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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-24 recite multiple limitations using the phrase “and/or” (at least 80 recitations were noticed in claims 1-24), which render the metes and bounds of the claims unclear. The repeated and nested use of “and/or” in describing the relationship between claim elements creates more than one reasonable interpretation of which combinations of elements are required, optional, or alternative. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty the scope of the claimed subject matter when the claims are read in light of the specification. See MPEP 2173, 2173.02.
For example, claim 5 recites …to complete and/or continue and/or commence… in reference to display and processing of a game on a mobile computing device, in which it appears unclear as to the metes and bounds of this claim limitation as to what exactly needs to be performed to infringe the claim.
As another example, claims 5 & 6 each recite “and/or” in at minimum six occurrences and combine a multitude of limitations clouding the specificity as to what exactly is the metes and bounds of the claims.
These are only a few examples of the excessive use of “and/or” in the claims and are not exhaustive of the number of different interpretations that result from combination of limitations conjoined using “and/or” as set forth in the present claims. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to clearly set forth the relationship among elements (for example, by using explicit conjunctive or disjunctive language, by restructuring the claims, or by presenting separate claims for different combinations), so that the claim scope is clearly defined. If Applicant believes the present wording is definite, Applicant should provide an explanation as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the exact scope of the claims notwithstanding the use of “and/or”. See MPEP 2173.02, 2175.
In light of the above, the claims are examined as best understood given the broadest reasonable interpretation of every “and/or” recitation being treated in the “or” (i.e. the alternative), as such where the Examiner has not explicitly addressed one or more limitations of a claim, the alternative is addressed. That is, if a claim were to say, “the chair is green, red, and/or blue”, the Examiner’s discussion of “Reference A discloses the chair is blue” without addressing red or green is sufficient to the meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Additionally:
Claim 1: at limitation (d), the claim recites a player can select lottery games and “receive an identifying code or data relating to such selection” and limitation (f) recites that wherein, upon or after purchase, “information and/or codes relating to the selected game(s) can be communicated” – in which it appears unclear if the information is the data, or some other information. Similarly, it appears unclear if the “identifying code” and “codes” are the same or different codes. And, “the selected game(s)” lacks antecedent basis to refer specifically to the selected lottery games of the previous limitations.
Claim 1: at limitation (e) recites “said identifying code or data can be communicated to said lottery retail interface terminals and/or point-of-sale devices” in which, in one interpretation, the “said” appears to infer that “point-of-sale devices” were previously recited for proper antecedent basis, however, there is no prior recitation of “point-of-sale devices” in claim 1.
Claims 6 & 17 recite “or similar networks” which is indefinite claim language pertaining to the metes and bounds of the claim, as the phrase “similar” is indefinite.
Claims 7 & 17 recite “and other similar type data” which is indefinite claim language pertaining to the metes and bounds of the claim, as the phrase “other similar” is indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the… “particular digital instant-winner lottery games”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claims.
Claims 10 & 17 recite “the algorithms of a lottery game system…” in which “the algorithms” lacks sufficient antecedent basis, and moreover, it appears unclear if this claim is referencing another or different lottery game system or that of claims 1 or 13, from which claims 10 & 17 depend, respectively.
Claims 10 & 17 recite “other incentives, and similar games” and “other game and non-game features” which are indefinite claim language pertaining to the metes and bounds of the claim, as the phrases “other” and “similar” are indefinite.
Claims 11 & 21 recite “in some linked manner” which is definite claim language pertaining to the metes and bounds of the claims, as “some…manner” is indefinite.
Claims 12 & 22 recite “their winnings” in at least two instances. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 11-17, & 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saccoccio et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0066450; hereinafter “Saccoccio”).
Claims 1 & 13: Saccoccio discloses an instant-winner lottery game system comprising:
a central computer (figure 1[lottery engine 104] and paragraph 0014) programmed to communicate over communication means (figure 1[networks 105, 107, 109]) and process digital instant-winner lottery games (figures 2-6 and paragraphs 0021-0038, wherein Saccoccio discloses the lottery engine processes instant-winner lottery games, such as electronic instant or scratch-based game 132);
one or more lottery retail interface terminals (figure 1, wherein the functionality of both the lottery transaction device 106 and the lottery server 112 are herein interpreted as a “lottery retail interface terminal”, as Saccoccio clearly contemplates the different components being integrated in various embodiments – see paragraph 011, stating: The example embodiments described below include references to a lottery server, a lottery game engine, a lottery transaction device and a lottery system. Such a server, engine, device and/or system may be implemented as a single computing system or as a collection of computing systems or subsystems which are communicatively coupled, and each component or subsystem of the exemplary server, engine, device and/or system can be implemented in hardware, software or a combination thereof) at one or more spaced-apart locations (paragraph 0012), having at least a means capable of entering into communication with said central computer (figure 1[network 109]), a means capable of storing/processing information provided from the central computer (paragraphs 0021-0038, wherein the data generated by the engine is returned and stored; see figure 2[step 232]), and a means capable of communicating and providing information to mobile computing devices (paragraphs 0021-0038, wherein Saccoccio discloses communication means between the interface terminal and mobile devices 112 of players);
one or more mobile computing devices (figure 1[devices 112]) capable of downloading a software application and entering into a network to communicate with said central computer (paragraphs 0013, 0016 and figure 2, wherein the player utilizes the downloaded app to communicate over one or more communication networks with the central server, i.e. communication is made to the engine upon a player initiating a purchase request);
wherein, a player can select digital instant-winner lottery games from a display of one or more games on the mobile computing device using the application and receive data relating to the selection (figure 6 and paragraphs 0013, 0016, 0021, wherein Saccoccio discloses the application presents instant-winner lottery games to be selected; selected games are data stored as a virtual cart identifier; see paragraphs 0016, 0023);
wherein, the data can be communicated to the lottery retail interface terminal in connection with the purchase of the digital-instant winner lottery games (figure 2 and paragraphs 0021-0038, wherein Saccoccio discloses the virtual cart identifier associated with selected games is communicated to the interface terminal); and
wherein after purchase, information (e.g. gameplay data) relating to the selected games can be communicated from an interface terminal to the mobile computing device for display and processing of one more selected digital instant-winner lottery games (paragraphs 0021-0038, wherein Saccoccio that the interface terminal after purchasing, provides gameplay data enable the mobile computing device to process and display selected games).
Regarding claim 13, all of the above applies, wherein it appears claim 13 differs from claim 1 in the last limitations of the claims, where claim 13 specifies that wherein after purchase, information (e.g. gameplay data) relating to the selected games can be communicated from the central computer to the mobile computing device to complete the display and processing of one more selected digital instant-winner lottery games (figure 2, where game play data originates the central computer and is communicate to the mobile device to enable the mobile device to complete display and processing of a purchased and selected game; see paragraphs 0021-0038 and figures 2-8).
Claim 2: Saccoccio discloses the games to be played are electronic versions of traditional scratch-off tickets, thus prior to purchase, the gameplay data is known, and the central computer aids in activating gameplays, as such based on Saccoccio disclosing the components and functionality as detailed can be performed by any of the components of the overall system, Saccoccio reasonably discloses storing the gameplay data pertaining to selected games at the interface terminal obtained from the central computer prior to any purchase or checkout request (i.e. functionality as detailed in figures 2-4 arranged as described in such an alternative embodiment).
Claims 3 & 14: Saccoccio discloses communicating the virtual cart identifier from a mobile computing device to the interface terminal, the interface terminal communicates with the central computer to execute a checkout, which validates the virtual cart identifier, enabling the selected games to be purchased and related gameplay data to be transferred back; see figure 2 and paragraphs 0023-0026).
Claims 4 & 15: Saccoccio discloses the interface terminals include displays that aid in processing in-person wagers which is interpreted as a display providing visual identification markings to allow selection for purchase without any specificity as to the metes and bounds of the claim (paragraph 0015).
Claims 5, 6, & 17: Saccoccio discloses that appropriate encryption and security methodologies can be employed by the system (paragraph 0037), such that upon the mobile computing device receiving the gameplay data from the interface terminal pertaining to selected digital instant-winner lottery games, the software application on the mobile computing device, in an integrated embodiment employing such security methodologies, can validate the gameplay data with the engine, such that upon validation, the gameplay data can be executed or implemented by the software application at the mobile computing device to commence an associated instant-winner lottery game. Regarding claim 6, the same applies, further the communicated “gameplay data” can be interpreted to incorporate non-play data such as player account or identifier information associated with the selected games (paragraphs 0003, 0016, 0017, 0026)
Claims 7, 12, 16, & 22: Saccoccio discloses winnings are associated with a player’s account, which they can utilize for additional play (paragraphs 0003, 0016, 0026). Accordingly, the system is “enabled to enhanced game play” by allowing players to use their winnings as credits to enter or purchase new games, if they have credits in their player account to wager (paragraphs 0003, 0016, 0026).
Claims 11 & 22: Saccoccio discloses electronic scratch-off type lottery tickets can be scratched and revealed on the mobile device, which is interpreted as the game being interactive having a choice within the game, such as where to scratch or when to reveal (paragraph 0026).
Claim 23: See discussion of claims 1-7, 11-17, 21, & 22 above, wherein claim 23 is interpreted as a combination of limitations found in certain ones of the identified claims, as such Saccoccio discloses claim 23 for at least the same reasons detailed above.
Claim 24: See discussion of claims 4 & 15 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8-10 & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saccoccio, as applied to claims 1-7, 11-17, & 21-24, where applicable.
Claims 8 & 18: Saccoccio discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for explicitly disclosing one or more of the instant-winner lottery games is associated with a fixed jackpot prize that is a non-predesignated jackpot or at least one progressive jackpot game that incrementally increases in a predetermined manner. Regardless of the deficiency, lottery games associated with either of these types of prize structures are notoriously well-established in the gaming arts. A skilled artisan would have possessed the common knowledge and routine skill in the art to implement either or both of these prize structures within the instant-winner lottery games of the Saccoccio invention as a matter of choice requiring well-established common knowledge that such implementation results in greater excitement for players to obtain high awards and engagement for game operators to receive greater gameplay and thereby greater revenue. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saccoccio accordingly.
Claims 9 & 19: Saccoccio discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for explicitly disclosing that the instant-winner lottery games incorporate some manner of advertising or promotions content presented before, during, or after the display of a lotter game on the mobile computing device, the content shown based on factors related to game play such as at least the occurrence of an event. Regardless of the deficiency, electronic lottery games associated advertising or promotional messaging are notoriously well-established in the art, such that game operators utilize various opportunities to advertise or promotion themselves or partners before, during, or after play of electronic games. A skilled artisan would have possessed the common knowledge and routine skill in the art to implement advertising or promotions based on game play factors within the instant-winner lottery games of the Saccoccio invention as a matter of choice requiring well-established common knowledge that such implementation results in players being subjected to such content while playing games when their attention is focused on the display of the mobile computing device, thereby increasing players being aware of promotions and players being exposed to advertising that generates ad revenue for the game operator. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saccoccio accordingly.
Claims 10 & 20: Saccoccio discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for explicitly disclosing that at least one of the digital instant-winner lottery games includes an extended view feature in which algorithms of the game are designed to insert extended play features into games, such features designed to essentially extend game play time to prolong the visual representation of the game results for entertainment value. Regardless of the deficiency, electronic lottery games associated extended gameplay features that are designed explicitly to prolong entertainment value without changing specificity of winnings associated with a game play are notoriously well-established in the art, such that game operators utilize these tactics commonly to generate more excitement during games. A skilled artisan would have possessed the common knowledge and routine skill in the art to such extended play features within the instant-winner lottery games of the Saccoccio invention as a matter of choice requiring well-established common knowledge that such implementation results in players enjoying the occasional longer gameplay with various extended play features (e.g. free spins, extra symbols, bonus features, and hundreds more – essentially any game mechanic conceivable that would provide more game play time in some manner). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saccoccio accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILAP SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30-6PM.
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, KANG HU can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715