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 .
Priority
CONTINUATION
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 17/648,099 filed on January 14, 2022, now U.S. Patent 12,217,247 (“Parent Application”) which is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 16/823,677 filed on March 19, 2020, now U.S. Patent 11,227,281. 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 Parent 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 Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of U.S. provisional patent application 62/914,321 filed October 11, 2019 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on February 3, 2025, March 27, 2025, May 19, 2025 and February 2, 2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processing unit” in claims 1, 6, 10, 13 and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner would add that as the only structure recited with regard to a processing unit per paragraphs 0115 and 0116 is a processor or an equivalent and as Figures 49 and 50 in conjunction with paragraphs 0245-0247 are indicative that the function of the processing unit can be moved to another device that contains a processor Examiner does not view the placement of the processing unit as being a patentably distinguishing characteristic and only views the performance of the claimed functions by the prior art as being necessary to read on the claims.
Double Patenting
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,217,247 and claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent 11,227,281.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application merely remove operations present in the issued patents such that the instant claims are necessarily anticipated by the claims of U.S. Patent 12,217,247 and U.S. Patent 11,227,281. Therefore claims 1-20 are held as being rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
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.
Claim 1 recites a method and therefore meets Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility test as a method is one of the four categories of statutory subject matter (MPEP § 2106.03).
The analysis then moves to Step 2A. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’). Beginning with the analysis under Prong One claim 1 recites identifying electronic funds maintained by a mobile device and the electronic gaming machine based at least on a first communication between a mobile device and the at least one player interface device and a second communication between the at least one processing unit and the mobile device; and crediting the electronic gaming machine based on a value associated with the electronic funds maintained by the mobile device. Identifying electronic funds from a sender and crediting a recipient based on a value associated with the electronic funds is both a process that can be performed mentally (MPEP § 2106.04(III)(B)) and also is a process that constitutes a commercial interaction which falls under the concept of organizing human activity (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B)). Therefore under Prong One of Step 2A claim 1 is deemed as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
The analysis then moves to Prong Two of Step 2A in which the claim is analyzed in order to determine whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h). Claim 1 recites operations of communicatively connecting at least one player interface device to an electronic gaming machine; communicably connecting at least one processing unit to said at least one player interface device and the electronic gaming machine; and configuring said at least one processing unit along with a gaming environment in the preamble. These operations can be viewed as tying the abstract idea to a particular technological environment as the communicatively coupling language merely limits the abstract idea to a particular combination of player interface device, electronic gaming machine and processing unit as opposed to other forms electronic devices (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The language modifying the identifying electronic funds “…based at least on a first communication between a mobile device and the at least one player interface device and a second communication between the at least one processing unit and the mobile device” can be viewed as a form of data gathering and therefore amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as the communications are a form of necessary data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) while simultaneously being mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Similarly the crediting the electronic gaming machine based on a value associated with the electronic funds maintained by the mobile device can be viewed as data outputting which is also insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) while simultaneously being mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore the elements recited in the claim are insufficient to form a practical application and under Prong Two of Step 2A claim 1 is deemed as being ineligible.
The analysis then proceeds to Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis. Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)). Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
• Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
• Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claim 1 recites operations of communicatively connecting at least one player interface device to an electronic gaming machine; communicably connecting at least one processing unit to said at least one player interface device and the electronic gaming machine; and configuring said at least one processing unit along with a gaming environment in the preamble. These operations can be viewed as tying the abstract idea to a particular technological environment as the communicatively coupling language merely limits the abstract idea to a particular combination of player interface device, electronic gaming machine and processing unit as opposed to other forms electronic devices (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The language modifying the identifying electronic funds “…based at least on a first communication between a mobile device and the at least one player interface device and a second communication between the at least one processing unit and the mobile device” can be viewed as a form of data gathering and therefore amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as the communications are a form of necessary data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) while simultaneously being mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Similarly the crediting the electronic gaming machine based on a value associated with the electronic funds maintained by the mobile device can be viewed as data outputting which is also insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) while simultaneously being mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). As the data gathering operations (“…based on a first communication…and a second communication”, identifying, crediting) are recited at a high level of generality these operations can be held as being well understood, routine and conventional and are insufficient to form an inventive concept (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Viewing the claim as a whole does not alter the finding as the communications, identifying and crediting only involve receiving and transmitting data and movement of value from one entity to another. Therefore the elements recited in the claim are insufficient to form an inventive concept and under Step 2B claim 1 is deemed as being ineligible.
Claims 2 and 16 recite using an NFC communication for the first communication between the mobile device and the at least one player interface device and is a form of necessary data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) while simultaneously tying the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and 2B would result in a conclusion of ineligibility. Therefore claims 2 and 16 are deemed as being ineligible.
Claim 3 recites utilizing the first communication between the mobile device and the at least one player interface device to pass at least one of: a first identifier associated with the electronic credits from the mobile device to the at least one player interface device; or a second identifier associated with the electronic gaming machine to the mobile device and is a form of necessary data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) while simultaneously tying the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and 2B would result in a conclusion of ineligibility. Therefore claim 3 is deemed as being ineligible.
Claims 4 and 11 recite utilizing a NFC device, a bill validator, a TITO system or card reader as the player interface device. These recitations merely tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and 2B would result in a conclusion of ineligibility. Therefore claims 4 and 11 are deemed as being ineligible.
Claims 5, 12 and 17 recite holding the electronic funds in a mobile wallet. These recitations are merely instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and 2B would result in a conclusion of ineligibility. Therefore claims 5, 12 and 17 are deemed as being ineligible.
Claim 6 adds limitations to independent claim 1 “…in response to a cash out event related to credits on the electronic gaming machine: creating a virtual ticket with an associated value that corresponds to the credits on the electronic gaming machine; and adding the value of the ticket to the electronic funds maintained by the mobile device.” These limitations are part of a process that constitutes a commercial interaction which falls under the concept of organizing human activity (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B)). When viewed as elements the recitations are merely instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and 2B would result in a conclusion of ineligibility. Therefore claim 6 is deemed as being ineligible.
Claim 7 recites “…passes an identifier associated with the mobile wallet account from the mobile device to the at least one player interface device with the first communication between the mobile device and the at least one player interface device” and is a form of necessary data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) while simultaneously tying the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and 2B would result in a conclusion of ineligibility. Therefore claim 7 is deemed as being ineligible.
Claim 8 recites “…utilizing a hash as the identifier” and is a form of necessary data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) while simultaneously tying the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and 2B would result in a conclusion of ineligibility. Therefore claim 8 is deemed as being ineligible.
Claim 9 recites “…passing an identifier associated with the electronic gaming machine to the mobile device with the first communication between the mobile device and the at least one player interface device” and is a form of necessary data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) while simultaneously tying the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and 2B would result in a conclusion of ineligibility. Therefore claim 9 is deemed as being ineligible.
Claim 10 recites “…transmitting the identifier from the mobile device to the at least one processing unit” and is a form of necessary data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) while simultaneously tying the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and 2B would result in a conclusion of ineligibility. Therefore claim 10 is deemed as being ineligible.
Claim 13 recites limitations from independent claim 1 “…communicably connecting at least one player interface device to an electronic gaming machine” and “…configuring said at least one processing unit for: identifying electronic funds maintained by a mobile device and at least one of the electronic gaming machine which falls under the concept of organizing human activity (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B)). When viewed as elements the recitations are merely instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and 2B would result in a conclusion of ineligibility. Therefore claim 13 is deemed as being ineligible.
Claim 14 recites “…determining that the bill validator receives a document in the form of a physical ticket” and is a process that can be performed mentally (MPEP § 2106.04(III)(B)) and the determination must be held as being mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and 2B would result in a conclusion of ineligibility. Therefore claim 14 is deemed as being ineligible.
Claim 15 recites “…passing an identifier associated with the bill validator to the mobile device with the first communication between the mobile device and the at least one player interface device” and is a form of necessary data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and 2B would result in a conclusion of ineligibility. Therefore claim 15 is deemed as being ineligible.
Claim 18 is essentially the same as claim 13 but instead recites “ticket” instead of “document” and also recites adding a value of the ticket to the electronic funds maintained by the mobile device. From a perspective of eligibility analysis the claim is no different than claim 13 and would also be deemed as being ineligible.
Claims 19 and 20 are directed towards whether the ticket is a physical ticket or a virtual ticket and are a form of necessary data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and 2B would result in a conclusion of ineligibility. Therefore claims 19 and 20 are deemed as being ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 13 and 18 have been deemed to have invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) and have been held as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b). Per MPEP § 2181 (IV) a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description. Therefore claims 1, 6, 13 and 18 are held as lacking adequate written description.
Claims 2-5 are also rejected as being dependent upon claim 1.
Claims 7-12 are also rejected as being dependent upon claim 6.
Claims 14-17 are also rejected as being dependent upon claim 13.
Claims 19 and 20 are also rejected as being dependent upon claim 18.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “processing unit” recited in claims 1, 6, 13 and 18 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The processing unit is described in paragraphs 0115 and 0116 as a processor or an equivalent but the specification lacks any algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function including identifying funds or crediting the electronic gaming machine in claims 1, 6, 13 and 18. Furthermore in claim 6 there is no algorithm for creating a virtual ticket and adding the value of the ticket to the electronic funds maintained by the mobile device. With regard to claim 13 there is no algorithm for determining that the bill validator receives a document or for creating a virtual ticket and adding the value of the ticket to the electronic funds maintained by the mobile device. With regard to claim 18 there is no algorithm for determining that the bill validator receives a ticket and adding the value of the ticket to the electronic funds maintained by the mobile device. While Figures 49 and 50 along with associated paragraphs 0245-0247 describe the use of a small processing unit 142 the written disclosure does not tie each and every claimed function to the small processing unit 142 which is being determined as being the equivalent structure mentioned in paragraphs 0115 and 0116. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-5 are also rejected as being dependent upon claim 1.
Claims 7-12 are also rejected as being dependent upon claim 6.
Claims 14-17 are also rejected as being dependent upon claim 13.
Claims 19 and 20 are also rejected as being dependent upon claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsutsui (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0092062)
As per claim 1
Tsutsui discloses a method of accessing electronic funds in a gaming environment, comprising: communicably connecting at least one player interface device to an electronic gaming machine (0068 “The exemplary electronic payment system 99 comprises a mobile terminal 190 for emitting and/or receiving a remotely operable signal that may include information on a specific or unique account number or a debit card number associated with a financial database 142”, 0070 “The mobile terminal 190 may emit a remotely operable signal, such as a radio or other wireless signal; an optical beam signal of infrared, ultraviolet or visible ray; and the like, to interact with the remotely operable signal by communications device 150. The mobile terminal 190 and communications device 150 are electrically connected to each other through a wired or a wireless mutual communication interface for radio or optical connection… NFC (Near Field Communication) chips”, 0071 “An additional option would be the use of the mobile terminal 190 to wirelessly communicate with a portable computing device 400 (FIG. 3) to provide a wireless communication interface there between to obtain data associated with the electronic voucher ticket 410.”)
Tsutsui discloses communicably connecting at least one processing unit to said at least one player interface device and the electronic gaming machine (0068 “The electronic payment system 99 also comprises a communications device 150 provided in signal communication with an automated machine 100 for receiving a remotely operable signal emitted from the mobile terminal 190. The communications device 150 can also receive a monetary signal indicative of a transaction fee necessary to drive the automated machine 100 simultaneously with, before, or after receiving the remotely operable signal.”)
Tsutsui discloses configuring said at least one processing unit for: identifying electronic funds maintained by a mobile device and the electronic gaming machine based at least on a first communication between a mobile device and the at least one player interface device and a second communication between the at least one processing unit and the mobile device (0075 “The communications device 150 comprises a signal processor 154 connected to automated machine 100 for retrieving and producing an account number that identifies a holder of the account at financial database 142 and if necessary holder's PIN and/or ID numbers and monetary signals from remotely operable signal received from mobile terminal 190, and a communications interface 152 for intervening telecommunication between mobile terminal 190 and signal processor 154.”, 0093 “The process initializes with the user 199 submitting a request for tendering payment for credits for use in conjunction with the electronic gaming machine 100. The user 199 enters an amount and necessary information for authorization for the transaction using an application provided on a Smartphone 400 (step 201). The data is received by wireless communication between the smartphone 400 and the near field communicator 150 as indicated by step 201. The near field communicator 150 forwards the information to the bill validator 130 as referenced in step 202. The bill validator 130 completes a credit check or any other associated transaction validation process (step 203). The system utilizes technology referred to as Network Hub Link (NHL) 158 to communicate with and complete transactions with the mobile wallet server 144. The communication process completes a balance check for available funds and provides feedback to the bill validator 130 as indicated by steps 204 and 205. During this process, an electronic or electronic voucher ticket (eV/T) 410 is issued. In parallel, the bill validator 130 communicates the outcome of the request (accepted or denied) to the user 199 (step 206). Should the user desire to begin play on the automated machine 100, the user 199 enters the electronic voucher ticket 410 into the bill validator 130 associated with the automated machine 100 (step 207). The electronic voucher ticket 410 can be read by the bill validator 130 using any suitable technology associated with the form factor of the electronic voucher ticket 410, including a camera to view an electronic voucher ticket 410 displayed upon a smartphone display 404, an near field communicator 150 to read wirelessly transfer information from the smartphone 400, and the like.”, 0094 “A first alternative process for utilizing mobile wallet is presented in an alternative financial process flow diagram 220 is presented in FIG. 4. The financial process flow diagram 220 presents a general interaction between contributing elements utilizing the electronic voucher ticket (eV/T in the diagrams) 310, 410 (FIG. 6) for financial processing in conjunction with the electronic gaming machine 100. The various contributing elements include those previously described in FIG. 3, excluding the as Network Hub Link (NHL) 158. The process initializes with the user 199 submitting a request for tendering payment for issuance of credits onto the electronic voucher ticket 410 (step 221). The user 199 enters an amount and necessary information for authorization for the transaction using an application provided on the smartphone 400. The data is received by the mobile wallet server 144 using wireless communication between the smartphone 400 and the mobile wallet server 144. The mobile wallet server 144 issues and forwards the electronic voucher ticket 410 to the Smartphone 400 (step 222). Upon request by the user, the smartphone 400 communicates information associated with the electronic voucher ticket 410 to the bill validator 130 via the near field communications device 150 (step 223).”)
Tsutsui discloses crediting the electronic gaming machine based on a value associated with the electronic funds maintained by the mobile device (0011 “The voucher tickets include a machine-readable code and can be presented as a printed document, an image displayed upon a portable computing device (such as a smartphone, a tablet computer, a personal data assistant, a portable electronic gaming device, a proprietary gaming company issued computing device, and the like), and the like”, 0093 “A first financial process flow diagram 200 is presented in FIG. 3. The financial process flow diagram 200 presents a general interaction between contributing elements utilizing an electronic voucher ticket (eV/T in the diagrams) 310, 410 (FIG. 6) for financial processing in conjunction with an electronic gaming machine 100. The various contributing elements include the electronic gaming machine 100, a casino host server 146, at least one printer 160, a bill validator 130 (or other electronic voucher ticket reader), a near field communications device 150, and a mobile wallet server 144. The process initializes with the user 199 submitting a request for tendering payment for credits for use in conjunction with the electronic gaming machine 100. The user 199 enters an amount and necessary information for authorization for the transaction using an application provided on a Smartphone 400 (step 201). The data is received by wireless communication between the smartphone 400 and the near field communicator 150 as indicated by step 201. The near field communicator 150 forwards the information to the bill validator 130 as referenced in step 202. The bill validator 130 completes a credit check or any other associated transaction validation process (step 203). The system utilizes technology referred to as Network Hub Link (NHL) 158 to communicate with and complete transactions with the mobile wallet server 144. The communication process completes a balance check for available funds and provides feedback to the bill validator 130 as indicated by steps 204 and 205. During this process, an electronic or electronic voucher ticket (eV/T) 410 is issued. In parallel, the bill validator 130 communicates the outcome of the request (accepted or denied) to the user 199 (step 206). Should the user desire to begin play on the automated machine 100, the user 199 enters the electronic voucher ticket 410 into the bill validator 130 associated with the automated machine 100 (step 207). The electronic voucher ticket 410 can be read by the bill validator 130 using any suitable technology associated with the form factor of the electronic voucher ticket 410, including a camera to view an electronic voucher ticket 410 displayed upon a smartphone display 404, an near field communicator 150 to read wirelessly transfer information from the smartphone 400, and the like. The automated machine 100 digitally conveys the transaction to the gaming facility host server 146 (step 208). The gaming facility host server 146 in turn, provides feedback to the automated machine 100 on whether the electronic voucher ticket 410 is accepted or rejected (step 209). In a condition where the electronic voucher ticket 410 is accepted, credit is applied to the automated machine 100 and the user 199 begins play thereon (step 210)”).
As per claim 2
Tsutsui discloses utilizing a NFC communication as the first communication between the mobile device and the at least one player interface device (0070 “The mobile terminal 190 may emit a remotely operable signal, such as a radio or other wireless signal; an optical beam signal of infrared, ultraviolet or visible ray; and the like, to interact with the remotely operable signal by communications device 150. The mobile terminal 190 and communications device 150 are electrically connected to each other through a wired or a wireless mutual communication interface for radio or optical connection… NFC (Near Field Communication) chips”)
As per claim 3
Tsutsui discloses utilizing the first communication between the mobile device and the at least one player interface device to pass at least one of: a first identifier associated with the electronic credits from the mobile device to the at least one player interface device; or a second identifier associated with the electronic gaming machine to the mobile device (0101 “The player can initiate an option utilizing the paper voucher ticket 310 or the electronic voucher ticket 410”, 0154 “A voucher ticket (TITO) account table 1200 utilizes a voucher ticket (TITO) account number listing 1210 to retain a series of player's accounts, as presented in FIG. 21. Each account is identified by an account number 1230, 1232, 1234, 1236, 1238, 1239. The account number 1230, 1232, 1234, 1236, 1238, 1239 provides a continuity link identifying other associated elements. One exemplary data element is an electronic account (e-money) financial balance, as represented by a list of voucher ticket (TITO) account financial balances 1212. A second exemplary data element is a message destination table segment 1220. The message destination table segment 1220 can include a number of different protocols for communicating with the account owner. The exemplary voucher ticket (TITO) account table 1200 presents three exemplary listings, including an email address listing 1222, a short message service (SMS) number listing 1224, and any other notification listing 1226. The email address listing 1222 would include one or more email addresses for each account number. The short message service (SMS) number listing 1224 would include one or more short message services (SMS) (text message) addresses for each account number. The other notification listing 1226 can list any other suitable address for contacting the account owner”, 0156 “(TITO) account number listing 1210 to associate and manage one or more voucher tickets 310, 410 of a series of player's accounts, as presented in FIG. 22. The stored voucher ticket (TITO) status table 1250 manages and retains information associated with each voucher ticket. Each voucher ticket 410 includes a local identifier, as listed in a voucher ticket (TITO) local identification reference 1260 and a master identifier as listed in a voucher ticket (TITO) master identification reference 1262. The local identifier is used for identification of the voucher ticket 410. The master identifier is used for identification of the voucher ticket 410”, also see 0212-0215 and 0223-0225), with regard to the second identifier as Tsutsui discloses the use of Near Field Communication (0094) and wireless (Figure 1, 0070) this would be part of the protocols used in these communications.
As per claims 4 and 11
Tsutsui discloses utilizing a NFC device (0159), a bill validator (0336), a TITO system (0155-0156) or card reader (0338) as the player interface device.
As per claims 5, 12 and 17
Tsutsui discloses holding the electronic funds in a mobile wallet (Figures 3 and 4, 0093-0094)
As per claim 6
Tsutsui discloses a method of accessing electronic funds in a gaming environment, comprising: communicably connecting at least one player interface device to an electronic gaming machine (0068 “The exemplary electronic payment system 99 comprises a mobile terminal 190 for emitting and/or receiving a remotely operable signal that may include information on a specific or unique account number or a debit card number associated with a financial database 142”, 0070 “The mobile terminal 190 may emit a remotely operable signal, such as a radio or other wireless signal; an optical beam signal of infrared, ultraviolet or visible ray; and the like, to interact with the remotely operable signal by communications device 150. The mobile terminal 190 and communications device 150 are electrically connected to each other through a wired or a wireless mutual communication interface for radio or optical connection… NFC (Near Field Communication) chips”, 0071 “An additional option would be the use of the mobile terminal 190 to wirelessly communicate with a portable computing device 400 (FIG. 3) to provide a wireless communication interface there between to obtain data associated with the electronic voucher ticket 410.”)
Tsutsui discloses communicably connecting at least one processing unit to said at least one player interface device and the electronic gaming machine (0068 “The electronic payment system 99 also comprises a communications device 150 provided in signal communication with an automated machine 100 for receiving a remotely operable signal emitted from the mobile terminal 190. The communications device 150 can also receive a monetary signal indicative of a transaction fee necessary to drive the automated machine 100 simultaneously with, before, or after receiving the remotely operable signal.”)
Tsutsui discloses configuring said at least one processing unit for: identifying electronic funds maintained by a mobile device and the electronic gaming machine based at least on a first communication between a mobile device and the at least one player interface device and a second communication between the at least one processing unit and the mobile device (0075 “The communications device 150 comprises a signal processor 154 connected to automated machine 100 for retrieving and producing an account number that identifies a holder of the account at financial database 142 and if necessary holder's PIN and/or ID numbers and monetary signals from remotely operable signal received from mobile terminal 190, and a communications interface 152 for intervening telecommunication between mobile terminal 190 and signal processor 154.”, 0093 “The process initializes with the user 199 submitting a request for tendering payment for credits for use in conjunction with the electronic gaming machine 100. The user 199 enters an amount and necessary information for authorization for the transaction using an application provided on a Smartphone 400 (step 201). The data is received by wireless communication between the smartphone 400 and the near field communicator 150 as indicated by step 201. The near field communicator 150 forwards the information to the bill validator 130 as referenced in step 202. The bill validator 130 completes a credit check or any other associated transaction validation process (step 203). The system utilizes technology referred to as Network Hub Link (NHL) 158 to communicate with and complete transactions with the mobile wallet server 144. The communication process completes a balance check for available funds and provides feedback to the bill validator 130 as indicated by steps 204 and 205. During this process, an electronic or electronic voucher ticket (eV/T) 410 is issued. In parallel, the bill validator 130 communicates the outcome of the request (accepted or denied) to the user 199 (step 206). Should the user desire to begin play on the automated machine 100, the user 199 enters the electronic voucher ticket 410 into the bill validator 130 associated with the automated machine 100 (step 207). The electronic voucher ticket 410 can be read by the bill validator 130 using any suitable technology associated with the form factor of the electronic voucher ticket 410, including a camera to view an electronic voucher ticket 410 displayed upon a smartphone display 404, an near field communicator 150 to read wirelessly transfer information from the smartphone 400, and the like.”, 0094 “A first alternative process for utilizing mobile wallet is presented in an alternative financial process flow diagram 220 is presented in FIG. 4. The financial process flow diagram 220 presents a general interaction between contributing elements utilizing the electronic voucher ticket (eV/T in the diagrams) 310, 410 (FIG. 6) for financial processing in conjunction with the electronic gaming machine 100. The various contributing elements include those previously described in FIG. 3, excluding the as Network Hub Link (NHL) 158. The process initializes with the user 199 submitting a request for tendering payment for issuance of credits onto the electronic voucher ticket 410 (step 221). The user 199 enters an amount and necessary information for authorization for the transaction using an application provided on the smartphone 400. The data is received by the mobile wallet server 144 using wireless communication between the smartphone 400 and the mobile wallet server 144. The mobile wallet server 144 issues and forwards the electronic voucher ticket 410 to the Smartphone 400 (step 222). Upon request by the user, the smartphone 400 communicates information associated with the electronic voucher ticket 410 to the bill validator 130 via the near field communications device 150 (step 223).”)
Tsutsui discloses in response to a cash out event related to credits on the electronic gaming machine: creating a virtual ticket with an associated value that corresponds to the credits on the electronic gaming machine; and adding the value of the ticket to the electronic funds maintained by the mobile device (0095 “The play can conclude by either a depletion of credits pending in the automated machine 100 or at a request submitted by the user 199. An exemplary electronic voucher ticket (eV/T) cash out process flow diagram 240 is presented in FIG. 5. The financial process flow diagram 240 presents a general interaction between contributing elements for cashing out after play on the automated machine 100. The various contributing elements include those previously described in FIG. 3, wherein the leap forward gaming 158 and the smartphone 400 can be used interchangeably. The process initializes with the user 199 submitting a request for issuance of credits onto the electronic voucher ticket 410 (step 241). The request is entered using an application on the smartphone 400 via a communication with the near field communications device 150 (step 242). The near field communications device 150 forwards the information via a digital communication link with the bill validator 130 (step 243). The bill validator 130 forwards the information directly or indirectly to the gaming facility host server 446 (steps 244 and 245). The gaming facility host server 446, in conjunction with the automated machine 100, tallies any tendered balance, concludes play of the game, and issues a digital electronic voucher ticket 410 (step 246). The new electronic voucher ticket 410 is forwarded to the near field communications device 150 (step 247). The new electronic voucher ticket 410 is transferred to the smartphone 400 using near field communication protocol (step 248).”).
As per claim 7
Tsutsui discloses further comprising passes an identifier associated with the mobile wallet account from the mobile device to the at least one player interface device with the first communication between the mobile device and the at least one player interface device (0101 “The player can initiate an option utilizing the paper voucher ticket 310 or the electronic voucher ticket 410”, 0154 “A voucher ticket (TITO) account table 1200 utilizes a voucher ticket (TITO) account number listing 1210 to retain a series of player's accounts, as presented in FIG. 21. Each account is identified by an account number 1230, 1232, 1234, 1236, 1238, 1239. The account number 1230, 1232, 1234, 1236, 1238, 1239 provides a continuity link identifying other associated elements. One exemplary data element is an electronic account (e-money) financial balance, as represented by a list of voucher ticket (TITO) account financial balances 1212. A second exemplary data element is a message destination table segment 1220. The message destination table segment 1220 can include a number of different protocols for communicating with the account owner. The exemplary voucher ticket (TITO) account table 1200 presents three exemplary listings, including an email address listing 1222, a short message service (SMS) number listing 1224, and any other notification listing 1226. The email address listing 1222 would include one or more email addresses for each account number. The short message service (SMS) number listing 1224 would include one or more short message services (SMS) (text message) addresses for each account number. The other notification listing 1226 can list any other suitable address for contacting the account owner”, 0156 “(TITO) account number listing 1210 to associate and manage one or more voucher tickets 310, 410 of a series of player's accounts, as presented in FIG. 22. The stored voucher ticket (TITO) status table 1250 manages and retains information associated with each voucher ticket. Each voucher ticket 410 includes a local identifier, as listed in a voucher ticket (TITO) local identification reference 1260 and a master identifier as listed in a voucher ticket (TITO) master identification reference 1262. The local identifier is used for identification of the voucher ticket 410. The master identifier is used for identification of the voucher ticket 410”, also see 0212-0215 and 0223-0225)
As per claim 9
Tsutsui discloses passing an identifier associated with the electronic gaming machine to the mobile device with the first communication between the mobile device and the at least one player interface device (Figure 1 and paragraph 0070 with regard to the use of near field communications and wireless (WAP) as these would pass identifiers of the devices as part of the protocols).
As per claim 10
Tsutsui discloses transmitting the identifier from the mobile device to the at least one processing unit (0070, 0223-0225)
As per claim 13
Tsutsui discloses a method of accessing electronic funds in a gaming environment, comprising: communicably connecting at least one player interface device to an electronic gaming machine (0068, 0070)
Tsutsui discloses communicably connecting a bill validator to the electronic gaming machine (Abstract, 0093-0094)
Tsutsui discloses communicably connecting at least one processing unit to the at least one player interface device, the bill validator, and the electronic gaming machine; configuring said at least one processing unit for: identifying electronic funds maintained by a mobile device and at least one of the electronic gaming machine or the bill validator based at least on a first communication between the mobile device and the at least one player interface device and a second communication between the at least one processing unit and the mobile device (0071, 0101 “The player would prior to, subsequently, or simultaneously insert the paper voucher ticket 310 into the gaming machine 100 (Step 614). The gaming machine 100 would determine the financial or token value of the paper voucher ticket 310 and upload the financial or token value to the gaming machine 100 for play…A second option would be to transfer the credit or financial value pending at the point of termination of the game to an e-account (Step 620). The system compares e-account information entered by the player (Step 620) with e-account information stored on the casino voucher ticket database server 512. The system determines if the entered information is consistent with the information stored on the casino voucher ticket database server 512 (Step 622). In a condition where the entered e-account information is consistent with the information stored on the casino voucher ticket database server 512, the system transfers a new electronic voucher ticket 410 to the smartphone 400 (Step 624)”)
Tsutsui discloses determining that the bill validator receives a document (0101 “The player would prior to, subsequently, or simultaneously insert the paper voucher ticket 310 into the gaming machine 100 (Step 614). The gaming machine 100 would determine the financial or token value of the paper voucher ticket 310 and upload the financial or token value to the gaming machine 100 for play”)
Tsutsui discloses creating a virtual ticket corresponding to the document (0101 “A second option would be to transfer the credit or financial value pending at the point of termination of the game to an e-account (Step 620). The system compares e-account information entered by the player (Step 620) with e-account information stored on the casino voucher ticket database server 512. The system determines if the entered information is consistent with the information stored on the casino voucher ticket database server 512 (Step 622). In a condition where the entered e-account information is consistent with the information stored on the casino voucher ticket database server 512, the system transfers a new electronic voucher ticket 410 to the smartphone 400 (Step 624)”)
Tsutsui discloses adding a value of the virtual ticket to the electronic funds maintained by the mobile device (0101 “In a condition where the entered e-account information is consistent with the information stored on the casino voucher ticket database server 512, the system transfers a new electronic voucher ticket 410 to the smartphone 400 (Step 624)”)
As per claim 14
Tsutsui discloses determining that the bill validator receives a document in the form of a physical ticket (0099, 0101)
As per claim 15
Tsutsui discloses passing an identifier associated with the bill validator to the mobile device with the first communication between the mobile device and the at least one player interface device (Figure 1, 0070)
As per claim 16
Tsutsui discloses utilizing a near-field communication as the first communication between the mobile device and the at least one player interface device (Figure 1, 0070)
As per claim 18
Tsutsui discloses a method of accessing electronic funds in a gaming environment, comprising: communicably connecting at least one player interface device to an electronic gaming machine (0068, 0070)
Tsutsui discloses communicably connecting a bill validator to the electronic gaming machine (Abstract, 0093-0094)
Tsutsui discloses communicably connecting at least one processing unit to the at least one player interface device, the bill validator, and the electronic gaming machine; configuring said at least one processing unit for: identifying electronic funds maintained by a mobile device and at least one of the electronic gaming machine or the bill validator based at least on a first communication between the mobile device and the at least one player interface device and a second communication between the at least one processing unit and the mobile device (0071, 0101 “The player would prior to, subsequently, or simultaneously insert the paper voucher ticket 310 into the gaming machine 100 (Step 614). The gaming machine 100 would determine the financial or token value of the paper voucher ticket 310 and upload the financial or token value to the gaming machine 100 for play…A second option would be to transfer the credit or financial value pending at the point of termination of the game to an e-account (Step 620). The system compares e-account information entered by the player (Step 620) with e-account information stored on the casino voucher ticket database server 512. The system determines if the entered information is consistent with the information stored on the casino voucher ticket database server 512 (Step 622). In a condition where the entered e-account information is consistent with the information stored on the casino voucher ticket database server 512, the system transfers a new electronic voucher ticket 410 to the smartphone 400 (Step 624)”)
Tsutsui discloses determining that the bill validator receives a ticket (0101)
Tsutsui discloses adding a value of the ticket to the electronic funds maintained by the mobile device (0101)
As per claim 19
Tsutsui discloses determining that the bill validator receives a ticket in the form of a physical ticket (0101)
As per claim 20
Tsutsui discloses determining that the bill validator receives a ticket in the form of a virtual ticket (0101)
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Walker et al. (U.S. Patent 10,825,004, hereinafter referred to as Walker).
As per claim 8
Tsutsui, while disclosing the limitations of claim 7, does not explicitly disclose utilizing a hash as the identifier. Walker teaches utilizing a hash as the identifier (9:62-10:8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the electronic voucher ticket system of Tsutsui with the banking system of Walker for the purpose of providing capabilities for enabling users to achieve a more sanitary operating environment in connection with items that are provided by the machine (2:8-11)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
G3 Magazine, March 2018, 112 pages discloses mobile wallets in conjunction with gaming machines on page p58 in the article “CPI surprised ICE with its ultra-clever bank note recycler and super-smart IOT-style EASITRAX Live”, page P67 “EveryMatrix shows it’s ‘On the Money’ with latest payment service at ICE” and page P108 “Fast Shift Payment Solution SoftConstruct” but all of these articles are written at a generally high level without any implementation details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES D NIGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5486. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 to 9:45 and 10:30 to 2:45.
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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571) 270-1492. 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.
/JAMES D NIGH/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3699