DETAILED ACTION
This is a FINAL Action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 2/2/2022. Claims 1, 4-10 are currently pending and are examined below.
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 Amendments
The amendments filed on 7/23/2025 in response to the initial rejection made on 4/23/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-10 have been amended. Rejections necessitated in response to the amendments made to every claim have been made below. Response to the Applicant’s arguments is written below.
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, 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 are drawn to a method (i.e. process) and are drawn to a computer readable storage medium (i.e. a manufacture). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1, recites:
A method of managing a lottery service for visually-impaired users, the method comprising the steps of:(A) providing at least one user account managed by at least one remote server, wherein the user account is associated with a corresponding personal computing (PC) device; (B) providing at least one lottery service managed by at least one external server, wherein at least one physical lottery ticket is associated with the lottery service, and wherein the physical lottery ticket includes a plurality of braille-inscribed ticket numbers; (C) scanning the plurality of braille-inscribed ticket numbers off the physical lottery ticket with the corresponding PC device of the user account; (D) converting the plurality of braille-inscribed ticket numbers into a plurality of digital ticket numbers with the corresponding PC device of the user account, wherein each braille-inscribed ticket number is associated with a corresponding digital ticket number from the plurality of digital ticket numbers;(E) displaying the plurality of digital ticket numbers with the corresponding PC device of the user account; (F) relaying the plurality of digital ticket numbers from the corresponding PC device to the user account to the remote server;(G) receiving a plurality of winning numbers for the lottery service from the external server with the remote server; (H) generating a lottery winning notification with the remote server, if the plurality of digital ticket numbers matches the plurality of winning numbers; and (I) outputting the lottery winning notification with the corresponding PC device of the user account; providing the user account with a user physical address, a user age, and a current location; and delivering the physical lottery ticket to the user physical address before step (C), if the user age is greater than or equal to a legal gambling age, and if the current location is within an enforcement location range of the legal gambling age.
(Examiner notes: The above claim terms underlined fall under Step 2A - Prong Two analysis section detailed below)
These steps amount to a form of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), and therefore fall within the scope of a method for organizing human activity i.e. abstract ideas. Fundamentally, the process is that of a visually-impaired user scanning braille lottery tickets.
Dependent claims 2-10 recite/describe nearly identical steps as claim 1 (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Dependent claims 2-10 are directed towards delivering of braille-inscribe lottery tickets with age authentication, reading ticket numbers aloud, and scanning special status of tickets. Each of these elements amount to a form of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), and therefore fall within the scope of a method for organizing human activity, i.e. abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A – Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using, a PC device and computer-implemented protocols, etc. (Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-10) are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of providing at least one user account managed by at least one remote server, wherein the user account is associated with a corresponding personal computing (PC) device (Independent Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-10) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Use of a computer, smartphone, desktop, smart watch, laptop, processor, memory or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g. manage, provide, associate, scan, convert, display, receive, relay, etc. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). These limitation(s) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional element(s) of identified above (Claims 1-10), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea) (i.e. scanning the plurality of braille lottery tickets, delivering lottery tickets to user’s address) These limitation(s) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2-10 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in Independent Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-10 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) identified above in independent claim 1 dependent claims 2-10, additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea) i.e. scanning the plurality of braille-inscribed ticket, providing the user account with a user physical address, and delivering the physical lottery ticket to the user physical address, providing the user account with a user age and a current location; and delivering the physical lottery ticket to the user physical address, if the user age is greater than or equal to a legal gambling age, and if the current location is within an enforcement location range of the legal gambling age, if the plurality of digital ticket numbers is selected to be read aloud by the user account, and audibly outputting each digital ticket number, if the plurality of digital ticket numbers is selected to be read aloud by the user account, scanning the special status of the specific braille-inscribed ticket number off the physical lottery ticket, prompting the user account to enter at least one information request for the lottery service and implementing a decision to modify is similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); “Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Applicant’s own disclosure at line 24, acknowledges that “a personal computing (PC) device and at least one remote server…” The applicant’s disclosure [Lines 24-25] describes specification the PC device can be a smartphone, a desktop, a tablet PC, a smart watch or a laptop. DePaul and Zhang discloses braille-inscribed ticket numbers off the physical lottery ticket (lottery tickets with the symbols in raised from the surface, and the denomination of the win in brail) which is something that is known. This additional element therefore does not ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2-10 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-10 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePaul (US 20130084935 A1) in view of Zhang (Zhang and Yoshino, A Braille Recognition System by the Mobile Phone with Embedded Camera 2007, 1-4) in further view of Shapiro (US 20140051507 A1) in further view of Granich (US 20190206012 A1) in further view of Saig (US 20090176549 A1).
Regarding claim 1, DePaul discloses a method of managing a lottery service (Claim 1 - A method for pooling lottery tickets comprising) the method comprising the steps of:
(A) providing at least one user account managed by at least one remote server, wherein the user account is associated with a corresponding personal computing (PC) device (¶ 34: The computer system 210 comprises a computer system 260, e.g., a web server, which hosts web services accessed by the computer systems 220 and 230.),
(B) providing at least one lottery service managed by at least one external server, wherein at least one physical lottery ticket is associated with the lottery service, and wherein the physical lottery ticket includes a plurality of braille-inscribed ticket numbers (Examiner notes that the underlined limitation is taught by another reference) (¶ 154: In another exemplary alternative embodiment of the computer system 210, the computer system 210 comprises an application server 280, separate from the computer system 260 and behind a firewall 270. The application server 280 receives pooling requests from the computer systems 220 and 230 via the computer system 260 over an internal network 290 and performs pooling based on the requests and predetermined rules; ¶ 6: The method includes a step of receiving information identifying one or more lottery tickets, a step of receiving a request to pool the one or more lottery tickets),
(C) scanning the plurality of braille-inscribed ticket numbers off the physical lottery ticket with the corresponding PC device of the user account (Examiner notes that the underlined limitation is taught by other references) (¶46: Using the computer system 220, the user 220 scans the purchased one or more lottery tickets 100 and uploads the one or more lottery tickets 100 in batches, Step 350; ¶33: A pooling participant uses the computer system 220 or 230 to create an account with the computer system 210, to upload lottery tickets to the computer system 260, and to transmit pooling requests to the computer system 210),
(E) displaying the plurality of digital ticket numbers with the corresponding PC device of the user account (¶ 157: The purpose of this interface 800 is to display to the pooling participant a representation of tickets that he owns, as well as tickets involved in any pool in which he is included; ¶ 35: The computer system 260 receives a request to create an account with the pooling coordinator from the computer system 220 or the computer system 230 via the pooling interface portal.),
(F) relaying the plurality of digital ticket numbers from the corresponding PC device to the user account to the remote server (¶ 33: A pooling participant uses the computer system 220 or 230 to create an account with the computer system 210, to upload lottery tickets to the computer system 260, and to transmit pooling requests to the computer system 210),
(G) receiving a plurality of winning numbers for the lottery service from the external server with the remote server (¶ 33: A pooling participant uses the computer system 220 or 230 to create an account with the computer system 210, to upload lottery tickets to the computer system 260, and to transmit pooling requests to the computer system 210),
(H) generating a lottery winning notification with the remote server, if the plurality of digital ticket numbers matches the plurality of winning numbers (¶63: At the time of lottery drawing, the computer system 260 communicates with the computer system 250 of the lottery operator and receives the results of the lottery, Step 530A. The computer system 260 calculates the lottery winnings for each participant of a pool containing a winning ticket based on the pools stored in the database 265, as consolidated in the Step 520A, and transmits notifications of the results to all participants; ¶166: If the pooling participant has at least one personally owned or pooled ticket that matches the winning jackpot, a message appears informing the pooling participant that he (or his pool) has won and will inform him how much he will receive in the payout),
(I) outputting the lottery winning notification with the corresponding PC device of the user account; (¶63 At the time of lottery drawing, the computer system 260 communicates with the computer system 250 of the lottery operator and receives the results of the lottery, Step 530A. The computer system 260 calculates the lottery winnings for each participant of a pool containing a winning ticket based on the pools stored in the database 265, as consolidated in the Step 520A, and transmits notifications of the results to all participants; ¶ 64: By logging uploaded and pooled tickets in the database 465, by maintaining pooling participants' accounts in the database 265, and by linking the users' accounts with their uploaded and pooled tickets, the computer system 260 is able to tie winning tickets to their purchasers. Because each registered user has his name, address, phone number, email address, credit card information, and/or smart phone information in the computer system 260, there is certainty that a specific lottery ticket in the database 265 corresponds to a particular, identifiable pooling participant).
DePaul is silent on scanning the plurality of braille-inscribed ticket numbers.
Zhang discloses scanning the plurality of braille-inscribed ticket numbers (Introduction - In this paper, we describe a mobile Braille recognition system by running a Java programmed application installed in a camera-phone. The aim of the research is to provide a portable and helpful tool to improve the independence of the visually impaired users) (Page 1).
DePaul is silent on (D) converting the plurality of braille-inscribed ticket numbers into a plurality of digital ticket numbers with the corresponding PC device of the user account, wherein each braille-inscribed ticket numbers is associated with a corresponding digital ticket number from the plurality of digital ticket number.
Zhang discloses (D) converting the plurality of braille-inscribed ticket numbers into a plurality of digital ticket numbers with the corresponding PC device of the user account, wherein each braille-inscribed ticket numbers is associated with a corresponding digital ticket number from the plurality of digital ticket number (3.3 Braille Character Translating: According to the position of the dots in the 3x2 Braille cell, each Braille character is corresponded to a binary digital. A set of lookup tables is designed for the translating of Braille characters. As show in Fig.7, digital two is represented as 110100. In Japanese Braille code, Hiragana, katakana, digits, alphabet, and other special codes can be translated into their textual equivalent.) (Page 3).
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in the claimed invention to have modified DePaul to incorporate the discloses of Zhang to convert braille-ticket numbers into digital ticket numbers because a Braille recognition system that allows visually impaired people to access the public information whenever they need them (Conclusion of Zhang) (Page 4).
DePaul further discloses providing the user account (¶28: For example, such encoded data may include any of the text 120 identifying the lottery in which the ticket 100' is participating, the ticket number 125 of the ticket 100', the date and time 130 of purchase of the ticket 100', the lottery numbers 140 of the ticket 100, the location of the point of sale of the ticket 100')
DePaul is silent on a user physical address, a user age, and a current location;
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in the claimed invention to have modified DePaul to incorporate the teachings of Granich because the user out of town cannot play the state lottery at a different state because it is not offered (¶150 of Granich).
Shapiro teaches a user physical address, a user age, and a current location (¶40: These various identifiers, including other qualifiers such as an IP address of device 100, may be used to determine an approximation of identity, including age, as well as to generate an estimate of an approximate current location. If the data query algorithm indicates that the user falls within an acceptable range for verification, access is granted and the user can play the game or, for example, purchase a lottery ticket using application 200. If the data falls outside of the acceptable range, additional questions may be asked, or access to the game may be denied. Some of these questions may be used subsequently to verify that a current user is the same as the age authenticated user);
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in the claimed invention to have modified DePaul to incorporate the teachings of Shapiro because if a user doesn’t meet the age requirement, a lottery ticket can’t be purchased (¶40 of Shapiro).
DePaul is silent on delivering the physical lottery ticket to the user physical address before step (C) if the user age is greater than or equal to a legal gambling age, and if the current location is within an enforcement location range of the legal gambling age.
Granich teaches delivering the physical lottery ticket to the user physical address before step (C) (¶151: The user/player resident out of town 2740 submits a form of payment including a credit or debit bank card 2480 to pay for buying the lottery ticket(s) and mailing or delivery to their address of record in state A 2710 of the lottery ticket(s) order)
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in the claimed invention to have modified DePaul to incorporate the teachings of Granich because the user out of town cannot play the state lottery at a different state because it is not offered (¶150 of Granich).
Saig teaches if the user age is greater than or equal to a legal gambling age, and if the current location is within an enforcement location range of the legal gambling age (¶9: The system requires initial registration in the draw system's database. This is mainly for legal purposes (such as age verification and fraud prevention); however it can also serve for advertising purposes.)
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in the claimed invention to have modified DePaul to incorporate the teachings of Saig to see if the player’s age is within the legal gambling age of their state’s origin (¶65 of Saig).
Regarding claim 6, DePaul in view of Zhang disclose the method of managing a lottery service for visually-impaired users, the method as claimed in claim 1 wherein DePaul further discloses providing at least one specific braille-inscribed ticket number from the plurality of braille-inscribed ticket numbers with a special status(Examiner notes that the underlined limitation is taught by another reference) (¶151 of DePaul: It is contemplated that in the Step 350, the user 220 may scan each lottery ticket 100 or 100' individually or multiple lottery tickets 100 or 100' at one time. In the Step 350, the computer system 220 may upload one image of multiple lottery tickets at a time for decoding, or the computer system 220 may decode the encoded information from the one image and transmit it in the Step 350. One image may correspond to a batch of lottery tickets 100 or 100'. For example, both Powerball.RTM. and Mega Millions.RTM. can fit five tickets 100' per single ticket print-out 150. Therefore, the user 220, if registering five tickets 100', need only do a single scan in the Step 350; if registering 10 tickets 100, the user 220 performs two scans in the Step 350; and so on)
scanning the special status of the specific braille-inscribed ticket number off the physical lottery ticket with the corresponding PC device of the user account during step (C) (Examiner notes that the underlined limitation is taught by another reference) (¶46 of DePaul: Using the computer system 220, the user 220 scans the purchased one or more lottery tickets 100 and uploads the one or more lottery tickets 100 in batches, Step 350. In an exemplary embodiment, the user 220 captures an image of the one or more lottery tickets and uploads the image in the Step 350 via the pooling interface portal; ¶151 of Depaul: It is contemplated that in the Step 350, the user 220 may scan each lottery ticket 100 or 100' individually or multiple lottery tickets 100 or 100' at one time. In the Step 350, the computer system 220 may upload one image of multiple lottery tickets at a time for decoding, or the computer system 220 may decode the encoded information from the one image and transmit it in the Step 350. One image may correspond to a batch of lottery tickets 100 or 100'. For example, both Powerball.RTM. and Mega Millions.RTM. can fit five tickets 100' per single ticket print-out 150. Therefore, the user 220, if registering five tickets 100', need only do a single scan in the Step 350; if registering 10 tickets 100, the user 220 performs two scans in the Step 350; and so on. ¶41 of Depaul: The method 300 begins with the user 220 requesting an account with the pooling coordinator 210, Step 310. It is contemplated that the user 220 may request the account via either the pooling interface website, via a secure account creation website, or via the pooling interface application. In the exemplary embodiment in which the user uses the pooling interface application to request the account),
and appending the special status to the corresponding digital ticket number of the specific braille-inscribed ticket number with the corresponding PC device of the user account (Examiner notes that the underlined limitation is taught by another reference) (¶151 of Depaul: It is contemplated that in the Step 350, the user 220 may scan each lottery ticket 100 or 100' individually or multiple lottery tickets 100 or 100' at one time. In the Step 350, the computer system 220 may upload one image of multiple lottery tickets at a time for decoding, or the computer system 220 may decode the encoded information from the one image and transmit it in the Step 350. One image may correspond to a batch of lottery tickets 100 or 100'. For example, both Powerball.RTM. and Mega Millions.RTM. can fit five tickets 100' per single ticket print-out 150. Therefore, the user 220, if registering five tickets 100', need only do a single scan in the Step 350; if registering 10 tickets 100, the user 220 performs two scans in the Step 350; and so on. ¶37 of DePaul: As described below, certain steps are performed by the pooling participant, and certain steps are performed by the computer system 220 or 230 operated by the pooling participant; ¶61 of DePaul: In another exemplary embodiment, such information concerns all pools currently maintained by the computer system 260 for a particular lottery. Thus, the computer system 260 transmits information to the computer system 220 concerning all pools for a lottery in which the user 220 is currently participating).
DePaul is silent on providing at least one specific braille-inscribed ticket number from the plurality of braille-inscribed ticket numbers.
Zhang discloses providing at least one specific braille-inscribed ticket number from the plurality of braille-inscribed ticket numbers (Introduction - In this paper, we describe a mobile Braille recognition system by running a Java programmed application installed in a camera-phone. The aim of the research is to provide a portable and helpful tool to improve the independence of the visually impaired users) (Page 1).
DePaul is silent on braille-inscribed ticket number off the physical lottery ticket
Zhang discloses braille-inscribed ticket number off the physical lottery ticket (Introduction - In this paper, we describe a mobile Braille recognition system by running a Java programmed application installed in a camera-phone. The aim of the research is to provide a portable and helpful tool to improve the independence of the visually impaired users) (Page 1).
DePaul is silent on specific braille-inscribed ticket number.
Zhang discloses specific braille-inscribed ticket number (Introduction - In this paper, we describe a mobile Braille recognition system by running a Java programmed application installed in a camera-phone. The aim of the research is to provide a portable and helpful tool to improve the independence of the visually impaired users) (Page 1).
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in the claimed invention to have modified DePaul to incorporate the discloses of Zhang to convert braille-ticket numbers into digital ticket numbers because a Braille recognition system that allows visually impaired people to access the public information whenever they need them (Conclusion of Zhang) (Page 4).
Regarding claim 8, DePaul in view of Zhang disclose the method of managing a lottery service for visually-impaired users, the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein DePaul further discloses (J) receiving at least one piece of information related to the lottery service from the external server with the remote server, (K) relaying the piece of information from the remote server to the corresponding PC device of the user account, and (L) outputting the piece of information with the corresponding PC device of the user account (¶154: In another exemplary alternative embodiment of the computer system 210, the computer system 210 comprises an application server 280, separate from the computer system 260 and behind a firewall 270. The application server 280 receives pooling requests from the computer systems 220 and 230 via the computer system 260 over an internal network 290 and performs pooling based on the requests and predetermined rules).
Regarding claim 9, DePaul in view of Zhang disclose the method of managing a lottery service for visually-impaired users, the method as claimed in claim 8, wherin DePaul further discloses prompting the user account to enter at least one information request for the lottery service with the corresponding PC device of the user PC device, relaying the information request from the corresponding PC device of the user account, through the remote server, and to the external server, and executing step (J) by processing the information request with the external server (¶154: p154 In another exemplary alternative embodiment of the computer system 210, the computer system 210 comprises an application server 280, separate from the computer system 260 and behind a firewall 270. The application server 280 receives pooling requests from the computer systems 220 and 230 via the computer system 260 over an internal network 290 and performs pooling based on the requests and predetermined rules; ¶35: The computer system 260 receives a request to create an account with the pooling coordinator from the computer system 220 or the computer system 230 via the pooling interface portal.)
Regarding claim 10, DePaul in view of Zhang disclose the method of managing a lottery service for visually-impaired users, the method as claimed in claim 8 wherein DePaul further discloses broadcasting the piece of information with the external server before step (J) (¶154: In another exemplary alternative embodiment of the computer system 210, the computer system 210 comprises an application server 280, separate from the computer system 260 and behind a firewall 270. The application server 280 receives pooling requests from the computer systems 220 and 230 via the computer system 260 over an internal network 290 and performs pooling based on the requests and predetermined rules).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePaul (US 20130084935 A1) in view of Zhang in further view of Dodrill (US 7454346 B1).
Regarding claim 4, DePaul disclose, prompting the user account to read aloud the plurality of digital ticket numbers with the corresponding PC device during step (E) and audibly outputting each digital ticket number with the speaker, if the plurality of digital ticket numbers is selected to be read aloud by the user account (Examiner notes that the underlined limitation is taught by another reference) (¶35 of DePaul: The computer system 260 receives a request to create an account with the pooling coordinator from the computer system 220 or the computer system 230 via the pooling interface portal.)
DePaul in view of Zhang doesn’t disclose, providing the corresponding PC device with at least one speaker, and audibly outputting each digital ticket number with the speaker, if the plurality of digital ticket numbers is selected to be read aloud by the user account, however Dodrill further discloses providing the corresponding PC device with at least one speaker (Column 1, Lines 7-13: Background - Historically, a computer can provide the ability to convert text passages to an audio output for a user. Typically, a user sitting at a computer requests the conversion of text to an audio output (e.g. text to speech). Then the computer executes text-to-speech (TTS) software that converts the text to the audio output, which the computer then plays through a speaker for the user to hear),
audibly outputting each digital ticket number with the speaker, if the plurality of digital ticket numbers is selected to be read aloud by the user account (Column 1, Lines 7-13 of Dodrill: Background -Historically, a computer can provide the ability to convert text passages to an audio output for a user. Typically, a user sitting at a computer requests the conversion of text to an audio output (e.g. text to speech). Then the computer executes text-to-speech (TTS) software that converts the text to the audio output, which the computer then plays through a speaker for the user to hear; ¶26 of DePaul: The lottery ticket 100 comprises a text block 110 comprising text 120 identifying the lottery in which the ticket 100 is participating, a ticket number 125 that uniquely identifies the ticket, text 130 identifying the date and time of purchase of the ticket 100, and the lottery numbers 140 of the ticket 100).
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in the claimed invention to have modified DePaul to incorporate the teachings of Dodrill because a user who is sitting at a client computer that does not have TTS software available on it, uses a web browser on the client computer to access a web application performing on an application server, and desires to have textual information converted to speech (Column 2, Lines 62-66 of Dodrill).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePaul (US 20130084935 A1) in view of Zhang and Shapiro (US 20140051507 A1) and Granich (US 20190206012 A1) and Saig (US 20090176549 A1) in further view of Smith (US 20130084935 A1).
Regarding claim 7, DePaul discloses the method of managing a lottery service for visually-impaired users, the method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the specific braille-inscribed ticket number is encircled by a raised ring (Examiner notes that the underlined limitation is taught by other references) (¶151 of Depaul: It is contemplated that in the Step 350, the user 220 may scan each lottery ticket 100 or 100' individually or multiple lottery tickets 100 or 100' at one time. In the Step 350, the computer system 220 may upload one image of multiple lottery tickets at a time for decoding, or the computer system 220 may decode the encoded information from the one image and transmit it in the Step 350. One image may correspond to a batch of lottery tickets 100 or 100'. For example, both Powerball.RTM. and Mega Millions.RTM. can fit five tickets 100' per single ticket print-out 150. Therefore, the user 220, if registering five tickets 100', need only do a single scan in the Step 350; if registering 10 tickets 100, the user 220 performs two scans in the Step 350; and so on)
DePaul is silent on a braille-inscribed ticket number.
Zhang discloses braille-inscribed ticket number ((Introduction - In this paper, we describe a mobile Braille recognition system by running a Java programmed application installed in a camera-phone. The aim of the research is to provide a portable and helpful tool to improve the independence of the visually impaired users) (Page 1).
DePaul in view of Zhang are silent on a ticket number is encircled by a raised ring.
Smith discloses ticket number is encircled by a raised ring (¶37 of Smith: The graphics also include a raised line provided from another given braille message to a circle around the home button. In one such example case, the braille message might be, for instance, "press and hold for 10 seconds the home button within the raised circle at the end of this line to enter special accessibility mode.”)
It would have been obvious for one in ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in the claimed invention to have modified DePaul and Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Smith to the braille inscribed ticket number to be encircled by a raised ring as a way of helpful instructions to help with the experience of the user (¶37 of Smith).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101, applicant argues that all steps in claim 1 are executed by computing hardware, stating that none of the steps are executed by a human person. However, the claims focus is automating a human administrative task like managing user accounts, which is subject matter that the statute expressly prohibits from being patented, such as humans per se.
Applicant cites the 2019 PEG, claiming none of the claim 1 steps involve or refer to people. However, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) allows claims involving data handling for user interactions like “user account” processing, which falls under organizing human activity if the data represents human relationships.
Applicant suggests the Examiner is misinterpreting “user account” as a human user, says a virtual “user account” doesn’t imply human interaction. However, even if the account is virtual, if the claimed functionality inherently involves human behaviors like account creation and or the user of a user account, it still represents organizing human activity under PEG 2019.
Applicant demands a prima facie explanation for why the claim is considered abstract under Step 2A Prong One and believes the answer should be “no”. However, according to MPEP 2106.07(a), the claims recite user account creation, and generating notifications based on lottery results which fall within the abstract idea of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The claims involve to user checking lottery results, which is analogous to managing personal human behavior and delivering user-specific information.
Applicant explains that the invention solves a tangible technical problem. However, the claimed invention shows no technical improvement or solution to a problem in neither the claims or specification.
Applicant argues the network of devise is not a generic computer system but an interconnected solution. However, under MPEP 2106.05(f), for claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. With that the remote server and external server is conventional and does not contribute to solving a technical problem.
Applicant challenges the examiner’s idea that the hardware merely links an abstract idea to a field of use. However, MPEP 2106.05(h) states that a more recent example of a limitation that does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Additionally, applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claim invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed int these claims. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea above in the independent claims (and their respective dependent claim) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG. Further per MPEP 2105.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.”
Applicant argues the examiner’s labeling of certain steps as “insignificant extra-solution activity”, especially scanning and processing braille numbers. According MPEP 2016.05(g), if the scanning step is necessary to carry out the core technical function of reading the braille inscribed lottery ticket, then it still doesn’t show any specific improvement to the already-existing scanning technology per NPL Zhang.
Applicant argues that scanning the braille ticket is not a per or post-solution step but is central to solving the problem. However, the independent claim 1, does not improve how scanning is done. According to MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).
Applicant argues the PC, remote server, and external server aren’t generic. However, the use of a PC, remote and external servers as claimed is still generic computing hardware. The claims do not recite any specific improvement to the functioning of these components.
Applicant argues that the PC device, remote server, and external server are part of a non-generic distributed network where each piece of hardware performs distinct steps. However, according to MPEP 2106.05(f), merely executing steps on different pieces of generic hardware still classifies them as generic, unless the claimed hardware shows specific improvement to the computer technology. Applicant also argues that when they are viewed as an ordered combination, the claimed invention solves a technical problem. However, the claim addresses an accessibility use case, and the claimed steps do not improve the operation of the computer components themselves, nor provide any technical improvement to scanning, processing, or comparing numbers.
Regarding the 103 rejections: Applicant argues that Zheng does not disclose a lottery ticket or braille-inscribed ticket numbers. While Zheng may not explicitly mention “a lottery ticket”, the claimed use of a “braille-inscribed ticket” does not structurally differ any other piece of paper that has braille-inscribed to it. Zheng teaches the functionality of recognizing braille on a physical surface. Additionally, Zheng teaches the concept of associating braille data (e.g., ticket numbers) with a digital representation, through the teaching of converting braille characters to binary and then into text. Therefore, no new functionality or inventive concept is required to extend Zheng to teach a “braille-inscribed ticket”.
Applicant argues that Saig only teaches general age verification btu does not address the specific requirement that current location is within an enforcement location range of the legal gambling age. Although paragraph [0009] was cited, further clarification of enforcement location can be found per paragraph [0065] of Saig: “the lottery registration server 12 will perform a test to see whether the sender's age enables participation in the lottery (as defined by the law of the sender's state of origin) 48.”. The citation shows that the system determines if the sender’s current location falls within a jurisdiction that allows lottery participation based on the enforcement location.
Applicant argues the amended claim includes sequential, which differ from the “disjointed inputs and outputs in DePaul and Zhang. However, the mere recitation of steps as interdependent does not alone establish non-obviousness unless the results show a functional improvement to the operations.
Applicant argues that the combination of the prior art appears to rely on hindsight. However, the combination of DePaul, Zheng, and other cited references is based on the already known techniques for digitizing braille-inscribed ticket numbers.
Applicant argues that the examiner is not giving weight to every word in the claim. However, all limitations have been considered during examination.
Applicant argues that the examiner violated the piecemeal rule by splitting the rejection into too many partial references. However, the rejection is proper under MPEP 707(g). Each reference addresses a distinct limitation. Combining multiple references is standard under U.S.C 103.
Applicant argues the office action lacks prima facie evidence for some rejection. However, the grounds of the obvious rejection are maintained, since it is supported by specific teachings in the cited references and motivations are provided for combination.
Applicant argues that all pending claims are allowable and the examiner is requested to withdraw the rejections. However, the prior art references still teach and render the claims obvious, so the rejection is 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 shortene