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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Please see recent Supreme Court decision Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International for guidance.
Claims 1 and 8 are independent claims related to fund transfers. Products and Processes fall within statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to an exception. In this case, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically the fundamental economic practice of transferring funds.
The claimed steps include:
cause a communication of data associated with an amount of funds to be transferred from a gaming establishment account to an external account, and
responsive to transfer of funds to an external account,
modify a balance of the gaming establishment account.
The steps cover performance of the limitations of certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor and a memory device, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being a fundamental economic practice. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer system performing routine functions to achieve a fundamental economic practice does not take the claim limitations out of the organizing human activity grouping.
(Step 2A, prong one: YES)
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether there are additional element(s) or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this case, the claims recite that a processor and a memory device are configured perform the steps.
The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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.
(Step 2A, prong two: NO)
Viewing the limitations individually,
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim.
The additional elements, a processor and memory device are configured perform the steps, in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Viewing the limitations as a combination, the claim simply instructs the practitioner to implement the concept of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically the fundamental economic practice of transferring funds with associated fund transfer with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. When viewed either as individual limitations or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not add significantly more to the abstract idea of transferring funds.
(Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 have been considered each as whole claim as to the abstract idea and the “significantly more” criterion. While being more specific, the limitations did not make the claims less abstract nor provide “significantly more” to the claims to make them patent eligible.
In the parent application, the improvement to anticipate fund transfers allowed the user to get lower fees by having longer lead times for fund transfers into the gaming environment. However, transferring fund out of a gaming environment is different. The urgency is less and the amount is subject to a risk environment.
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 1-5, 7-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (US PG pub 2014/0080578, from 1/15/25 IDS, page 16) in view of Neo et al. (WO 2010/100535, also listed as AU-2010220169)
Nguyen shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying that the fund transfers are responsive to an occurrence of a gaming establishment engagement termination event.
Nguyen shows,
In regards to claims 1 and 8,
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: (see figure 1)
automatically cause a communication of data associated with an amount of funds to be transferred from a gaming establishment account to an external account (See figures 6A to 6C, the money transfer functions cause a communication of data associated with an amount of funds to be transferred. Also see paragraphs [0119] and [0120]. The player tracking account is considered to be a gaming establishment account. A bank (e.g. third-party server 120 as illustrated in FIG. 1) is considered to be an external account.
responsive the transfer of the amount of funds, modify a balance of the gaming establishment account based on the amount of funds being transferred to the external account. (Paragraph [0123], “The electronic fund management application may assist the user with transferring funds, storing funds, print a paper voucher, viewing a balance and other functions associated with electronic fund management.”)
In regards to claims 4 and 11,
wherein the gaming establishment account comprises one of a cashless wagering account, a gaming establishment retail account, and a gaming establishment fund management account. (The money transfer functions figures 6A to 6C are cashless.)
In regards to claims 5 and 12,
wherein the gaming establishment engagement termination event occurs in association with a receipt of a confirmation input associated with the transfer of the amount of funds. (The electronic fund management application provides a receipt of a confirmation input upon cashing out and final settlement.)
In regards to claims 7 and 14,
wherein the external account comprises an activated line of credit. (See paragraphs [0119] and [0120].)
Neo et al. teaches, page 18, section 3), “The junket operator also provides non-gaming-related services by coordinating and making bookings with various service providers, such as airline companies, hotels/resorts, restaurants, transportation companies, spa and theaters. The junket operator settles accounts with service providers for products and/or serviced provided to the customers through the service providers. This portion of services which typically forms about 5-10% of the overall services provided by the junket operator includes reservations for rooms, booking tickets for shows, reservation for restaurants and arrangement for tours.” (In regards to claims 1-3 and 8-10, junkets are old and well known. In this context, when an operator sets up a trip to a gaming establishment, there is a beginning and end or termination event. The termination event is the conclusion of the trip including the hotel reservation.)
Based on the teaching of Neo et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Nguyen system to use the money transfer mechanism in concert with the junket schedule including being responsive to a termination event or a conclusion of the trip including hotel reservations in order to take advantage of the operator’s services.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
These claims are also rejected under 35 USC 101. That will also have to be resolved in order to be allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 6 and 13, recite that, using the automated fund transfer system, “the amount of funds” will be transferred at a first point in time and same “the amount of funds” will be transferred at a second different point in time. The cited prior art does not show or teach this.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A CUFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/MICHAEL A CUFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights