the processor, of data determined by the processor to correspond to an
anticipated line of credit use event occurring in association with a first hotel activity
associated with the hotel payment system (“CMS 140, LMS 150, an EMS 160, a POS 170, a SMS 180, and a PTS 190 are used to track patrons' gaming and non-gaming activity at a plurality of affiliated casino properties communicatively coupled by a WAN, see also a patrol stays at a hotel [0040] and billing information due to a patrons stay in the hotel is data corresponding to an anticipated line of credit use event because the patron is staying at a casino affiliated hotel and establishing a billing history),
communicate, to the server of the gaming establishment credit system operating independent of the processor (CMS 140), user data obtained in association with the first hotel activity that ([0030, 0040]), and
responsive to a receipt, from the server of the hotel payment system, of data associated
with a second hotel activity occurring in association with the hotel payment system (“These other activities include but are not limited to making a reservation, staying in a hotel, purchasing an item in a retail environment, eating at a restaurant, and attending a show or other events” [0030], checking in and checking out of hotel [0040]).
However, Paelinck is silent wherein this system automatically extends a line of credit to a patron and the steps to settle any debts. One of skill in the art would be aware of the extension of credit system of Walker.
Walker teaches of making loan offers (Figs. 9 and 11) to:
automatically determine, based on data received from the server of the gaming establishment credit system, any amount of any outstanding gaming establishment line of credit liability of the user (system is checking for credit risk of the patron [0025, 0026, player‘s credit worthiness [0027], line of credit [0031] and tracking activities debt [0031. 0032, 0040 as part of system data sharing), and
responsive to the line of credit settlement event automatically occurring in association with the second hotel activity and independent of any inputs received from the user to settle the amount of the outstanding gaming establishment line of credit liability of the user, communicate, to the server of the gaming establishment credit system, data that enables the amount of the outstanding gaming establishment line of credit liability of the user being automatically settled via a payment instrument selected by the user prior to the second hotel activity (patron has a credit card on file with hotel and uses the credit card to secure a loan [0044] and settles at the gaming machine [0044, credit card information verified for line of credit [0185] and verifying repayment of loan by credit card [0185]).
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the system of Paelinck with the convenience of automatically extending credit to the player of Walker to achieve the predictable result of facilitating a hotel patron’s access to and repayment of funds. When the player checks into a hotel of a gaming establishment, the gaming establishment is made aware of the anticipated credit needs of players as part of their integrated customer relationship management and become ready to not only automatically extend credit to creditworthy players but also allow the hotel patron to settle their debt because their credit card has been vetted to cover the amounts of the loans the patron has received. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claim 9
See the rejection above and in addition:
The preapproved line of credit (Fig. 11 steps 1102-1104, [0181] where “Based on the player's previous gambling history and the fact that the player is currently staying at the hotel, the gaming device authorizes a short-term loan of twenty (20) credits” [0044]), and
communicate data which results in a display device displaying an amount of credit available to be activated by the user in association with the gaming establishment line of credit (Fig. 11 output offer 1104, display offer [0026, 0027]).
In Reference to Claims 2, 8, 10, 14, and 20
Paelinck discloses “The LMS 150 transmits data regarding patrons' lodging activity to the PDB 120 when patrons check in and out of a hotel [0040].
In Reference to Claims 3, 5, 15, and 17
Walker discloses a credit card as a payment instrument ([0025, 0045, 0112, 0134, 0149, 0185, 0275]) associated with a patron of a hotel (“Such information may include information on a player's past and current gambling behavior, a player's contact information, whether the player is a current casino hotel guest, and credit card account information of the player.” [0025]).
In Reference to Claims 4 and 16
Examiner construes this claim as the player does not have to do anything which is taught by Walker wherein a player is merely playing at a gaming machine and receives a loan offer (Fig. 11 step 1104).
In Reference to Claims 6 and 18
Examiner construes “wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the line of credit settlement event occurring in association with the second hotel activity, cause the processor to communicate, to the server of the hotel payment system, data that enables an amount of an outstanding hotel liability of the user also being settled via the payment instrument” as checking-out disclosed by Paelinck ([0040]).
In Reference to Claims 7 and 19
Paelinck discloses a POS 170 system [0032] used to track non-gaming activity like one or more merchant purchases which are distinct that liabilities incurred from a gaming line of credit liability of a user (purchases in restaurants and retail venues [0042]). THE POS 170 tracks these activities and transmits data {restaurant category data or code is different from the merchant code of the retail venue data {code]} to the application server [0040].
Walker teaches of assigned identifiers to transaction accounts (Fig. 6A) of players which tracks financial activity associated with the player.
If Applicant is not satisfied that the data of Paelinck does not disclose merchant category codes then it would have been obvious to associate the data with the identifiers of Walker to achieve the predictable result of tracking player merchant and line of credit activity.
In Reference to Claims 11 and 12
Parlinck discloses user data that results in a creation of a gaming establishment patron management system account associated with the user ([0015, 0016, 0019, 0030, 0043, 0044]).
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
15. Examiner interviews may be available depending on the stage of prosecution and provided 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.
16. 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 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights