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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 07/21/2026 for the application No19/081,572. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-20 have been rejected as follow,
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are not compliant with 101, according with the last “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). Examiner’s analysis is presented below for all the claims
As to claim 12, Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim? Yes. The claim recites the limitations of “causing, … an occurrence of a…. account contribution event comprising a contribution of an amount to a …. account associated with the user, wherein: the amount contributed to … account is based on a purchase contribution rate and an amount of the approved purchase, the occurrence of the … account contribution event is distinct from the occurrence of the approved purchase, and the occurrence of the … account contribution event is independent of any winnings…’; “following the contribution of the amount to the …. account associated with the user, causing …., a first redemption of at least part of the amount contributed to … account …to cause a modification of a credit balance …, and following the contribution of the amount to the … account associated with the user and distinct from any inputs received...causing …, a second redemption of at least part of the amount contributed to … account …fund associated with the at least part of the amount contributed … to cause a settlement of an outstanding liability of a gaming establishment marker associated with the user, wherein the second redemption occurs independent of any inputs received by the user to redeem any part of the amount contributed …”.
The “causing , contribution, following, redemption” limitations, as drafted, is a process and system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The method for operating a gaming establishment fund management system. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites additional limitations, such as,
“ after a receipt, … of data associated with an occurrence of an approved purchase made using funds from … account …”, These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data. It is merely gathering data.
The Examiner analyses other supplementary elements in the claim in view of the instant disclosure:
“from a computing device of a financial institution”; “from a financial institution account maintained for a user in association with the financial institution:” “by a processor”; “cashless wagering account “; “from any plays of any games at any electronic gaming machines,”; “the cashless wagering account by serially communicating fund data associated with the at least part of the amount contributed to an electronic gaming machine “; “by any input devices of the electronic gaming machine, causing, by the processor”; “by causing a communication of fund data“; “to a component of a gaming establishment credit system”; “cashless wagering account”. The limitations comprise generic recited computer elements and software.
The use of a “cashless wagering account ” and “the cashless wagering account by serially communicating fund data associated with the at least part of the amount contributed to an electronic gaming machine “ is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea because it merely reflects the use of conventional technology and amounts to only generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements can also be considered no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Other limitations in the claim, such as: “ after a receipt, … of data associated with an occurrence of an approved purchase made using funds from … account …”, These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data (gathering data).
The Examiner gives the broadest reasonable interpretation to the above elements. They are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Thus, the claim is ineligible because is directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea).
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim,
“from a computing device of a financial institution”; “from a financial institution account maintained for a user in association with the financial institution:” “by a processor”; “cashless wagering account “; “from any plays of any games at any electronic gaming machines,”; “the cashless wagering account by serially communicating fund data associated with the at least part of the amount contributed to an electronic gaming machine “; “by any input devices of the electronic gaming machine, causing, by the processor”; “by causing a communication of fund data“; “to a component of a gaming establishment credit system”; “cashless wagering account”, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic hardware and software cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B.
Here, the limitations: “from a computing device of a financial institution”; “from a financial institution account maintained for a user in association with the financial institution:” “by a processor”; “cashless wagering account “; “from any plays of any games at any electronic gaming machines,”; “the cashless wagering account by serially communicating fund data associated with the at least part of the amount contributed to an electronic gaming machine “; “by any input devices of the electronic gaming machine, causing, by the processor”; “by causing a communication of fund data“; “to a component of a gaming establishment credit system”; “cashless wagering account”
were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Other limitations in the claim, such as: “ after a receipt, … of data associated with an occurrence of an approved purchase made using funds from … account …”, These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data (gathering data). Accessing or receiving data is very well understood, routine and conventional computer task activity; It represents insignificant extra solution activity. Mere data-gathering step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstaturory claim statutory In re Grams,888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794 (CCPA 1982)).
Further, the instant specification does not provide any indication that the elements
“from a computing device of a financial institution”; “from a financial institution account maintained for a user in association with the financial institution:” “by a processor”; “cashless wagering account “; “from any plays of any games at any electronic gaming machines,”; “the cashless wagering account by serially communicating fund data associated with the at least part of the amount contributed to an electronic gaming machine “; “by any input devices of the electronic gaming machine, causing, by the processor”; “by causing a communication of fund data“; “to a component of a gaming establishment credit system”; “cashless wagering account”, are anything other than generic software and hardware, and the “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)” and the OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely computer receives and sends information over a network and presenting or displaying information, is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “from a computing device of a financial institution”; “from a financial institution account maintained for a user in association with the financial institution:” “by a processor”; “cashless wagering account “; “from any plays of any games at any electronic gaming machines,”; “the cashless wagering account by serially communicating fund data associated with the at least part of the amount contributed to an electronic gaming machine “; “by any input devices of the electronic gaming machine, causing, by the processor”; “by causing a communication of fund data“; “to a component of a gaming establishment credit system”; “cashless wagering account”, limitations (pointed above) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 1: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a system.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 10: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a system.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11 and 13-20, the claims recite elements such as “wherein the contributed amount comprises an amount of cashable funds”; “wherein the contributed amount comprises an amount of player tracking points”, etc. These elements do not integrate the system of organizing human activity into a practical application. The claims are ineligible.
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 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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG. Pub. No. 20130130781 (Anderson) .
As to claim 10, Anderson discloses a system comprising: a processor; (Anderson, Fig. 5 and associated disclosure) and a memory device (Anderson element 530 in Fig. 5) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
a) after a receipt, from a computing device of a financial institution, of data associated with an occurrence of an approved purchase made in association with a financial institution account maintained for a user in association with the financial institution: (Anderson paragraphs 17 and 58);
b) determine, responsive to a gaming establishment account contribution event, a benefit, wherein the benefit is determined independent of any wagering activity occurring in association with any gaming establishment, (see the system offers rewards, paragraph 61);
c) cause the determined benefit to be contributed to a gaming establishment account associated with the user, wherein an amount of the benefit is based on a purchase contribution rate and an amount of the approved purchase, and the occurrence of the contribution to the gaming establishment account is distinct from the occurrence of the approved purchase,
(see at least Fig. 4, paragraphs 49, 59, “a reward value can be based on a value of an online purchase”, and 67, see also the reward values can increase based on an affiliate type deal, paragraph 61);
and
d) cause the determined benefit to be automatically redeemed in association with an application of the determined benefit toward a wagering activity occurring in association with a gaming establishment, wherein the application of the determined benefit toward the wagering activity occurs independent of any inputs received by the user to redeem the determined benefit.
(see at least “[0049] In some embodiments, the rewards are redeemable online rewards that also contribute to in-casino rewards. For instance, the system can provide a reward that is redeemable online (e.g., via a website), and that can also contribute to additional rewards redeemable [Examiner interprets as determined benefit toward the wagering activity occurs independent of any inputs received by the user to redeem the determined benefit] in a casino based on some condition or aspect related to the redemption of the online reward, such as performance, achievement, progress etc. in an online game, a balance of a player account at the time of redemption, etc. The reward can be based on an average balance, minimum balance, [Examiner interprets as determined benefit toward the wagering activity occurs independent of any inputs received by the user to redeem the determined benefit] etc. of the player account during the interaction with the online game. In another example, if a player attains a certain game achievement in an online game, and if the player's account balance is at a certain threshold when the game achievement is attained[Examiner interprets as determined benefit toward the wagering activity occurs independent of any inputs received by the user to redeem the determined benefit] , then the system can increase a value to the reward, or select a reward that is more significant in value based on the value of the account balance. In some embodiments, the system can cause an online gaming achievement to become a goal or objective to attain while in the casino and, if attained in the casino will pay out the reward. For instance, if a player attains a full-house in an online game, then the full-house has meaning when played in the casino and, if attained in the casino, will provide a monetary reward (e.g., full houses would then pay 15% more). A performance in an online game can unlock types of functionality or features (e.g., bets types) available in a wagering game. The online game activity can further cause an increase to a value of a potential win or expected value (EV) in a wagering game or bonus game. The online game activity can further adjust a rate of change of mile/progression markers in a persistent-state game (e.g., double miles), which advance more quickly [Examiner interprets as determined benefit toward the wagering activity occurs independent of any inputs received by the user to redeem the determined benefit] to unlock gaming content. Further, a non-wagering, online game can provide incremental rewards that increase in value the more a user plays the non-wagering, online game”, paragraph 49. The Examiner also interprets automatic redemption a
system that holds a state that builds value and automates cash payouts or redemptions,
“…game activity can further adjust a rate of change of mile/progression markers in a persistent-state game (e.g., double miles), which advance more quickly to unlock gaming content” and “A portion 409 of the online content 403 indicates a table 411 that specifies specific percentages of wagering game earnings to automatically set aside …. A first row 413 indicates that if a player specifies to set aside 10% of winnings, then the system 400 will offer a matching reward equivalent to one ("1") times the set-aside amount in online venue points that are redeemable online, such as the online gaming venue (e.g., PlayersLife.Com). The system 400 can also offer a reward associated with a third party that would match the set-aside amount in points that can be redeemed via online venues (or other venues) associated with the third party…”, paragraph 67.
See also “…rewards based on performance of online activities, such as based on game play for non-wagering, online games (e.g., performance of casual games associated with a persistent-state wagering game), based on online purchases…”, paragraph 17.
“[0019] At stage "A," the online gaming server 140 provides content 103 (e.g., non-wagering game content, gaming content, secondary content, casual games, etc.) via a website. In some embodiments, the content 103 can be incorporated with a persistent-state game that progresses based on performance in non-wagering, online games as well as with performance in a wagering game….”, paragraph 19).
As to claim 11, Anderson discloses
wherein the wagering activity occurring in association with the gaming establishment occurs remote from any gaming establishment.
(see online gaming, “[0049] In some embodiments, the rewards are redeemable online rewards that also contribute to in-casino rewards. For instance, the system can provide a reward that is redeemable online (e.g., via a website), ….. in an online game, a balance of a player account at the time of redemption, etc. The reward can be based on an average balance, minimum balance, etc. of the player account during the interaction with the online game. In another example, if a player attains a certain game achievement in an online game, ….”, paragraph 49).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG. Pub. No. 20130130781 (Anderson) in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20100227672 (Amour).
As to claims 12 and 1, Anderson discloses a method of operating a gaming establishment fund management system (see at least Figs 2 and 5 and associated disclosure), the method comprising:
a) after a receipt, from a computing device of a financial institution, of data associated with an occurrence of an approved purchase made using funds from a financial institution account maintained for a user in association with the financial institution:
(“…Other embodiments provide rewards based on performance of online activities, such as based on game play for non-wagering, online games (e.g., performance of casual games associated with a persistent-state wagering game), based on online purchases, based on online social activities, etc”, paragraph 17.
“0058] Purchase Based Factors. [0059] In some examples, a reward value can be based on a value of an online purchase. For instance, a player may purchase a product or service from an online retailer (e-tailer) and be given an option to deposit funds into the player account in connection with the purchase, in return for a reward….”, paragraph 58);
b) causing, by a processor, an occurrence of a cashless wagering account contribution event comprising a contribution of an amount to a cashless wagering account associated with the user, wherein:
(“[0061] The system can offer rewards for an affiliate type deal. For example, if a player books a flight to Las Vegas using an online third-party travel agent, then the third party provides a portion of reward and/or a casino provides payment to the third party for offering the reward. The casino and third party can have a collaborative agreement on how to apportion and/or reimburse the reward. In some embodiments, a credit card company can offer a credit card that offers rewards for spending, using the credit card, in return for rewards. For instance, each amount of money spent on purchases using the credit card may deposit a percentage of money into the player account (e.g., an additional amount of money equivalent to 0.025% of the money spent on the credit card purchase gets automatically deposited into the player account) and a matching reward value can be based on the percentage of money deposited (e.g., a matching reward of points are awarded based on the of 0.025% value). The system can offer options for the player to increase or decrease the percentage. In some embodiments, the reward values can increase based on a type of the purchase. For instance, greater rewards can be available for pre-specified types that relate to wagering (e.g., purchases made on the credit card for merchandise or services associated with a sports team that a player can later wager on in a wagering game or in a casino..”, paragraph 61.
Further, Anderson’s system teaches a cashless wagering account contribution , see at least “… During the wagering game session, a player may win gaming credits,[cashless] such as via random winning configurations that occur on reels 402 associated with wagering game content 404. The system 400 can then present a message 410 notifying the player of the win amount (e.g., 10 credits) and that a percentage of the win amount (e.g., 30%, or 3 credits) is being automatically set aside into a second player account that can only be accessed during a subsequent visit to the casino 405. Further, the system 400 indicates, via the message 410, that additional rewards will be awarded. For instance, the system 400 indicates that a reward is provided of an amount of points [cashless] (e.g., 12 points) equivalent to the set aside amount multiplied by the multiplier (e.g., 4.times.3 credits=12 points…”, paragraph 67);
c) the amount contributed to the cashless wagering account is based on a purchase contribution rate and an amount of the approved purchase,
(“…For instance, each amount of money spent on purchases using the credit card may deposit a percentage of money into the player account (e.g., an additional amount of money equivalent to 0.025% of the money spent on the credit card purchase gets automatically deposited into the player account) and a matching reward value can be based on the percentage of money deposited (e.g., a matching reward of points are awarded based on the of 0.025% value). The system can offer options for the player to increase or decrease the percentage. In some embodiments, the reward values can increase based on a type of the purchase. For instance, greater rewards can be available for pre-specified types that relate to wagering (e.g., purchases made on the credit card for merchandise or services associated with a sports team that a player can later wager on in a wagering game or in a casino..”, paragraph 61);
d) the occurrence of the cashless wagering account contribution event is distinct from the occurrence of the approved purchase, and
(see at least Fig. 4, paragraphs 49, 59, “a reward value can be based on a value of an online purchase”, and 67, see also the reward values can increase based on an affiliate type deal, paragraph 61);
e) the occurrence of the cashless wagering account contribution event is independent of any winnings from any plays of any games at any electronic gaming machines,
(see at least “[0049] In some embodiments, the rewards are redeemable online rewards that also contribute to in-casino rewards. For instance, the system can provide a reward that is redeemable online (e.g., via a website), and that can also contribute to additional rewards redeemable in a casino based on some condition or aspect related to the redemption of the online reward, such as performance, achievement, progress etc. in an online game, a balance of a player account at the time of redemption, etc. The reward can be based on an average balance, minimum balance, etc. of the player account during the interaction with the online game. In another example, if a player attains a certain game achievement in an online game, and if the player's account balance is at a certain threshold when the game achievement is attained, then the system can increase a value to the reward, or select a reward that is more significant in value based on the value of the account balance. In some embodiments, the system can cause an online gaming achievement to become a goal or objective to attain while in the casino and, if attained in the casino will pay out the reward. For instance, if a player attains a full-house in an online game, then the full-house has meaning when played in the casino and, if attained in the casino, will provide a monetary reward (e.g., full houses would then pay 15% more). A performance in an online game can unlock types of functionality or features (e.g., bets types) available in a wagering game. The online game activity can further cause an increase to a value of a potential win or expected value (EV) in a wagering game or bonus game. The online game activity can further adjust a rate of change of mile/progression markers in a persistent-state game (e.g., double miles), which advance more quickly to unlock gaming content. Further, a non-wagering, online game can provide incremental rewards that increase in value the more a user plays the non-wagering, online game”, paragraph 49);
f) following the contribution of the amount to the cashless wagering account associated with the user, causing, by the processor, a first redemption of at least part of the amount contributed to the cashless wagering account by serially communicating fund data associated with the at least part of the amount contributed to an electronic gaming machine to cause a modification of a credit balance of the electronic gaming machine,
(“[0023] At stage "D," the system 100 redeems the reward. For example, a player may log in to the wagering game machine 160 using the player account to initiate a wagering game session. The wagering game server 150 communicates with the player account server 170 to determine that the player account had been previously assigned the reward for deposition of the funds in the player account prior to the player entering the casino 105 and/or prior to initiation of the wagering game session. In some embodiments, the reward is redeemable only during the wagering game session. For instance, the wagering game machine 160 presents wagering game content 104, such as a slot game (e.g., with slot reels 102 and controls and meters that control wagering, track gaming credit balances, [Examiner interprets as by serially communicating fund data associated with the at least part of the amount contributed to an electronic gaming machine to cause a modification of a credit balance ] etc….”, paragraph 23.
See also “…in some embodiments, when a player enters a casino, the system can check the balance of the account and determine the value of the reward at that time based on the amount in the player account”, paragraph 56);
g) following the contribution of the amount to the cashless wagering account associated with the user and distinct from any inputs received by any input devices of the electronic gaming machine, causing, by the processor, a second redemption of at least part of the amount contributed to the cashless wagering account by causing a communication of fund data associated with the at least part of the amount contributed to a component of a gaming establishment credit system to cause [a settlement of an outstanding liability of a gaming establishment marker associated with the user], wherein the second redemption occurs independent of any inputs received by the user to redeem any part of the amount contributed to the cashless wagering account.
(Anderson’s system teaches redemption of rewards, “…the reward is redeemable only during the wagering game session. For instance, the wagering game machine 160 presents wagering game content 104, such as a slot game (e.g., with slot reels 102 and controls and meters that control wagering, track gaming credit balances, [Examiner interprets as causing a communication of fund data associated with the at least part of the amount contributed to a component of a gaming establishment credit system ]etc….”, paragraph 23.
“0049] In some embodiments, the rewards are redeemable online rewards that also contribute to in-casino rewards. For instance, the system can provide a reward that is redeemable online (e.g., via a website), and that can also contribute to additional rewards redeemable in a casino based on some condition or aspect related to the redemption of the online reward, [Examiner interprets as wherein the second redemption occurs independent of any inputs received by the user to redeem any part of the amount contributed to the cashless wagering account] such as performance, achievement, progress etc. in an online game, a balance of a player account at the time of redemption, etc. The reward can be based on an average balance, minimum balance, etc. of the player account during the interaction with the online game. In another example, if a player attains a certain game achievement in an online game, and if the player's account balance is at a certain threshold when the game achievement is attained, then the system can increase a value to the reward, or select a reward that is more significant in value based on the value of the account balance…”, paragraph 49.
Next, Anderson’s system teaches cashless wagering account by causing a communication of fund data associated with the at least part of the amount contributed to a component of a gaming establishment credit system , see at least “… During the wagering game session, a player may win gaming credits,[cashless and a gaming establishment credit system ] such as via random winning configurations that occur on reels 402 associated with wagering game content 404. The system 400 can then present a message 410 notifying the player of the win amount (e.g., 10 credits) and that a percentage of the win amount (e.g., 30%, or 3 credits) is being automatically set aside into a second player account that can only be accessed during a subsequent visit to the casino 405. Further, the system 400 indicates, via the message 410, that additional rewards will be awarded. For instance, the system 400 indicates that a reward is provided of an amount of points [cashless and a gaming establishment credit system , ] (e.g., 12 points) equivalent to the set aside amount multiplied by the multiplier (e.g., 4.times.3 credits=12 points…”, paragraph 67. See also “track gaming credit balances”, paragraph 23. “…reward types … non-monetary credits,”, paragraphs 48, 58 and 60).
Although, Anderson’s system discloses rewards that are redeemable and it implies a settlement of an outstanding liability, see “In some embodiments, the rewards are redeemable online rewards that also contribute to in-casino rewards. For instance, the system can provide a reward that is redeemable online (e.g., via a website), and that can also contribute to additional rewards redeemable in a casino based on some condition or aspect related to the redemption of the online reward…”, paragraph 49. And “…system can cause an online gaming achievement to become a goal or objective to attain while in the casino and, if attained in the casino will pay out the reward. For instance, if a player attains a full-house in an online game, then the full-house has meaning when played in the casino and, if attained in the casino, will provide a monetary reward (e.g., full houses would then pay 15% more), same paragraph 49.
Anderson’s system does not explicitly disclose but Amour discloses
a settlement of an outstanding liability of a gaming establishment marker associated with the user,
(Amour that is in the business of “methods for providing gaming activities, these particularly relating to gaming activities implemented in conjunction with a flexible credit arrangement…”, abstract and paragraph 1.
Amour’s system explicitly discloses “[0373] At a broad level, in a transaction between a consumer and a supplier, the consumer exchanges a "transaction settlement amount" for predefined goods or services. Essentially, this "transaction settlement amount" corresponds to the specified or agreed price of the relevant goods or services. However, in practice, the consumer often provides to the supplier a "payment amount" which is greater than the "transaction settlement amount", the difference between the "payment amount" and the "transaction settlement amount" defining a "change amount"…”, paragraph 373.
“…A supplier is any party that provides goods and/or services to another party in exchange for a transaction settlement amount (i.e. a supplier receives payment for goods and/or services). Likewise, a consumer is any party that receives goods and/or services from another party in exchange for a transaction settlement amount (i.e. a c consumer pays for goods and/or services…”, paragraph 394).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Amour’s teaching with the teaching of Anderson. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to
offer goods and/or services to another party in exchange for a transaction settlement amount (i.e. a supplier receives payment for goods and/or services) in order to achieve consumers' participation in a flexible credit infrastructure (Amour abstract).
as to claim 1, it comprises the same limitations than claim 12 above, therefore is rejected in similar manner. The claim also comprises
A gaming establishment fund management system comprising (see Anderson at least Figs 2 and 5 and associated disclosure), a processor; (Anderson, Fig. 5 and associated disclosure) and a memory device (Anderson element 530 in Fig. 5) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor after a receipt, from a computing device of a financial institution, of data associated with an occurrence of an approved purchase made using funds from a financial institution account maintained for a user in association with the financial institution, cause the processor (Anderson paragraph 17).
As to claims 13 and 2, Anderson discloses
wherein the contributed amount comprises an amount of cashable funds.
(“[0021] At stage "B," the system 100 can detect the amount specified via the online form and cause an amount of electronic funds to transfer from the financial account server 130 to the player account stored and/or tracked via the player account server 170. The financial account server 130 may be a bank account, a credit card account, a personal funds account (e.g., PayPal.TM.) or any other account that provides electronic amounts of money to player to transfer to the wagering game player account.”, paragraph 21.
“[0023] At stage "D," the system 100 redeems the reward. For example, a player may log in to the wagering game machine 160 using the player account to initiate a wagering game session…”, paragraph 23).
As to claims 14 and 3, Anderson discloses
wherein the contributed amount comprises an amount of player tracking points.
(“[0023] At stage "D," the system 100 redeems the reward. For example, a player may log in to the wagering game machine 160 using the player account to initiate a wagering game session. The wagering game server 150 communicates with the player account server 170 to determine that the player account had been previously assigned the reward for deposition of the funds in the player account prior to the player entering the casino 105 and/or prior to initiation of the wagering game session. In some embodiments, the reward is redeemable only during the wagering game session. For instance, the wagering game machine 160 presents wagering game content 104, such as a slot game (e.g., with slot reels 102 and controls and meters that control wagering, track gaming credit balances, etc….”, paragraph 23.
“ … The system can provide rewards (e.g., points, credits, etc.) that a third-party can bundle with a travel package or deal….”, paragraph 59).
As to claims 15 and 4, Anderson discloses
wherein a first approved purchase is associated with a first purchase contribution rate
(“…For instance, each amount of money spent on purchases using the credit card may deposit a percentage of money into the player account (e.g., an additional amount of money equivalent to 0.025% of the money spent on the credit card purchase gets automatically deposited into the player account)…”, paragraph 61 and Fig. 4).
Anderson does not disclose
a second, different approved purchase is associated with a second, different purchase contribution rate.
But, from Anderson’s teaching of amount of money spent on purchases and corresponding contribution rate for the player account, (paragraph 61) it is obvious that different purchase contribution rates other than non pre-specified types, a second, different approved purchase is associated with a second, different purchase contribution rate can be assigned, and the outcome would have yield predictable results.
As to claims 16 and 5, Anderson discloses
wherein a first approved purchase associated with a first amount of funds is associated with a first contribution to the cashless wagering account and a second, different approved purchase associated with the first amount of funds is associated with a second, different contribution to the cashless wagering account.
(“…For example, higher levels or degrees of deposit amounts can provide increasingly larger levels or degrees of rewards (e.g., a $100 deposit may reward 100 points, but a $200 deposit may reward 300 points, wherein the scale of reward increases in factor or percentage the higher the deposit amount increases…”, paragraph 52 and Fig. 4).
As to claims 17 and 6, Anderson discloses
wherein the first contribution to the cashless wagering account comprises a first type of credit and the second, different contribution to the cashless wagering account comprises a second, different type of credit.
(“[0021] At stage "B," the system 100 can detect the amount specified via the online form and cause an amount of electronic funds to transfer from the financial account server 130 to the player account stored and/or tracked via the player account server 170. The financial account server 130 may be … a credit card account [Examiner equates a first type of credit], a personal funds account (e.g., PayPal.TM.[second, different type of credit]) or any other account that provides electronic amounts of money to player to transfer to the wagering game player account”, paragraph 21).
As to claims 18 and 7, Anderson discloses
following the contribution of the amount to the cashless wagering account associated with the user and distinct from any inputs received by any input devices of the electronic gaming machine, causing, by the processor, a third redemption of at least part of the amount contributed to the cashless wagering account by causing a contribution to a progressive award, wherein responsive to an occurrence of a randomly determined triggering event, a balance of the cashless wagering account is modified based on the progressive award.
(“…. the reward types include rewards redeemable directly online.…In yet another example, the reward can be to make a player account eligible to trigger an online progressive award …”, paragraph 48.
“[0049] In some embodiments, the rewards are redeemable online rewards that also contribute to in-casino rewards. For instance, the system can provide a reward that is redeemable online (e.g., via a website), and that can also contribute to additional rewards redeemable in a casino based on some condition or aspect related to the redemption of the online reward, such as performance, achievement, progress etc in an online game, a balance of a player account at the time of redemption [Examiner interprets as a balance of the cashless wagering account is modified based on the progressive award], etc. The reward can be based on an average balance, minimum balance, etc. of the player account during the interaction with the online game [Examiner interprets as responsive to an occurrence of a randomly determined triggering event]. . …”, paragraph 49).
As to claims 20 and 9, Anderson discloses
wherein the financial institution account comprises a credit card account.
(“…The financial account server 130 may be … a credit card account ….”, paragraph 21).
As to claims 19 and 8, Anderson discloses
following the contribution of the amount to the cashless wagering account associated with the user and distinct from any inputs received by any input devices of the electronic gaming machine, causing, by the processor, a third redemption of at least part of the amount contributed to the cashless wagering account by purchasing a quantity of entries in a drawing,
(“wherein the reward comprises one or more of non-monetary credits to play a non-wagering game, … a sweepstakes entry, a discount, points, a mobile application, an entry into a community game, access to restricted wagering games, a bonus in a wagering game, an increment to a win value in a wagering game, an increment to an expected payout value for a wagering game, …”, claim 22)
wherein responsive to one of the purchased quantity of entries in the drawing being a winning entry, a balance of the cashless wagering account is modified based on an award associated with the drawing.
(“… a balance of a player account at the time of redemption, …system can increase a value to the reward, or select a reward that is more significant in value based on the value of the account balance. …”, paragraph 49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 07/21/2026 have been very carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (remarks 14-18)
The Office Action rejected Claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(l) as being
anticipated by U.S. 2013/0130781 to Anderson et al. ("Anderson").
Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that while Anderson includes determining a
reward value to be deposited into a player account based on a value of an online purchase and
further includes depositing into a player account a percentage of an amount of money spent on
purchases using a credit card (see paragraphs [0059] and [0060]), Anderson does not include any
automatic initiation of any wagering activity occurring in association with a gaming establishment
based on such deposits of funds into the player account. That is, while Anderson includes a player
redeeming an award provided via the depositing of the funds in the player account (see paragraphs
[0023] to [0025]) and while Anderson includes the redemption results in casino activities, such as
plays of games (see paragraphs [0047] to [0050]), none of the redemption options of Anderson
automatically occur. Put differently, while Anderson includes a deposit of funds into a player
account based on money spent online and while Anderson further includes that such funds may be
redeemable during a wagering game session, Anderson fails to include that such funds are
automatically redeemed to fund, independent of any inputs received by the user, wagering activity
in association with a gaming establishment. In other words, while Anderson appears to include the automatic earning of a benefit (e.g., see example of paragraph [0049] of a player attaining a
full-house in a casino being provided a 15%) benefit relative to the full-house attained in an online
game), Anderson does not include any automatic redemption of that earned benefit occurring
independent of any inputs made by the player to redeem that earned benefit….
In response the Examiner asserts that a prima facie of anticipation and obviousness has been established. When a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with persuasive rebuttal evidence or argument to overcome the prima facie case (MPEP 2145). The Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant has not provided persuasive rebuttal evidence to overcome the prima facie case. The references used in the prima facie are strong and discloses all the limitations in the claims. Regarding to allegation “ Anderson does not include any automatic initiation of any wagering activity occurring in association with a gaming establishment
based on such deposits of funds into the player account”, the Examiner asserts that there is not novelty at all in this limitation, also the complete claim 10, is anticipated by Anderson, paragraph 49. The Examiner notes that also the prima facie established in this case discloses a system that holds a state that builds value and automates cash payouts or redemptions, see at least Anderson, paragraphs 67, 17, 18.
Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that while Anderson includes, as indicated
above, a player redeeming a reward provided in exchange for the depositing of the funds in the
player account (see paragraphs [0023] to [0025]), Anderson does not specify that such a reward is deposited into a cashless wagering account nor does Anderson specify that such a cashless
wagering account is accessible at an electronic gaming machine. Specifically, while Anderson
includes that rewards are redeemable directly in-casino and may take the form of unlocking or
providing unique in-casino content or providing tickets for shows, buffets, or other services and
items available at a casino (see paragraphs [0047] to [0050]), Anderson does not disclose that the
rewards are contributed to a cashless wagering account which is accessible, via a serial
communication of fund data, at an electronic gaming machine….
In response the Examiner asserts that the prima facie established in this case is strong and discloses all the limitations in the claims. The prima facie teaches a cashless wagering account contribution , see at least “… During the wagering game session, a player may win gaming credits,[cashless] such as via random winning configurations that occur on reels 402 associated with wagering game content 404. The system 400 can then present a message 410 notifying the player of the win amount (e.g., 10 credits) and that a percentage of the win amount (e.g., 30%, or 3 credits) is being automatically set aside into a second player account that can only be accessed during a subsequent visit to the casino 405. Further, the system 400 indicates, via the message 410, that additional rewards will be awarded. For instance, the system 400 indicates that a reward is provided of an amount of points [cashless] (e.g., 12 points) equivalent to the set aside amount multiplied by the multiplier (e.g., 4.times.3 credits=12 points…”, paragraph 67.
Applicant further submits that Anderson lacks any interaction with any gaming
establishment credit system. While Anderson includes that the rewards are redeemable online
rewards that contribute to in-casino rewards and that the online game activity adjusts a rate of
change of mile/progression markers in a persistent-state game (e.g., double miles) (see paragraph
[0049]), Anderson lacks any gaming establishment credit systems that maintain any gaming
establishment markers or lines of credit. And without any gaming establishment credit system to
interact with (and similar to the lack of an automatic redemption toward a wagering activity as
described above with respect to Claim 10),
In response the Examiner asserts that the prima facie established in this case is solid and discloses all the limitations in the claims. The prima facie teaches cashless wagering account by causing a communication of fund data associated with the at least part of the amount contributed to a component of a gaming establishment credit system , see at least “… During the wagering game session, a player may win gaming credits,such as via random winning configurations that occur on reels 402 associated with wagering game content 404. The system 400 can then present a message 410 notifying the player of the win amount (e.g., 10 credits) and that a percentage of the win amount (e.g., 30%, or 3 credits) is being automatically set aside into a second player account that can only be accessed during a subsequent visit to the casino 405. Further, the system 400 indicates, via the message 410, that additional rewards will be awarded. For instance, the system 400 indicates that a reward is provided of an amount of points(e.g., 12 points) equivalent to the set aside amount multiplied by the multiplier (e.g., 4.times.3 credits=12 points…”, paragraph 67. See also “track gaming credit balances”, paragraph 23. “…reward types … non-monetary credits,”, paragraphs 48, 58 and 60.
Amour does not cure these deficiencies of Anderson because while Amour
includes that "[a]t a broad level, in a transaction between a consumer and a supplier, the consumer exchanges a "transaction settlement amount" for predefined goods or services. Essentially, this "transaction settlement amount" corresponds to the specified or agreed price of the relevant goods or services" (see paragraph [0373]) and further includes that "[t]he terms "supplier" and "consumer" should be afforded broad interpretations in the context of the present invention. A supplier is any party that provides goods and/or services to another party in exchange for a transaction settlement amount (i.e. a supplier receives payment for goods and/or services).
Likewise, a consumer is any party that receives goods and/or services from another party in
exchange for a transaction settlement amount (i.e. a c consumer pays for goods and/or services)"
(see paragraph [0394]), Amour lacks any interaction with any gaming establishment credit system.
Since Amour lacks any gaming establishment credit systems that maintain any gaming
establishment markers or lines of credit, Amour correspondingly lacks any settlement of any
outstanding liability of such an absent gaming establishment marker associated with a user.
In response the Examiner asserts that the prima facie of obviousness established in this case is solid and discloses all the limitations in the claims. The Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant has not provided persuasive rebuttal evidence to overcome the prima facie case. Further, the elements of this instant Application are old and well known at the time of the invention. The combination set for the rejection produce results that are predictable. There is lack of novelty on the claimed invention therefore there is a loss of a right to a patent.
Applicant argues (remarks 9-14)
The Office Action rejected Claims 1 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to nonstatutory subject matter identified as "certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors".
Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the Federal Circuit has recognized that
not every claim is directed to an abstract idea, and that software-type claims in particular are not
"inherently abstract." Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[A]
substantial class of claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept."). The Federal Circuit
has specifically cautioned against describing the claims at a "high level of abstraction and
untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to § 101…Applicant further submits that under the first prong of Step 2A, the claims are not directed
to an abstract idea. In this case, the Office's characterization of the claims as directed to
"advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors" improperly abstracts the claims beyond
the actual claim language. The claims are not directed to the abstract concept of "advertising,
marketing or sales activities or behaviors" generally. Rather, the claims recite a specific technical
solution to a technical problem in gaming establishment fund management system architecture
which are rooted in computer technology, not in fundamental economic practices.
In response the Examiner asserts that the instant claims were reviewed according with the last “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c).
The rejection of the claims under 101 is maintained because the claims are directed to an abstract idea, which is a judicial exception. The instant claims comprise certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The method for operating a gaming establishment fund management system. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Next, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the additional elements are “from a computing device of a financial institution”; “from a financial institution account maintained for a user in association with the financial institution:” “by a processor”; “cashless wagering account “; “from any plays of any games at any electronic gaming machines,”; “the cashless wagering account by serially communicating fund data associated with the at least part of the amount contributed to an electronic gaming machine “; “by any input devices of the electronic gaming machine, causing, by the processor”; “by causing a communication of fund data“; “to a component of a gaming establishment credit system”; “cashless wagering account”. The limitations comprise generic recited computer elements and software.
The additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea because it merely reflects the use of conventional technology and amounts to only generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements can also be considered no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements, beside the abstract idea, are generic computer components claimed to perform their basic functions of the invention. The Additional elements do not conform an inventive concept eligible for patent protection.
Applicant further submits that under the second prong of Step 2A and in accordance with
MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.0S(a), an improvement that integrates a judicial exception into a
practical application can be provided by additional element(s) of a claim in combination with the
recited judicial exception such that the Office should evaluate whether the claim as a whole, not
only any additional elements, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. That is,
all additional elements recited in a claim should be given equal weight because the second prong
of Step 2A specifically excludes consideration of whether the additional elements represent well understood, routine, and/or conventional activity. Thus, a claim that includes conventional
elements may still integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, thereby satisfying the
subject matter eligibility requirement of Section 101.
Against this backdrop, Applicant submits that even if, arguendo, the claims were found to
recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A, the claims are nonetheless integrated into
a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. Specifically, Applicant submits that
the techniques for operating the gaming establishment fund management systems and methods
recited in the claims, even if somehow directed to the alleged abstract idea, integrate that abstract
idea into a practical application, thereby satisfying the subject matter eligibility requirement of §101..
In response the Examiner agrees that the instant application is in compliance with the utility requirement. The claimed invention has a readily apparent well-established utility (see MPEP 2107). But, per MPEP 2106 an invention also must have to comply with the Subject Matter Eligibility test under Alice framework.
The instant claims are directed to an abstract idea. None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination, provides eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement an abstract idea with routine, conventional technology.
The step 2A and Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, review the additional elements beside the abstract idea. The additional elements, “from a computing device of a financial institution”; “from a financial institution account maintained for a user in association with the financial institution:” “by a processor”; “cashless wagering account “; “from any plays of any games at any electronic gaming machines,”; “the cashless wagering account by serially communicating fund data associated with the at least part of the amount contributed to an electronic gaming machine “; “by any input devices of the electronic gaming machine, causing, by the processor”; “by causing a communication of fund data“; “to a component of a gaming establishment credit system”; “cashless wagering account”, comprise some technology, but the 2019 PEG test concluded that the additional elements in the instant claims do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea identified above, as the additional elements do not: Improve another technology or technical field; Improve the functioning of a computer itself; Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field; Add meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment; Improve computer related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer. The claims as a whole recite an abstract idea, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A) and the additional elements in the claims beside the abstract idea do not conform an eligible inventive concept (step 2B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Use of a Wagering Account Transfer (WAT) to Provide a Means of Purchasing Items from a Gaming Device”. IP.COM. 2007. This publication discloses
Wagering Accounts are relatively new in casino operations. Typically these accounts are used to store player loyalty points that can be downloaded to gaming machines and converted to, or used as, gaming credits. In some cases the capability exists for casino patrons to transfer these credits, as well as other credits, from the gaming machine back to the patron’s personal wagering account. These accounts can also be funded by the patron with cash or debit instruments. A Wagering Account Transfer (WAT) is the term used to describe the movement of these credits, points, or funds either to or from a player’s wagering account. The invention is to expand the usability of a wagering account and wagering account transfers to include the capability to make purchases by using a WAT to transfer funds, sufficient to pay for a desired item, off the gaming device or out of a player’s account, effectively purchasing the item, by using an interface on the gaming device and/or an ancillary interface on or in the gaming device cabinet to affect the purchase.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VICTORIA VANDERHORST whose telephone number is (571)270-3604. The examiner can normally be reached on business hours from Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashraf Waseem can be reached on 571-270-3948. 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.
/MARIA V VANDERHORST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688 9/3/2021
Prosecution Insights