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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment/arguments filed 07/02/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-5 remain pending, no Claims have been newly added, and no Claims have been canceled. Currently, Claims 1 and 3-5 have been amended. No new matter appears to have been entered.
The amendment to claims 1 and 4 is sufficient to overcome the corresponding claim objection. The claim objection of claims 1 and 4 has been withdrawn.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/02/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 11,482,074 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-5 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations of a) […] store an amount of credit, the amount of credit being usable to actuate play of a game […]; and b) […], […] detect a […]currency transaction defined by transaction data communicated by the […]wallet to the […] memory pool, the transaction data comprising an amount of a […]currency involved in the […]currency transaction, an input identification associated with the […]currency involved in the […]currency transaction, an output identification associated with the […]currency, and a user transaction public key, wherein […], responsive to detecting the transaction data, compare a stored user transaction public key with the user transaction public key included in the transaction data and, responsive to the stored user transaction public key matching the user transaction public key, communicate a signal […] to add an additional amount of credit to the amount of credit stored […], and wherein the amount of credit corresponds to the amount of […]currency involved in the […]currency transaction. These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 1 (substantially similar to claim 4). The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see p. 5 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Therefore, the claims fall under the following enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) (Step 2A, Prong 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a memory,” “a blockchain memory pool,” “an electronic gaming machine,” and “a server”. These additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation are generic processor(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The generic processor and/or generic computer component limitation(s) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not integrate the judicial exception or amount to significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Using a computer to transmit data, receive data, and record results amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—some of the most basic functions of a computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 2, No).
In Step 2B, the additional element(s) also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong 2. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim that integrates the judicial exception in to a practical application, nor do they amount to a claim that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2B, No).
Thus, claims 1 and 4, based on the above 101 rejection, are not found to be patent-eligible. Additionally, Claims 2-3 and 5 also recite limitations that are similar to the abstract ideas identified with respect to Claims 1 and 4 above (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities). Claims 2-3 and 5 do not recite any additional elements other than those recited in Claims 1 and 4. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to Claims 2-3 and 5 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after a thorough search on the claims as currently presented, the claims currently overcome prior art. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Merati (US 2019/0180558 A1) discloses the concept of each gaming operator system issues its own casino crypto currency (C3) for use in gaming and non-gaming transactions and for each transaction that is processed by the IGO, the IGO debits and credits user accounts in accordance with the particular C3 involved in each transaction.
Destefanis et al. (US 2021/0160077 A1) discloses the concept of a computer-implemented method, using a blockchain network such as, for example, the Bitcoin network and receiving, at a mempool node of distributed mempool network (DMP) implementing a distributed hash table (DHT), and a request to update routing information of the mempool node.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “As discussed in the June 8th interview, Applicant disputes under Prong One of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Step 2A analysis that independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites a number of technical features clarifying that claim 1, when taken as a whole, does not have to do with managing interactions between or among people. Claim 1 provides specific technical mechanisms of achieving a beneficial technical solution in relation to implementing security in cryptocurrency transfers between an electronic gaming machine and a cryptowallet, specifically when comparing a stored user transaction public key with a user transaction public key included in transaction data and, when there is a match, communicating a signal to the electronic gaming machine to add an amount of credit to credit stored in the memory residing in the electronic gaming machine. In particular, there is a specific, technical implementation in an electronic gaming system involving a novel and non-obvious way to incorporate and use a blockchain memory pool in conjunction with the server that provides meaningful replacement of hardware required by some conventional systems. Such features provide a concrete and how-to technical solution to a problem as explained in Applicant's as-filed specification, for instance, in paragraphs 0080 and 0083”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As recited above, the claims recite limitations that are considered a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Such that, the claims, based on transferring currency for use as credit being usable to actuate play of a game, fall under the abstract idea grouping relating to certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)). The claims, as outlined above, clearly relate to rules/steps for transferring currency in order to operate a game. Additionally, securely transferring funds from one account to another account is a fundamental economic practice and nothing in the current independent claims discloses how the security of said transfer is improved. Furthermore, the statement by Applicant, “there is a specific, technical implementation in an electronic gaming system involving a novel and non-obvious way to incorporate and use a blockchain memory pool in conjunction with the server that provides meaningful replacement of hardware required by some conventional systems,” reflects information in the specification that is not in the claims at present. This is also true for cited paragraphs 80 and 83. There is no claimed “private key,” “player loyalty ID,” “looking up the EGM ID from the public key value of the player’s wallet or the player’s loyalty ID,” and “an additional piece of hardware is installed or repurposed.” Thus, the claims at present recite an abstract idea.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant states: “Some implementations of independent claim 1 provide one or more improvements in the functioning (including implementation, usefulness and performance) of electronic gaming systems including a server, an electronic gaming machine and a blockchain memory pool. The improvements are apparent by the absence of any prior art rejections in the Office Action, as discussed in the June 8th interview. Moreover, implementations of claim 1 provide a specific technical application of implementing and using specific operations in relation to a blockchain memory pool. For instance, claim 1 recites, " the server configured to detect a cryptocurrency transaction defined by transaction data communicated by the cryptowallet to the blockchain memory pool, the transaction data comprising an amount of a cryptocurrency involved in the cryptocurrency transaction, an input identification associated with the cryptocurrency involved in the cryptocurrency transaction, an output identification associated with the cryptocurrency, and a user transaction public key." A non-limiting example of such features is described in paragraph 0080 of Applicant's as-filed specification, as discussed above.
Separately, under the USPTO Step 2B analysis, one or more combinations of features in some implementations of independent claim 1, by way of example, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as characterized by the Office Action. Reasons for this are apparent from the absence of any prior art rejections in the Office Action, as discussed in the June 8th interview. Applicant submits that independent claim 1 recites features, which are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, since an inventive concept is present.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. "[L]ack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101". (MPEP 2106.05(I)). Additionally, transmitting data to a blockchain memory pool is not a technological improvement and key features from the specification, relied upon in the remarks, are not found in the claims. As stated above, there is no claimed “private key,” “player loyalty ID,” “looking up the EGM ID from the public key value of the player’s wallet or the player’s loyalty ID,” and “an additional piece of hardware is installed or repurposed.” Therefore, as shown above, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as currently presented are not indicative of integration into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
At least based on the above, the 101 rejection of claims 1-20 are herein maintained.
Conclusion
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 CHASE E LEICHLITER whose telephone number is (571)270-7109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10-6).
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/CHASE E LEICHLITER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights