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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a system or game system (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-10, 20 and a method (i.e., a process) in claims 11-19.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. A multi-jurisdictional game management server, comprising:
at least one processor;
a network interface coupled with the at least one processor, wherein the network interface enables communication with a plurality of jurisdictional game management servers via at least one gateway: and
at least one memory device coupled with the at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory device stores instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
electronically communicate with the plurality of jurisdictional game management servers via the at least one gateway as part of coordinating the plurality of jurisdictional game management servers with one another and with at least one of a mobile device and web server by recording a time at which an electronic communication is received via the network interface, wherein the electronic communication indicates a lottery ticket is received from one of the plurality of jurisdictional game management servers;
automatically access, via a database access performed through the at least one gateway an electronic record of a progressive prize pool for linked tickets responsive to a plurality of conditions being met, wherein the plurality of conditions include: (i) the lottery ticket corresponding to a winning lottery ticket; (ii) a prize associated with the winning lottery ticket includes a progressive prize; and (iii) the lottery ticket corresponds to a type of lottery ticket that links a physical ticket prize pool with a digital ticket prize pool; and
responsive to the plurality of conditions being met, automatically access the database through the at least one gateway to change at least one value of an electronic record associated with the lottery ticket in the database to include a prize value that is assigned to the lottery ticket based on a current value of the progressive prize pool for linked tickets corresponding to the time at which the electronic communication is received via the network interface.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for evaluating game state and assigning prizes based thereon as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior including interactions between people including commercial or legal interactions, involving business relations, social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving organizing a lottery game and prizes/award for player tickets on behalf of a game operator.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on a mobile device, servers, at least one processor, a network interface, at least one memory device, and at least one gateway it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other network connected devices such as generic computers, smart phones, game consoles, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including a mobile device, servers, at least one processor, a network interface, at least one memory device, and at least one gateway amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0038]-[0040], [0046], [0048]-[0049], [0065], [0101], [0107]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0038]-[0040], [0046], [0048]-[0049], [0065], [0101], [0107]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-20 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of a mobile device, servers, at least one processor, a network interface, at least one memory device, and at least one gateway, as respectively presented that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B for the reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 and further present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and therefore are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 15th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As presented on pages 8 through 12, of the Applicant’s above dated reply, the Applicant proposes that the claimed invention meets the subject matter eligibility requirements of 35 USC 101 for the following reasons:
That the invention relates to machine-to-machine interactions and accordingly would not encompass the enumerated grouping of abstract ideas including Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity or a Mental Process (Applicant’s Remarks Pages 9-10);
That the claimed invention does not risk preemption and instead is directed to a particular type of server implementing a certain type of lottery game (Applicant’s Remarks Page 11);
That application as filed provides solutions for managing tickets across different jurisdictions in which the coordination of multiple jurisdictional servers is necessary and these solutions are provided by the claimed features (Applicant’s Remarks Page 11);
That when considered under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test the claimed invention recites significantly more than a basic lottery game and provides a technical solution to the technical problem involving coordinating different machines in different locations with one another wherein the absence of the same would make the game unplayable (Applicant’s Remarks Page 12).
Responsive to the Applicant arguments summarized herein above, the following is respectfully noted in respective corresponding numerical order:
i.a) The claimed updating of game state corresponding to a winning lottery ticket , a progressive prize associated with the lottery ticket, and updating the electronic records associated with the lottery tickets based on the current value of the lottery pool reasonably describes Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior including interactions between people including commercial or legal interactions, involving business relations, social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving organizing a lottery game and prizes/award for player tickets on behalf of a game operator. The recited implementation utilizing one or more additional computer devices is only utilized in a manner to perform the recited abstract process and as such does not separate the claimed invention from the identified groups or support the patent eligibility of the claimed invention as proposed. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301).
The use of a computer merely as a tool to implement an abstract idea is not sufficient to support patent eligibility of a claimed invention as proposed including when the abstract idea is a mental process because the implementation of an abstract idea performable by the human mind but practiced on a computer falls under the grouping of a mental process (See MPEP 2106.05(f) & 2106.04(a)(2) Sub. III.C);
ii.a) The claimed hardware elements including a memory, processor, servers and an optional mobile device are not sufficient to support patent eligibility based on the incorporation of a particular machine as defined by MPEP 2106.05(b) but instead reflects the presentation of generic computers elements operating in a conventional manner as a tool to implement the identified abstract idea. With regards to the Applicant’s remarks on the subject of preemption, while preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In keeping with this, MPEP 2106.04.I & 2106.07(b) notes that questions of preemption are resolved by the Alice/Mayo two-part framework including considering if there is an improvement to computer related technology in step 2A, and if the elements when considered in individually and in combination under step 2B are more than the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional elements. As discussed in at least the rejection above the claimed invention does not at present meet the requirements under steps 2A or 2B;
iii.a) The management of game data across different jurisdictions using represents an abstract concern of records management while the use of multiple jurisdictional servers to exchange information reflects the mere use of a computer as a tool (MPEP 2106.05(f)) but would not support the presence of practical applications as defined by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and broadly including to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment, as respectively described therein. ;
iv.a) As noted in section (i.a) above, the use of a computer merely as a tool to implement an abstract idea is not sufficient to support patent eligibility of a claimed invention as proposed including when the abstract idea is a mental process (See MPEP 2106.05(f) & 2106.04(a)(2) Sub. III.C). Additionally, the proposed technical solution involving the use of servers to exchange information to address the technical problem of coordinating information across different devices does not meet the requirements of a technical improvement as defined by MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a) because it does not depart from the mere use of a computer as tool as defined by MPEP 2106.05(f) and for the additional reasons that the Applicant’s specification does not identify how the particular use of the game servers (beyond merely applying the same) provides a particular and/or unconventional solution to an identified technical problem. Accordingly, the abstract manipulation of data even when performed by a computer and a server is not sufficient to support the presence of significantly more under Prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo test for patent eligible subject matter.
In view of the preceding, rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above.
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 ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715