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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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.
Claims 1-9, 12-20
Step 1
In the instant case, claims 1-9 are directed to a system (i.e. machine), and claims 12-20 are directed to a method (i.e. process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claim 1
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of purchase transaction processing with security measures and customer account verification. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the
processor responsive to a receipt, from a server of a closed loop gaming establishment retail system, of data associated with an attempted retail purchase at a point-of-sale terminal in communication with the server of the closed loop gaming establishment retail system, cause the processor to:
automatically determine if any enhanced security measures are associated with the attempted retail purchase, the automatic determination being on at least one of a location of the point-of-sale terminal, a time of the attempted retail purchase, a channel of commerce associated with the attempted retail purchase, and a rate of consumption associated with a gaming establishment retail account maintained by the gaming establishment fund management system independent of the closed loop gaming establishment retail system,
responsive to the automatic determination being that an enhanced security measure is associated with the attempted retail purchase:
determine if the enhanced security measure is satisfied by a user,
responsive to the determination being that the enhanced security measure is satisfied and responsive to a determination that a balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user includes at least an amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase:
enable the point-of-sale terminal to complete the attempted retail purchase, and
modify the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user based on an amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase, and
responsive to the determination being that the enhanced security measure is not satisfied and responsive to the determination that the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user includes at least the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase, disable the point-of-sale terminal from completing the attempted retail purchase, and
responsive to the automatic determination being that no enhanced security measure is associated with the attempted retail purchase and responsive to the determination that the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user includes at least the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase, automatically and independent of any satisfaction of any security measures:
enable the point-of-sale terminal to complete the attempted retail purchase, and
modify the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user based on the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, claim 1 under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas because the claim recites a process of determining security checking for a purchase attempted by a customer, verifying customer information and account balance for the purchase, approving the purchase with or without security measure verification and updating the account balance, or rejecting the purchase, which is a commercial interaction.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “a gaming establishment fund management system,” "a processor," "a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor…cause the processor to…" “a server of a closed loop gaming establishment retail system,” “a point-of-sale terminal,” merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the elements “a point-of-sale terminal in communication with the server of the closed loop gaming establishment retail system,” do not improve the functioning of a computer, nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 1, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 12
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 12 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of purchase transaction processing with security measures and customer account verification. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
responsive to a receipt, from a server of a closed loop gaming establishment retail system, of data associated with an attempted retail purchase at a point-of-sale terminal in communication with the server of the closed loop gaming establishment retail system, cause the processor to:
automatically determining, by a processor, if any enhanced security measures are associated with the attempted retail purchase, the automatic determination being on at least one of a location of the point-of-sale terminal, a time of the attempted retail purchase, a channel of commerce associated with the attempted retail purchase, and a rate of consumption associated with a gaming establishment retail account maintained by the gaming establishment fund management system independent of the closed loop gaming establishment retail system,
responsive to the automatic determination being that an enhanced security measure is associated with the attempted retail purchase:
determining, by the processor, if the enhanced security measure is satisfied by a user,
responsive to the determination being that the enhanced security measure is satisfied and responsive to a determination that a balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user includes at least an amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase:
enable the point-of-sale terminal to complete the attempted retail purchase, and
modifying, by the processor, the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user based on an amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase, and
responsive to the determination being that the enhanced security measure is not satisfied and responsive to the determination that the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user includes at least the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase, disable the point-of-sale terminal from completing the attempted retail purchase, and
responsive to the automatic determination being that no enhanced security measure is associated with the attempted retail purchase and responsive to the determination that the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user includes at least the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase, automatically and independent of any satisfaction of any security measures:
enable the point-of-sale terminal to complete the attempted retail purchase, and
modifying, by the processor, the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user based on the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, claim 10 under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas because the claim recites a process of determining security checking for a purchase attempted by a customer, verifying customer information and account balance for the purchase, approving the purchase with or without security measure verification and updating the account balance, or rejecting the purchase, which is a commercial interaction.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “a gaming establishment fund management system,” “a server of a closed loop gaming establishment retail system,” "a processor," “a point-of-sale terminal,” merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the elements “a point-of-sale terminal in communication with the server of the closed loop gaming establishment retail system,” do not improve the functioning of a computer, nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 1, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims: 2-9, 13-20
Claims 2 and 13 each recites characteristics (‘an amount of non-cashable funds associated with the gaming establishment account’) of the amount of funds. Therefore, it further recites the abstract idea of purchase transaction processing with security measures and customer account verification. The claims do not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 3 and 14 each recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
automatically determine if any enhanced security measures are associated with the attempted retail purchase based on at least another one of the location of the point-of-sale terminal, the time of the attempted retail purchase, the channel of commerce associated with the attempted retail purchase, the rate of consumption associated with the gaming establishment retail account, and the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of purchase transaction processing with security measures and customer account verification. The claims do not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 4 and 15 each recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
determine if the enhanced security measure is satisfied by the user based on data received from a mobile device associated with the user.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of purchase transaction processing with security measures and customer account verification. The non-underlined additional elements of "a mobile device," merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts no more than merely instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The non-underlined additional element fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 5 and 16 each recites additional details of the type of data received. Therefore, it further recites the abstract idea of purchase transaction processing with security measures and customer account verification. The claims do not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 6 and 17 each recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
determine if the enhanced security measure is satisfied by the user based on data received from the point-of-sale terminal.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of purchase transaction processing with security measures and customer account verification. The claims do not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 7 and 18 each recites additional details of the type of data received. Therefore, it further recites the abstract idea of purchase transaction processing with security measures and customer account verification. The claims do not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 8 and 19 each recites further details of the point-of-sale terminal. Therefore, it further recites the abstract idea of purchase transaction processing with security measures and customer account verification. The claims do not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 9 and 20 each recites the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
associate any enhanced security measures with the attempted retail purchase responsive to an input received from the user.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of purchase transaction processing with security measures and customer account verification. The claims do not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 10
Step 1
In the instant case, claims 10-11 are directed to a system (i.e. machine). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 10 recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of purchase transaction processing with security measures and customer account verification. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a receipt, from a server of a closed loop gaming establishment retail system, of data associated with an attempted retail purchase at a gaming establishment point-of-sale terminal in communication with the server of the closed loop gaming establishment retail system, cause the processor to:
automatically determine if any enhanced security measures are associated with a gaming establishment retail account, the automatic determination being on at least one of a location of the gaming establishment point-of-sale terminal, a time of the attempted retail purchase, a channel of commerce associated with the attempted retail purchase, and a rate of consumption associated with the gaming establishment retail account maintained by the gaming establishment fund management system independent of the closed loop gaming establishment retail system,
responsive to the automatic determination being that an enhanced security measure is associated with the gaming establishment retail account and responsive to a determination that the enhanced security measure is satisfied by a user, determine if a balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user includes at least an amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase,
responsive to the automatic determination being that the enhanced security measure is associated with the gaming establishment retail account and responsive to a determination that the enhanced security measure is not satisfied by the user, disable the gaming establishment point-of-sale terminal from completing the attempted retail purchase, and
responsive to the automatic determination being that no enhanced security measures are associated with the gaming establishment retail account, automatically and independent of any satisfaction of any security measures, determine if the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user includes at least the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, claim 10 under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas because the claim recites a process of determining security checking for a purchase attempted by a customer, verifying customer information and account balance for the purchase, approving the purchase with or without security measure verification and updating the account balance, or rejecting the purchase, which is a commercial interaction.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “a gaming establishment fund management system,” "a processor," "a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor…cause the processor to…" “a server of a closed loop gaming establishment retail system,” “a gaming establishment point-of-sale terminal,” merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the elements “a gaming establishment point-of-sale terminal in communication with the server of the closed loop gaming establishment retail system,” do not improve the functioning of a computer, nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 10, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 10
Claim 10 recites characteristics (‘an amount of non-cashable funds associated with the gaming establishment account’) of the amount of funds. Therefore, it further recites the abstract idea of purchase transaction processing with security measures and customer account verification. The claim does not introduce any new additional element. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “enable the point-of-sale terminal to complete the attempted retail purchase” and “…disable the point-of-sale terminal from completing the attempted retail purchase…” The recitation only appears in the claim portion of applicant’s disclosure. The specification fails to provide written description for the claim limitation, “enable the point-of-sale terminal to complete the attempted retail purchase” and “disable the point-of-sale terminal from completing the attempted retail purchase.” As such, no support can be found in the specification for the claim limitations. (In re Katz, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) Claims 10 and 12 are also rejected on the same basis as each recites similar language.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected as each depends upon claim 1. Claim 11 is also rejected as claim 11 depends upon claim 10. Claims 13-20 are also rejected as each depends upon claim 12.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries 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, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanford et al. (US 10,706,684B1 (“Sanford”) in view of Kushevsky et al. (US 2015/0339648A1 (“Kushevsky”)) in further view of Murphy et al. (US 9,818266B2 (“Murphy”)).
Per Claim 1: Sanford discloses a gaming establishment fund management system comprising: (Fig. 2B, Fig. 8; 2:17:19)
a processor (20:28-44); and
a memory device (20:28-44) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a receipt, from a server of a closed loop gaming establishment retails system, of data associated with an attempted retail purchase at a point-of-sale terminal of the gaming establishment retail system, cause the processor to: (Fig. 8: 6:62-6:23, 8:26-67, 15:46-48)
automatically determine if any enhanced security measures are associated with the attempted retail purchase, the automatic determination being on at least one of a location of the point-of-sale terminal, a time of the attempted retail purchase, a channel of commerce associated with the attempted retail purchase, and a rate of consumption associated with a gaming establishment retail account maintained by the gaming establishment fund management system independent of the closed loop gaming establishment retail system, (Fig. 8: 6:47-49, 7:24-25, 16:19-31)
responsive to the automatic determination being that an enhanced security measure is associated with the attempted retail purchase: (Fig. 8: 6:47-49, 7:24-25, 16:19-31)
determine if the enhanced security measure is satisfied by a user, (16:32-51, 17:6-29)
responsive to the determination being that the enhanced security measure is satisfied and responsive to a determination that a balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user includes at least an amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase: (16:32-51, 17:6-29)
[communicate] the point-of-sale terminal to complete the attempted retail purchase, and (17:19-21)
modify the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user based on an amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase, and (3:65-4:11, 17:6-23)
responsive to the determination being that the enhanced security measure is not satisfied and responsive to the determination that the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user includes at least the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase (16:19-31, 16:32-51, 17:6-29), [communicate] the point-of-sale terminal from [not] completing the attempted retail purchase, and (16:19-31)
responsive to the automatic determination being that no enhanced security measure is associated with the attempted retail purchase and responsive to the determination that the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user includes at least the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase, automatically and independent of any satisfaction of any security measures: (4:6-11, 6:62-7:23, 14:13-18, 15:40-46)
[communicate] the point-of-sale terminal to complete the attempted retail purchase, and (17:19-21)
modify the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user based on the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase. (3:65-4:11, 17:6-23)
Sanford discloses communicating with a point-of-sale terminal to complete the attempted the attempted retail purchase (17:19-21). Sanford does not explicitly disclose enabling a point-of-sale terminal.
Kushevsky teaches enabling a point-of-sale terminal (¶97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sanford and to incorporate the teachings of enabling a point-of-sale terminal, as disclosed in Kushevsky, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanford, to include the teachings of Kushevsky, for secure processing payment during a transaction at a point-of-sale terminal. (Kushevsky: ¶2)
Sanford discloses communicating with a point-of-sale terminal not completing the attempted the attempted retail purchase (16:19-31). Sanford does not explicitly disclose disabling a point-of-sale terminal.
Murphy teaches disabling a point-of-sale terminal (18:14-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sanford and to incorporate the teachings of disabling a point-of-sale terminal, as disclosed in Murphy, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanford, to include the teachings of Murphy, for fraud protection. (Murphy: 19-20)
Per Claim 12: Sanford discloses a method of operating a gaming establishment fund management system, the method comprising: (Fig. 2B, Fig. 8; 2:17:19)
responsive to a receipt, from a server of a closed loop gaming establishment retails system, of data associated with an attempted retail purchase at a point-of-sale terminal of the gaming establishment retail system: (Fig. 8: 6:62-6:23, 8:26-67, 15:46-48)
automatically determining, by a processor, if any enhanced security measures are associated with the attempted retail purchase, the automatic determination being on at least one of a location of the point-of-sale terminal, a time of the attempted retail purchase, a channel of commerce associated with the attempted retail purchase, and a rate of consumption associated with a gaming establishment retail account maintained by the gaming establishment fund management system independent of the closed loop gaming establishment retail system, (Fig. 8: 6:47-49, 7:24-25, 16:19-31)
responsive to the automatic determination being that an enhanced security measure is associated with the attempted retail purchase: (Fig. 8: 6:47-49, 7:24-25, 16:19-31)
determining, by the processor, if the enhanced security measure is satisfied by a user, (16:32-51, 17:6-29)
responsive to the determination being that the enhanced security measure is satisfied and responsive to a determination that a balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user includes at least an amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase: (16:32-51, 17:6-29)
[communicate] the point-of-sale terminal to complete the attempted retail purchase, and (17:19-21)
modifying, by the processor, the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user based on an amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase, and (3:65-4:11, 17:6-23)
responsive to the determination being that the enhanced security measure is not satisfied and responsive to the determination that the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user includes at least the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase (16:19-31, 16:32-51, 17:6-29), [communicate] the point-of-sale terminal from [not] completing the attempted retail purchase, and (16:19-31)
responsive to the automatic determination being that no enhanced security measure is associated with the attempted retail purchase and responsive to the determination that the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user includes at least the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase, automatically and independent of any satisfaction of any security measures: (4:6-11, 6:62-7:23, 14:13-18, 15:40-46)
[communicate] the point-of-sale terminal to complete the attempted retail purchase, and (17:19-21)
modifying, by the processor, the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user based on the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase. (3:65-4:11, 17:6-23)
Sanford discloses communicating with a point-of-sale terminal to complete the attempted the attempted retail purchase (17:19-21). Sanford does not explicitly disclose enabling a point-of-sale terminal.
Kushevsky teaches enabling a point-of-sale terminal (¶97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sanford and to incorporate the teachings of enabling a point-of-sale terminal, as disclosed in Kushevsky, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanford, to include the teachings of Kushevsky, for secure processing payment during a transaction at a point-of-sale terminal. (Kushevsky: ¶2)
Sanford discloses communicating with a point-of-sale terminal not completing the attempted the attempted retail purchase (16:19-31). Sanford does not explicitly disclose disabling a point-of-sale terminal.
Murphy teaches disabling a point-of-sale terminal (18:14-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sanford and to incorporate the teachings of disabling a point-of-sale terminal, as disclosed in Murphy, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanford, to include the teachings of Murphy, for fraud protection. (Murphy: 19-20)
The limitation, “responsive to the determination being that the enhanced security measure is not satisfied and responsive to the determination that the balance of the gaming establishment account associated with the user includes at least the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase, disable the point-of-sale terminal from completing the attempted retail purchase” recites optional language. The limitation, (‘responsive to the determination being that the enhanced security measure is satisfied…’, ‘responsive to the determination being that the enhanced security measure is not satisfied…’,) are mutually exclusive because a determining condition of the enhanced security measure being satisfied for the attempted retail purchase, or not, but not both. Therefore, the limitation, “responsive to the determination being that the enhanced security measure is not satisfied and responsive to the determination that the balance of the gaming establishment account associated with the user includes at least the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase, disable the point-of-sale terminal from completing the attempted retail purchase,” is not performed. Therefore, it does not get patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.04 II states “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.)
Furthermore, the claim recites 2 conditions (‘responsive to the determination being that the enhanced security measure is associated with the attempted retail purchase…’, ‘responsive to the determination being that no enhanced security measure is associated with the attempted retail purchase…’) These conditions (‘responsive to the determination being that the enhanced security measure is associated with the attempted retail purchase…’, ‘responsive to the determination being that no enhanced security measure is associated with the attempted retail purchase…’) as recited in the claim are mutually exclusive because a determining condition of the attempted retail purchase can be associated with the enhanced security measure, or not, but not both. Therefore, the limitation, “responsive to the determination being that no enhanced security measure is associated with the attempted retail purchase and responsive to the determination that the balance of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user includes at least the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase, automatically and independent of any satisfaction of any security measures: communicate data which results in the point-of-sale terminal completing the attempted retail purchase, and modify the balance of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user based on the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase,” is not performed because the limitation (‘responsive to the determination being that an enhanced security measure is associated with the attempted retail purchase:…”, but not both, can be performed. Therefore, it does not get patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.04 II states “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.)
Per Claims 2 and 13: The combination of Sanford in view of Kushevsky, and Murphy discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Sanford discloses:
wherein the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase comprise an amount of non-cashable funds associated with the gaming establishment retail account. (10:5-23)
Per Claims 3 and 14: The combination of Sanford in view of Kushevsky and Murphy discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Sanford discloses wherein when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the processor to
automatically determine if any enhanced security measures are associated with the attempted retail purchase based on at least another one of the location of the point-of-sale terminal, the time of the attempted retail purchase, the channel of commerce associated with the attempted retail purchase, the rate of consumption associated with the gaming establishment retail account, and the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account. (6:48-49, 10:24-36, 16:19-31)
Per Claims 4 and 15: The combination of Sanford in view of Kushevsky and Murphy discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Sanford discloses wherein when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the processor to
determine if the enhanced security measure is satisfied by the user based on data received from a [payment vehicle] associated with the user. (6:38-39, 6:47-49)
Kushevsky teaches a mobile device as the payment vehicle.(¶¶3, 56)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sanford and to incorporate the teachings of a mobile device as a payment vehicle, as disclosed in Kushevsky, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanford, to include the teachings of Kushevsky, for secure processing payment during a transaction at a point-of-sale terminal. (Kushevsky: ¶2)
Per Claims 5 and 16: The combination of Sanford in view of Kushevsky and Murphy discloses all limitations of claims 4 and 15.
Sanford discloses wherein the data received from the [payment vehicle] comprises at least one of a personal identification number inputted by the user and a verification of the attempted retail purchase inputted by the user. (11:62-12:9, 12:13-16)
Kushevsky teaches a mobile device as the payment vehicle. (¶¶3, 56)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sanford and to incorporate the teachings of a mobile device as a payment vehicle, as disclosed in Kushevsky, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanford, to include the teachings of Kushevsky, for secure processing payment during a transaction at a point-of-sale terminal. (Kushevsky: ¶2)
Per Claims 6 and 17: The combination of Sanford in view of Kushevsky and Murphy discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Sanford discloses wherein when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the processor to
determine if the enhanced security measure is satisfied by the user based on data received from the point-of-sale terminal. (12:2-9, 12:13-16, 16:67-17:5, claim 4)
Per Claims 7 and 18: The combination of Sanford in view of Kushevsky and Murphy discloses all limitations of claims 6 and 17.
Sanford discloses:
wherein the data received from the point-of-sale terminal comprises a verification of an identity of the user based on a presentation of picture identification documentation. (11:64-12:9)
Per Claims 8 and 19: The combination of Sanford in view of Kushevsky and Murphy discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Sanford discloses:
wherein the point-of-sale terminal is located remote from a gaming establishment. (6:62-7:7)
Per Claims 9 and 20: The combination of Sanford in view of Kushevsky and Murphy discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Sanford discloses wherein when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the processor to
associate any enhanced security measures with the attempted retail purchase responsive to an input received from the user. (11:62-12:9)
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanford et al. (US 10,706,684B1 (“Sanford ‘684’ ) in view of Murphy et al. (US 9,818266B2 (“Murphy”)).
Per Claim 10: Sanford discloses a gaming establishment fund management system comprising: (Fig. 2B, Fig. 8; 2:17:19)
a processor (20:28-44); and
a memory device (20:28-44) that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a receipt, from a server of a closed loop gaming establishment retail system, of data associated with an attempted retail purchase at a gaming establishment point-of-sale terminal in communication with the server of the closed loop gaming establishment retail system, cause the processor to (Fig. 8: 6:62-6:23, 8:26-67, 15:46-48)
automatically determine if any enhanced security measures are associated with a gaming establishment retail account, the automatic determination being on at least one of a location of the gaming establishment point-of-sale terminal, a time of the attempted retail purchase, a channel of commerce associated with the attempted retail purchase, and a rate of consumption associated with the gaming establishment retail account maintained by the gaming establishment fund management system independent of the closed loop gaming establishment retail system, (Fig. 8: 6:47-49, 7:24-25, 16:19-31)
responsive to the automatic determination being that an enhanced security measure is associated with the gaming establishment retail account and responsive to a determination that the enhanced security measure is satisfied by a user (16:32-51, 17:6-29), determine if a balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user includes at least an amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase (14:13-29, 16:32-51, 17:6-29),
responsive to the automatic determination being that the enhanced security measure is associated with the gaming establishment retail account (16:19-31) and responsive to a determination that the enhanced security measure is not satisfied by the user (16:19-31), [communicate] the gaming establishment point-of-sale terminal from [not] completing the attempted retail purchase, and (16:19-31)
responsive to the automatic determination being that no enhanced security measure is associated with the gaming establishment retail account, automatically and independent of any satisfaction of any measures, determine if the balance of funds of the gaming establishment retail account associated with the user includes at least the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase. (4:6-11, 6:62-7:23, 14:13-18, 15:40-46)
Sanford ‘684 discloses communicating with a point-of-sale terminal not to complete the attempted the attempted retail purchase (16:19-31). Sanford does not explicitly disclose disabling a point-of-sale terminal.
Murphy teaches disabling a point-of-sale terminal (18:14-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sanford and to incorporate the teachings of disabling a point-of-sale terminal, as disclosed in Murphy, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sanford, to include the teachings of Murphy, for fraud protection. (Murphy: 19-20)
Per Claim 11: The combination of Sanford in view of Murphy discloses all limitations of claim 10.
Sanford discloses:
wherein the amount of funds to complete the attempted retail purchase comprise an amount of non-cashable funds associated with the gaming establishment retail account. (16:20-42)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art is also considered pertinent to the claimed invention:
Muthukrishnan (US 2021/0019754A1) teaches a method for detecting fraudulent activity with a fraud control rule associated with a payment account parameter of a payment account.
Choudhuri (US 2013/0024375A1) teaches multi-stage filtering for fraud detection including one or more preliminary filtration stages followed by one or more additional filtration stages that provide for enhanced screening for fraudulent activity.
Newsom (US 2023/0020336A1) teaches implementing financial services functionality in a casino environment permits a patron to associate funds with their exchange and to utilize funds associated with their exchange at touch-points throughout a casino (including both gaming and retail locations), such as for funding wagering activities or paying for goods and/or services on the retail side. The financial services system may be accessed by a patron in various manners, including by an application running on the patron's computing or mobile device, via kiosks or other service devices, via a casino cage or cashier, or via other touch-points and applying multi-jurisdiction adaptive or dynamic rules to transactions.
Campo (US 20130036048A1) teaches receiving a request to process, against an electronic wallet comprising sub-wallets storing stored value cards, a purchase transaction.
Miri (US 2019/0188960AS1) teaches a system that enables one or more requested actions or transactions to be initiated via one or more inputs received by a mobile device and concluded via one or more inputs received by a gaming establishment device.
Lutnick (US 10,846,724B2) teaches game at cash register.
Rammal (US 8,682,792B2) teaches secure payment and billing using mobile phone.
Keresman (US 10,872,343B2) teaches secure efficient payment processing system.
LeStrange (US 2014/0057703A1) teaches a casino digital wallet storing information needed to conduct financial transactions in a gaming environment, and rules for controlling balances, velocity limits and locations for conducting financial transactions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENYUH KUO whose telephone number is (571)272-5616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4 PM EST.
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, JOHN W HAYES can be reached on (571)272-6708. 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.
/CHENYUH KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights