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 . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of June 11, 2025. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-20 are pending and 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.
Claim 12 is directed to the abstract idea of “funding accounts” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice, commercial interactions” [sales activities, business relations) in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Claim 12 recites “a method of operating a …, the method comprising: responsive to a receipt, from a … of a debit card issuer, of data associated with an authorized refund transaction initiated in association with a debit card at a …:
… transferring, by a … and in … and independent of any time restrictions associated with any gaming establishment accounts, an amount of funds associated with the authorized refund transaction to a temporary escrow account associated with the debit card, wherein the debit card is associated with a gaming establishment account which is independent of the temporary escrow account associated with the debit card,
communicating a notification to cause the … to complete the authorized refund transaction, and
responsive to an … occurrence of a separate settlement event, … transferring, by the …, the amount of funds associated with the authorized refund transaction from the temporary escrow account associated with the debit card to the gaming establishment account”.
These limitations describe an abstract idea of funding accounts and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial interactions, sales activities, business relations). Accordingly, claim 12 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
The claim also recites as additional elements such as “gaming establishment fund management system, computing component, point-of-sale terminal, automatically, processor, real time” which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 12 recites an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
Further, as the additional elements of claim 12 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1 and 10 also recite the abstract idea of idea of funding accounts and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (commercial interactions, sales activities, business relations) step one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04). Claim 1 includes the additional elements of “gaming establishment fund management system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, computing component, point-of-sale terminal, automatically, real time”. Claim 10 includes the additional elements of “gaming establishment fund management system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, computing component, point-of-sale terminal, automatically, real time”. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as they do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claims 2 and 13 recite “wherein a determination to authorize the refund transaction occurs responsive to a determination by at least one of the computing component of the debit card issuer and a …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim recites “point-of-sale terminal processor” as additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claims 3 and 14 recite “wherein the settlement event occurs subsequent to the completion of the authorized refund transaction” which further describe the abstract idea..
Claims 4, 11, and 15 recite “wherein the debit card comprises an open loop debit card” which further describe the abstract idea..
Claims 5 and 16 recite , wherein the gaming establishment account comprises a cashless wagering account (Higgins Abstract).
Claims 6 and 17 “wherein the gaming establishment account comprises a gaming establishment retail account” (Higgins Abstract)..
Claims 7 and 18 recite “wherein the point-of-sale terminal comprises a non-gaming establishment retail …” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim recites “point-of-sale terminal processor” as additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or link the abstract idea a particular technological environment. Therefore, as it does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field.
Claims 8 and 19 recite “wherein the temporary escrow account associated with the debit card comprises a pre-paid account associated with a zero balance prior to the authorized refund transaction” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 9 and 20 recite “wherein a determination to authorize the refund transaction is based on the refund transaction complying with a debit card usage control” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 12 each recite “separate settlement event”. The term “separate” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “separate” in claims 1 and 12 (“responsive to an automatic occurrence of a separate settlement event”) is a relative term because it requires a comparison or baseline to define what the settlement event is “separate” from. The term “separate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of separateness, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) (Relative Terminology). Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are rejected as each depends on claims 1 and 12.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite because each claim recites "the settlement event" without a clear antecedent basis, and it is ambiguous whether "the settlement event" in claims 3 and 14 refer to the "separate settlement event" of claim 1 and 12 or to a different settlement event altogether.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. [US Pub No. 2019/0197526] in view of Ford et al. [US Patent No. 11,636,465 and further in view of Irwin et al. [US 2014/0141866 A1]..
Regarding claim 1, Higgins discloses a gaming establishment fund management system comprising:
a processor (0024); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (0024), cause the processor to:
communicate a notification to cause the point-of-sale terminal to complete the authorized refund transaction (0043-0044), and
responsive to an automatic occurrence of a separate settlement event, automatically transfer the amount of funds associated with the authorized refund transaction from the temporary escrow account associated with the debit card to the gaming establishment account (0007, 0038).
Higgins does not explicitly disclose however Irwin teaches responsive to a receipt, from a computing component of a debit card issuer, of data associated with an authorized refund transaction initiated in association with a debit card at a point-of-sale terminal (Abstract, 0009, 0011).
Higgins does not explicitly disclose however Irwin teaches wherein the debit card is associated with a gaming establishment account which is independent of the temporary escrow account associated with the debit card (Abstract, 0009).
Higgins does not explicitly disclose however Ford teaches automatically transfer, in real time and independent of any time restrictions associated with any gaming establishment accounts, an amount of funds associated with the authorized refund transaction to a temporary escrow account associated with the debit card (Col. 1 line 50- Col. 2 line 10, Col. 3 lines 50-62).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Higgins to include the teachings of Ford and Irwin. The rationale to combine the teachings is because the combination produces the predictable result of applying well known just in time funding techniques and open loop debit integration to the field of gaming establishments.
Claim 12 recites the method steps of claim 1 and stand rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 10, Higgins teaches a gaming establishment fund management system comprising:
a processor (0024); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor (0024),
cause the processor to:
determine: whether to accept the refund transaction in association with a cashless wagering account (0043), and
if the refund transaction complies with a debit card usage control associated with the cashless wagering account (0043),
communicate an authorization to the computing component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to complete the refund transaction (0043-0044),
responsive to the determination to accept the refund transaction in association with the cashless wagering account and the refund transaction being in violation of the debit card usage control, communicate a denial to the computing component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to deny the refund transaction (0014, claim 7), and
responsive to a determination not to accept the refund transaction in association with the cashless wagering account, communicate the denial to the computing component of the debit card issuer to notify the point-of-sale terminal to deny the refund transaction (0014, claim 7).
Higgins does not explicitly disclose however Irwin teaches responsive to a receipt, from a computing component of a debit card issuer, of data associated with an authorized refund transaction initiated in association with a debit card at a point-of-sale terminal (Abstract, 0009, 0011).
Higgins does not explicitly disclose however Irwin teaches responsive to a determination to accept the refund transaction in association with the cashless wagering account and the refund transaction complies with the debit card usage control (0018).
Higgins does not explicitly disclose however Ford teaches automatically transfer, in real time and independent of any time restrictions associated with any gaming establishment accounts, an amount of funds associated with the authorized refund transaction to a temporary escrow account associated with the debit card (Col. 1 line 50- Col. 2 line 10, Col. 3 lines 50-62).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Higgins to include the teachings of Ford and Irwin. The rationale to combine the teachings is because the combination produces the predictable result of applying well known just in time funding techniques and open loop debit integration to the field of gaming establishments.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, wherein a determination to authorize the refund transaction occurs responsive to a determination by at least one of the computing component of the debit card issuer (Ford Col. 1 line 65 – Col. 2 line 10) and a point-of-sale terminal processor (Higgins 0043).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, wherein the settlement event occurs subsequent to the completion of the authorized refund transaction (Higgins 0007).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 15, wherein the debit card comprises an open loop debit card (Irwin Abstract). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Higgins to include the teachings of Ford and Irwin. The rationale to combine the teachings is because the combination produces the predictable result of applying well known just in time funding techniques and open loop debit integration to the field of gaming establishments.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, wherein the gaming establishment account comprises a cashless wagering account (Higgins Abstract).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, wherein the gaming establishment account comprises a gaming establishment retail account (Higgins Abstract)..
Regarding claims 7 and 18, wherein the point-of-sale terminal comprises a non-gaming establishment retail point-of-sale terminal (Irwin 0011). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Higgins to include the teachings of Ford and Irwin. The rationale to combine the teachings is because the combination produces the predictable result of applying well known just in time funding techniques and open loop debit integration to the field of gaming establishments.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, wherein the temporary escrow account associated with the debit card comprises a pre-paid account associated with a zero balance prior to the authorized refund transaction (Ford Col. 3 lines 55-65). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Higgins to include the teachings of Ford and Irwin. The rationale to combine the teachings is because the combination produces the predictable result of applying well known just in time funding techniques and open loop debit integration to the field of gaming establishments.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, wherein a determination to authorize the refund transaction is based on the refund transaction complying with a debit card usage control (Irwin 0018). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Higgins to include the teachings of Ford and Irwin. The rationale to combine the teachings is because the combination produces the predictable result of applying well known just in time funding techniques and open loop debit integration to the field of gaming establishments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. 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.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights