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 .
Claim Status
After the amendments filed10/13/2025, claims 4-5 were cancelled. Therefore, claims 1 and 7-18 remain pending, of which, 1, 8, 11-12, 14 and 17 were amended.
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 and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 12 and 17, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
1. A system comprising:
a lottery central system;
a point of sale system server configured to communicate with a lottery ticket central system;
point of sale system printer configured to print a physical award redemption voucher;
a point of sale system terminal configured to communicate with the point of sale system server and the point of sale system printer; and
a point of sale system display device,
wherein the lottery ticket central system, point of sale system server, and the point of sale system terminal are configured to execute in real time a sequence of operations comprising:
causing the point of sale system display device to concurrently present:
(i) an indication of an option for a purchase of an instant win lottery ticket associated with a purchase of a product by a purchaser for a purchase amount, wherein the product comprises at least one of a plurality of different goods or at least one of a plurality of different services (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
(ii) a wager amount directly based on the purchase amount (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity); and
(iii) an award amount directly based on the purchase amount (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity),
receiving, via the point of sale display device, a signal indicating that the purchaser has accepted the option for the purchase of the instant win lottery ticket associated with the purchase of the product (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity),
responsive to receiving the signal:
generating, by the point of sale system server and in real time an instant win lottery ticket request comprising a structured set of data fields including at least (i) data representing the purchase amount for the product and (ii) an identifier of the point of sale terminal; and
transmitting the instant win lottery ticket request in real time, via a data network, to the lottery ticket central system for real time processing of the instant win lottery ticket;
responsive to receiving, by the lottery ticket central system, the instant win lottery ticket request:
(a) creating, by the lottery ticket central system and in real time, the instant win lottery ticket (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
(b) randomly determining, via a random number generator, whether the instant win lottery ticket is a winning lottery ticket (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
(c) determining the award amount for the instant win lottery ticket (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
(d) creating in real time voucher data based on the award amount; and
(e) transmitting, via the data network, in real time the voucher data to the point of sale system server;
receiving, by the point of sale system server, via the data network and in real time the voucher data created in real time by the lottery ticket central system;
causing the point of sale system display device to present an indication that the award amount has been won by the purchaser (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity);
formatting, by the point of sale system server, the voucher data into a print ready format; and
causing the point of sale system printer to print in real time the physical award redemption voucher based on the voucher data, and
wherein the physical award redemption voucher is separate from the point of sale system terminal and the point of sale system display device and indicating the award amount (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity).
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 12 and 17) recite an abstract idea included in the groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., a point of sale system server, a point of sale system terminal, a point of sale system display device, a point of sale system printer, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping; and
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
A. Wagering/Hedging: (e.g., a wager amount for the instant win lottery ticket, the wager amount being directly based on the purchase amount…” and “an award amount that can be won from the instant win lottery ticket, wherein the award amount is directly based on the purchase amount…”), which are forms of wagering/hedging included in the grouping of Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices. These limitations are directed to performing economic wagering principles while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims;
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions & Marketing/Sales Behaviors: (e.g., presenting “an indication of an option for a purchase of an instant win lottery ticket associated with a purchase of a product by a purchaser…”, “receiving…a signal indicating that the purchaser has accepted the option”, and “wherein the physical reward redemption voucher…indicates the ward amount”), which are abstract concepts directed to marketing, sales activities , and contract/transaction formation included in the grouping of Commercial or Legal Interactions. These limitations are interpreted as at least Commercial or Legal Interactions & Marketing/Sales Behaviors insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing marketing, sales activities, and contract/transaction formation, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims;
C. Following rules and/or instructions, such as including the functions related to the playing of a game: (e.g., “(a) creating…the instant win lottery ticket”, “(b) randomly determining, via a random number generator, whether the instant win lottery ticket is a winning lottery ticket”, and causing the display device to present “an indication that the award amount has been won by the purchaser”), which are abstract concepts directed to administering game rules, determining game outcomes, and following instructions included in the grouping of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (i.e., following rules or instructions). These sets of rules are interpreted as at least certain methods of organized human activity insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing or following the set of rules or instructions concerning a game while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 7-11, 13-16 and 18:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Fundamental Economic Principles and/or Commercial or Legal Interactions to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “a point of sale system server, a point of sale system terminal, a point of sale system display device”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure and operations that are beyond generic to establish an inventive concept. The non-bolded additional elements in representative claim 1 above can be interpreted as general-purpose computing elements and conventional processing activities that represent well-understood, routine, and conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59.
Specifically, the claim includes additional elements such as:
A. Generic Computing Hardware: The elements of a central server, a point of sale terminal, a display device, a printer, and a random number generator are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement a game as evidence by U.S. 2004/0043813, which discloses that a conventional gaming machine system comprises a server (¶62-63), a terminal (¶62-63), a display device (¶41) and printer (¶46) to control the overall operation of the gaming machine (¶32). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
B. Antecedent Data Gathering and Pre-Solution Activity: The limitations reciting generating an instant win lottery ticket request comprising a structured set of data fields (including purchase amount data and a terminal identifier), transmitting/receiving the request over a data network, and invoking routine random number generation represent conventional pre-solution gathering and transmission of data necessary to execute the transaction (See MPEP 2106.05(g)); and
C. Insignificant Extra Solution Activity: The limitations reciting generating voucher data, transmitting/receiving voucher data, formatting the voucher data into a print-ready format, and causing the point of sale system print to print a physical ward redemption voucher separate from the terminal/display represent routine, conventional post-solution activity that merely produces the physical transactional record of the abstract wagering outcome (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/19/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcomes the rejection by reciting technical functions and a combination of physical elements operating in real time, thereby amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception (See Remarks, pg. 12). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claims remain directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101:
1. Step 2A, Prong 1: The claims remain directed to an abstract idea within Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, specifically, Fundamental Economic Practices and Principles (i.e., wagering/hedging), Commercial/Legal Interactions (i.e., marketing, sales, and transaction formation), and Managing Personal Behavior (i.e., following rules/instructions of a lottery game).
2. Step 2A, Prong 2: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not improve the technical functioning of a computer or network, but rather, implement standard wagering and sales logic using conventional POS and lottery components as mere tools (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Merely reciting that generic computer operations occur “in real time” relies on standard computer processing speed and does not impart patent eligibility. Furthermore, structuring data requests, network transmissions, print formatting, and printing a paper voucher constitute routine antecedent data gathering and conventional post-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
3. Step 2B: The claims lack an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”). The recited hardware (i.e., lottery central system, POS server, terminal, display, printer, and random number generator) consist of well-understood, routine. And conventional generic components performing their basic functions. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the limitations simply automate an abstract wager and commercial interaction across standard hardware.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PINHEIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00A-4:30P ET.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/Jason Pinheiro/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JUSTIN L MYHR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights