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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 22nd, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, and 8-18 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 lottery ticket system (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-5, and 8-18.
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 lottery ticket system comprising:
a single lottery terminal positioned on an operator side of a retail store counter, the single lottery terminal comprising a terminal housing and a terminal display device supported by the terminal housing, the terminal display device facing in a first direction;
a first player terminal positioned on a player side of the retail store counter, the first player terminal comprising a first player housing, a first display device supported by the first player housing, a first input device supported by the first player housing, and a first data transmitter supported by the first player housing, the first display device facing in a second direction that is opposite the first direction, the first player terminal beinq communicatively connected to the single lottery terminal, the first player terminal configured to obtain first draw game play information from a first player via the first input device for a first play of a draw lottery game and to transmit first draw game play request data to the single lottery terminal via the first data transmitter based on the first draw qame play information;
a second player terminal positioned on the player side of the retail store counter, the second player terminal comprising a second player housinq, a second display device supported by the second player housing, a second input device supported by the second player housing, and a second data transmitter supported by the second player housing, the second display device facing in the second direction that is opposite the first direction, the second player terminal being communicatively connected to the single lottery terminal, the second player terminal configured to obtain second draw game play information from a second player via the second input device for the first play of the draw lottery game and to transmit second draw game play request data to the single lottery terminal via the second data transmitter based on the second draw game play information; and
a single lottery ticket printer positioned on the operator side of the retail store counter, the single lottery ticket printer communicatively connected to the single lottery terminal, the single lottery ticket printer configured to print a first draw lottery ticket for the first player for the first play of the draw lottery game and to separately print a second draw lottery ticket for the second player for the first play of the draw lottery game,
wherein the terminal housing, the first player housing, and the second player housing are separate from each other,
wherein the single lottery terminal, the first player terminal, the second player terminal, and the single lottery ticket printer are configured to co-act to enable:
a simultaneous entry of the first draw game play information at the first player terminal and entry of the second draw game play information at the second player terminal, and
a sequential printing of the first and second draw lottery tickets for a purchase of the first and second draw lottery tickets by the first and second players,
wherein the single lottery terminal is configured to transmit a first lottery ticket print request that comprises a first identifier of the first player terminal to cause the single lottery ticket printer to print the first draw lottery ticket and cause a first indication that the first draw lottery ticket is associated with the first player terminal based on the first identifier of the first player terminal;
wherein the single lottery terminal is configured to transmit a second lottery ticket print request that comprises a second identifier of the second player terminal to cause the single lottery ticket printer to print the second draw lottery ticket and to cause and a second indication that the second draw lottery ticket is associated with the second player terminal based on the second identifier of the second player terminal.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including commercial or legal interactions in the form of contracts, legal obligations, sales activities and business relations because the claims a system for enabling the purchase of lottery tickets and the delivery of the same to players as well as managing personal behavior involving interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving a plurality parties in the context of a game interface.
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 retail store counter, a single lottery terminal, a single lottery ticket printer , player terminals, display devices, housings, input devices, and data transmitters 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 networked connected devices such as generic computers, vending machines, POS terminals, Automated Teller Machines (ATMS), and the like. Additionally, the recited the inclusion of a retail store counter and arrangements of devices placed there upon reflects insignificant extra solution activity(MPEP 2106.05(g)) that does not modify the structure of the individual elements sufficient to support a particular machine as defined by MPEP 2106.05(b) 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 retail store counter, a single lottery terminal, a single lottery ticket printer , player terminals, display devices, housings, input devices, and data transmitters amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer related 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 [0002], [0016]-[0017]). 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 [0002], [0016]-[0017]). 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 2-5, and 8-18 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 retail store counter, a single lottery terminal, lottery ticket printer(s), player terminals, display devices, housings, input devices, data transmitters, a data network, a central system, POS system terminals, electronic player devices, a bar code scanner, QR code scanner, and a NFC reader 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 October 22nd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on pages 11 through 13 of the Applicant’s remarks the Applicant presents that the rejection of claims under 35 USC §101 as being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more has been overcome because the claimed invention as amended integrates the abstract idea into an practical application based on the presentation of particular machine as defined by 2106.05(b) and relating to the arrangement of the lottery terminals, lottery printer(s), and player terminals on about a retail store counter.
Responsive to the preceding it is respectfully noted that the element of generic computers and printers are generic computer elements that are not sufficient to support he presence of particular machine as set forth by MPEP 2106(b) and as was noted as considered in In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The arrangement of the generic computer elements on a counter as now claimed describes the positional relationship of the generic elements with respect to each other but does not modify the structure of the counter or generic computing element themselves and as such represents insignificant extra solution activity MPEP 2106.05(g). It is noted that while the integration of a the generic computers into a specific structural element such as a counter may support the presence of a particular machine and establish a practical application based thereon, the pending claims do not reflect this type of integration/incorporation.
The applicant presented amendments are reasonably persuasive in overcoming the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 as previously presented and accordingly these rejections have been withdrawn.
In view of the preceding the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and though not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Branck et al (US 2005/0263590) teaches a Point Of Sale Terminal Having Integrated Customer And Operator Interfaces;
Nakayama et al (US 10,726,409) teaches a Point-of-sale System With Movable Receipt Printer
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