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 .
Acknowledgements
Applicant’s response filed on 08/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 10, 12 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Remarks
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant submits that Claims 1 to 20 are not directed to an abstract idea under the Mayo/Alice test and therefore patent-eligible.
Applicant contends, under first prong of Step 2A, that the claims do not recite an abstract idea and is not a method of organizing any human interaction, and states “the claims recite a specific, automated security-escalation protocol a specific, automated security-escalation protocol in which the processor evaluates enumerated technical factors-including point-of-sale terminal location, transaction time, channel of commerce, and account consumption rate-and implements different processing pathways based on the evaluation outcome, including communicating authorization data or communicating data that results in point-of-sale terminal disablement. This is a technical process with specific technical inputs and technically differentiated outputs, not a method of organizing any human interaction.” (remark page 10)
Applicant further submits that, under second prong of Step 2A in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(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. (remark, page 11)
Applicant further submits that the claims recite significantly more under Step 2B because the elements rendering the claimed ordered combination unconventional include the gaming establishment fund management system that operates independently of a closed loop gaming establishment retail system, yet receives from a server of that separate system data associated with an attempted retail purchase at a point-of-sale terminal (i.e., a cross-system, independent-but-communicating architecture is not a conventional arrangement of generic computer components; rather, it is a specific integration of two independently operating systems- the fund management system and the closed loop retail system-that did not previously exist in the context of gaming establishment retail transactions). (remark page 15)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims have been evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under Alice/Mayo two-part test (MPEP 2106).
Under Step 2A, Prong One analysis (MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)), the amended Claim 1, as representative, continues to recite a process for purchase transaction processing r with security measures and customer account verification. Specifically, the claim recites “…responsive to a receipt…of data associated with an attempted retail purchase…;” “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…;” “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: communicate authorization data …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, communicate data that results in …being disabled 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: communicate authorization data…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,” as a whole, is directed to purchase transaction processing with security measures and customer account verification, which is a method organizing human activity and abstract idea. This involves determining and applying security measures for a purchase transaction attempted by a customer at a retailer, verifying customer information based on the security measures and account balance for the purchase, approving the purchase with or without the verification and updating the account balance, or rejecting the purchase. This is a commercial interaction, therefore, falls within certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Prong Two, Step 2A analysis (MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements, “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 a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and are not more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of purchase transaction processing r with security measures and customer account verification. Specifically, these additional elements perform (s) the steps or functions such as: “…responsive to a receipt…of data associated with an attempted retail purchase…;” “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…;” “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: communicate authorization data …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, communicate data that results in …being disabled 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: communicate authorization data…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.” The use of the additional elements as tools to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. he additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B analysis (MPEP 2106.05), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when analyzed under step 2B. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements of using “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,” to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of purchase transaction processing r with security measures and customer account verification. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform(s) the steps or functions of “…responsive to a receipt…of data associated with an attempted retail purchase…;” “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…;” “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: communicate authorization data …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, communicate data that results in …being disabled 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: communicate authorization data…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.” These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of purchase transaction processing r with security measures and customer account verification. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Moreover, Applicant submits that a gaming establishment fund management system that maintains a gaming establishment retail account independent of a closed loop gaming establishment retail system and interfaces with a server of that closed loop gaming establishment retail system to enforce enhanced security measures pertaining to activities occurring at a gaming establishment point-of-sale terminal (also in communication with the server of the closed loop gaming establishment retail system) offers technical advantages over prior systems that failed to properly protect funds held in such gaming establishment retail accounts. Examiner notes, however, that enforcing enhanced security measures pertaining to activities occurring at a gaming establishment point-of-sale terminal is still directed to the abstract idea of purchase transaction processing with security measures and user account verification because applying security measures related to purchase activities at a POS terminal is a certain method of organizing human activity and a commercial interaction. And the interactions between the gaming establishment fund management system and the server of the closed-loop gaming establishment retail system, as well as the server of the closed-loop gaming establishment retail system, as well as the closed-loop gaming establishment retail system and the gaming establishment point-of-sale terminal using computer-based technology, such as claim recitations involving the use of a processor (comprised in the gaming establishment fund management system), a server of a closed-loop gaming establishment retail system, are additional elements, but do not improve computer functionality, improve other field of technology. Rather, they serve as tool used to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
With respect to applicant’s remark (remark page 2)) regarding Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[A] substantial class of claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept."), Examiner notes, however, that the instant claims are not in any way similar to Enfish (Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp) as the claims do not improve the function of the computer itself by providing increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements (Enfish at 1690). Contrary to Enfish, the instant claimed invention includes an abstract idea (see the 35 USC §101 analysis above), and the claim-set does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to applicant’s remark (remark page 2), “As noted by In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., a “series of steps” can fall outside a certain “method of organizing human activity,” Examiner notes, however, that In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V. (Fed. Cir. 2018) confirms that “rules for playing the claimed dice game” are an abstract idea, and holds the claims patent-ineligible because the claims lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform that idea into a patent-eligible application.
With respect to applicant’s remark (remark page 12), “the claims recite a specific technical architecture in which a gaming establishment fund management system, operating independently of a closed-loop gaming establishment retail system, receives transaction data from and communicates authorization or disablement data to a point-of-sale terminal of that retail system. This cross-system integration - where one system dynamically controls transaction completion at a terminal of a separate system based on real-time evaluation of enumerated transactional and account factors - represents a specific technological improvement to how gaming-establishment retail transactions are processed, not merely a business improvement to fraud prevention (remark page 12), Examiner notes, however, that this represents an automated process of authorizing a retail purchase based on account balances and risk conditions rather than improving computers or technology. And the interactions between the gaming establishment fund management system and the server of the closed-loop gaming establishment retail system, as well as the point-of-sale terminal using computer-based technology, such as claim recitations involving the use of processor (comprised in the gaming establishment fund management system), server of a closed-loop gaming establishment retail system, point-of-sale terminal are additional elements, but do not improve computer functionality, improve other field of technology. Rather, they serve as tool used to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
Applicant is of the opinion that the claims that the claims recite more than well-understood, routing, or conventional activities (remark pages 15-16), Examiner notes, however, that apart from the limitations that recite the abstract idea, the only other additional elements recited in the claim merely serve as tools to automate the abstract idea. Because judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and even newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty (See July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, p. 3, Section III), and the additional elements are only tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, the additional elements do not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(a)
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
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:
communicate authorization data to 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, communicate data that results in the point-of-sale terminal being disabled 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:
communicate authorization data to 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:
communicate authorization data 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, communicate data that results in the point-of-sale terminal being disabled 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:
communicate authorization data to 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.
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:
Sanford et al. (US 10,706,684B1 (“Sanford”) teaches a method for associating a player loyalty account of a player with a stored value account. The player can accumulate loyalty points over time. The accumulated loyalty points can be converted to value, such as cash or coupons, associated with the stored value account. The value can be accessed by the player through the use of a stored value payment vehicle associated with the stored value account. The value added to the stored value account can be restricted such that the use of the value is limited to particular merchants or particular types of transactions.
Kushevsky et al. (US 2015/0339648A1) teaches a method of processing a transaction at a point-of-sale terminal using a mobile device including steps of: sending, from the point-of-sale terminal to a payment processing server, a transaction identifier for the transaction; providing the transaction identifier from the point-of-sale terminal to a mobile device, wherein the mobile device comprises an electronic wallet application configured to receive an input that selects payment information to be used in the transaction; sending, from the mobile device to the payment processing server, the transaction identifier and the selected payment information to be used in the transaction; and processing payment for the transaction, at the payment processing server, using the selected payment information.
Murphy et al. (US 9,818266B2) teaches a method of detecting a surcharge violation at point-of-sale terminals and remotely disabling of the point-of-sale terminals.
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.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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 at (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