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
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments in the Response dated December 12, 2025 as part of the Request for Continued Examination directed to the rejection set forth in the Final Office Action dated September 23, 2025. Claims 1-8, 11-14, and 17-18 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
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 1-8, 11-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, relies on the Mayo/Alice two-step analysis.
In step 1 of the analysis, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In the present case, claims 1-8, are directed to a physical lottery ticket (i.e., a manufacture), claims 11-14 are directed to a plurality of physical lottery tickets (i.e., a manufacture), and claim 17-18 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). The claims are, therefore directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner is directed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims are compared to groupings of subject matter that have been found by courts as abstract ideas. These groupings include
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—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); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 is considered representative and recites the instructions for (the abstract idea is underlined) a physical lottery ticket comprising:
a physical base;
a plurality of different randomly determined symbol sets on the physical base, wherein each of the plurality of different randomly determined symbol sets comprise a plurality of different symbols;
a plurality of different sequential ascending payout amounts on the physical base and wherein each different sequential ascending payout amounts is respectively associated with a different one of the plurality of different randomly determined symbol sets;
a plurality of different randomly determined player symbols on the physical base, wherein a winning amount associated with the physical lottery ticket is a sum of each of the plurality of different sequential ascending payout amounts that is won, wherein for each of the plurality of different sequential ascending payout amounts, that payout amount is won if each of the plurality of different symbols of the symbol set associated with that payout amount matches one of the plurality of different randomly determined player symbols on the physical base;
a first physically removable cover on the physical base covering the plurality of different randomly determined player symbols; and
a second physically removable cover on the physical base covering the plurality of different sequential ascending payout amounts.
The present claims are directed to a physical lottery ticket. These steps fall under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, they are directed to the sub-category of fundamental economic practices because it involves a physical ticket representing a possible payout amount. Additionally, the claims are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since the claims recite relationships between symbol sets, player symbols and payout amounts. This is similar to the rules of a game. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the examiner considers whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (not considered relevant to the present claims);
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses 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.
The additional elements in the present claims are a physical lottery ticket, a physical base, a first physically removable cover, a second physically removable cover, a processor, and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions. The additional elements do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional elements do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The additional elements do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The examiner considers if the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional:
a physical lottery ticket, a physical base, a first physically removable cover, a second physically removable cover (Kozdras, US 2007/0164559 A1, As is well known in the lottery ticket printing art, the base layer 160 is formulated and applied so as to create resistance to known optical, magnetic, chemical, physical, electrical and other forms of security compromise techniques and to provide a surface suitable for receiving the variable game data 170 [0035]; A seal layer 210 provides a barrier to seal and protect the variable game data 170; A release layer 220 provides a layer from which a scratch-off layer 230, which covers the release layer 220, may be easily removed by scratching; These layers guard against physical, thermal, or chemical tampering and are well known in the lottery ticket printing art [0037]),
a processor, and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions (Weddle, US 2009/0063760 A1, an information device can comprise well-known communicatively coupled components, such as one or more network interfaces, one or more processors, one or more memories containing instructions, one or more input/output (I/O) devices, and/or one or more user interfaces (e.g., coupled to an I/O device) via which information can be rendered to implement one or more functions described herein [0082]).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As a result, the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Prior Art
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1-8, 11-14, and 17-18.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, applicant states:
Applicant respectfully submits that these elements, as amended, cannot be considered human activity or mental processes because such randomly determined player symbols and such randomly determined symbol sets cannot be determined in the mind of a human being. (Response [p. 13])
In prong one of step 2A of the two-part analysis the identified limitations fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, they are directed to the sub-category of fundamental economic practices and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. There is no indication that the present claims are directed to a mental process. Accordingly, the examiner maintains that the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter, as explained above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WERNER G GARNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7147. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-15:30 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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/WERNER G GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715