/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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement entered November 17th, 2025 has been considered. A copy of the cited statement(s) including the notation indicating its respective consideration is attached for the Applicant's records.
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 method (i.e., a process) in claims 1-20.
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 method of operating a lottery gaming system comprising a processor and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions executable by the processor, the method comprising:
determining, via the processor, a single player multi-draw symbol for a play of a multi-draw lottery game, the single player multi-draw symbol being one of a plurality of different symbols that are randomly selectable for each drawing of a draw lottery game, wherein the single player multi-draw symbol is selected by a player via the lottery gaming system prior to all of a plurality of drawings of the draw lottery game that are used for the multi-draw lottery game;
generating, via the processor, a lottery ticket comprising the single player multi-draw symbol;
storing data associated with the lottery ticket;
causing the lottery ticket to be provided to a player, the lottery ticket comprising a player multi-draw symbol portion comprising an indication of the player multi-draw symbol for the play of the multi-draw lottery game;
for each of the plurality of drawings of the draw lottery game that are used for the play of the multi-draw lottery game, independently and separately randomly determining, via a random number generator, a quantity of drawn symbols for that drawing of the draw lottery game from the plurality of different symbols, the quantity of drawn symbols being at least one;
determining an award for the lottery ticket based on the single player multi-draw symbol and a total quantity of occurrences of the single player multi-draw symbol in all of the drawn symbols for all of the plurality of drawings of the draw lottery game that are used for the multi-draw lottery game; and
causing a display, by a display device remote from the processor, of an indication of the award.
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 observing game outcomes, evaluating those outcomes with respect to defined winning conditions and judging based thereon if an award is to be distributed as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior including interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of a rules for playing a game and determining an award based thereon.
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 processor, a memory and a display 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 devices such as generic computers, smart phones, tablets, 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 processor, a memory and a display 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 [0078], [0081], [0083]-[0084]). 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 [0078], [0081], [0083]-[0084]). 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 processor, a memory, a display, a mobile device, and a lottery terminal 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Walker et al (US 2005/0075158).
Claim 1: Walker teaches a method of operating a lottery gaming system comprising a processor and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions executable by the processor (Walker Figures 2, 3;), the method comprising:
determining, via the processor, a single player multi-draw symbol for a play of a multi-draw lottery game, the single player multi-draw symbol being one of a plurality of different symbols that are randomly selectable for each drawing of a draw lottery game, wherein the single player multi-draw symbol is selected by a player via the lottery gaming system prior to all of a plurality of drawings of the draw lottery game that are used for the multi-draw lottery game (-Wherein the “particular numbers selected by the player” and are understood as inherently selected prior to the drawings to prevent all players from only selecting known winning outcomes - Walker Paragraphs [0133]-[0134]);
generating, via the processor, a lottery ticket comprising the single player multi-draw symbol (Walker Paragraphs [0132]-[0133]);
storing data associated with the lottery ticket (Walker Paragraphs [0132]);
causing the lottery ticket to be provided to a player, the lottery ticket comprising a player multi-draw symbol portion comprising an indication of the single player multi-draw symbol for the play of the multi-draw lottery game (Walker Paragraphs [0133]-[0134], [0136]);
for each of the plurality of drawings of the draw lottery game that are used for the play of the multi-draw lottery game, independently and separately randomly determining, via a random number generator, a quantity of drawn symbols for that drawing of the draw lottery game from the plurality of different symbols, the quantity of drawn symbols being at least one (-Wherein numbers drawn during a standard 6/49 type lottery game are understood as inherently generated by a random number generator - Walker Paragraphs [0041], [0133]-[0134]);
determining an award for the lottery ticket based on the single player multi-draw symbol and a total quantity of occurrences of the single player multi-draw symbol in all of the drawn symbols for all of the plurality of drawings of the draw lottery game that are used for the multi-draw lottery game (Walker Paragraphs [0133]-[0134]); and
causing a display, by a display device remote from the processor, of an indication of the award (Walker Paragraph [0136]).
Claim 2: Walker teaches the method of Claim 1, which comprises receiving an indication of a wager for the play of the multi-draw lottery game (-purchase- Walker Paragraph [0007], [0044], [0047], [0108], [0136]).
Claim 3: Walker teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the quantity of drawn symbols for each drawing of the draw lottery game that are used for the play of the multi-draw lottery game is more than one (-numbers drawn- Walker Paragraph [0133]).
Claim 4: Walker teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the quantity of drawn symbols for each drawing of the draw lottery game that are used for the play of the multi-draw lottery game is the same (-understood as inherent to the use of a “standard 6/49 lottery”- Walker Paragraph [0133]).
Claim 5: Walker teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the quantity of drawn symbols for each of two drawings of the draw lottery game that are used for the play of the multi-draw lottery game are different (-wherein the numbers/symbols are collected across different games in including those with different sets of numbers- Walker Paragraph [0135]; Claim 17).
Claim 8: Walker teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the display device is part of a mobile device (Walker Paragraphs [0050], [0051]).
Claim 9: Walker teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the display device is part of a lottery terminal (Walker Paragraphs [0050], [0051]).
Claim 10: Walker teaches a method of operating a lottery gaming system comprising a processor and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions executable by the processor (Walker Figures 2, 3;), the method comprising:
determining, via the processor, a single player multi-draw symbol for a play of a multi-draw lottery game, the single player multi-draw symbol being one of a plurality of different symbols that are randomly selectable for each drawing of a first draw lottery game and each drawing of a different second draw lottery game that are used for the multi-draw lottery game, wherein the single player multi-draw symbol is selected by a player via the lottery gaming system prior to each drawing of the first draw lottery game that is used for the multi-draw lottery game and prior to each drawing of the second draw lottery game that is used for the multi-draw lottery game (-Wherein numbers drawn during a standard 6/49 type lottery game are understood as inherently generated by a random number generator - Walker Paragraphs [0041], [0133]-[0134]);
generating, via the processor, a lottery ticket comprising the single player multi-draw symbol (Walker Paragraphs [0132]-[0133]);
storing data associated with the lottery ticket (Walker Paragraphs [0132]);
causing the lottery ticket to be provided to a player, the lottery ticket comprising a player multi-draw symbol portion comprising an indication of the single player multi-draw symbol for the play of the multi-draw lottery game (Walker Paragraphs [0133]-[0134], [0136]);
for each of independent and separate drawings of the first draw lottery game and the second draw lottery game that are used for the play of the multi-draw lottery game, independently and separately randomly determining via random number generator a quantity of drawn symbols for that drawing of the draw lottery game (-Wherein numbers drawn during a standard 6/49 type lottery game are understood as inherently generated by a random number generator - Walker Paragraphs [0041], [0133]-[0134]);
determining an award for the lottery ticket based on the single player multi-draw symbol and a total quantity of occurrences of the single player multi-draw symbol in all of the drawn symbols for all of the plurality of drawings of the first draw lottery game and the second draw lottery game that are used for the multi-draw lottery game (Walker Paragraphs [0133]-[0134]); and
causing a display, by a display device remote from the processor, of an indication of the award (Walker Paragraph [0136]).
Claim 11: Walker teaches the method of Claim 10, which comprises receiving an indication of a wager for the play of the multi-draw lottery game (-purchase- Walker Paragraph [0007], [0044], [0047], [0108], [0136]).
Claim 12: Walker teaches the method of Claim 10, wherein the quantity of drawn symbols for each drawing of the first draw lottery game and each drawing of the second draw lottery game that are used for the multi-draw lottery game is more than one (-numbers drawn- Walker Paragraph [0133]).
Claim 13: Walker teaches the method of Claim 10, wherein the quantity of drawn symbols for each drawing of the first draw lottery game is different than the quantity of drawn symbols for each drawing of the second draw lottery game (-wherein the numbers/symbols are collected across different games in including those with different sets of numbers- Walker Paragraph [0135]; Claim 17).
Claim 15: Walker teaches the method of Claim 10, wherein the display device is part of a mobile device or part of a lottery terminal (Walker Paragraphs [0050], [0051]).
Claim 16: Walker teaches a method of operating a lottery gaming system comprising a processor and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions executable by the processor (Walker Figures 2, 3;), the method comprising:
determining, via the processor, a player symbol set for one or a plurality of drawings of a draw lottery game, the player symbol set comprising a plurality of symbols that are randomly selectable from a plurality of different symbols for each said drawing of the draw lottery game (Walker Paragraphs [0133]-[0134]);
determining a single player multi-draw symbol for a play of a multi-draw lottery game, the single player multi-draw symbol being one of the plurality of different symbols that are selectable for each drawing of the draw lottery game, wherein the single player multi-draw symbol is selected by a player via the lottery gaming system prior to each of the drawings that are used for the multi-draw lottery game (-Wherein the “particular numbers selected by the player” and are understood as inherently selected prior to the drawings to prevent all players from only selecting known winning outcomes - Walker Paragraphs [0133]-[0134]);
generating a lottery ticket comprising the player symbol set symbol and the single player multi-draw symbol (Walker Paragraphs [0132]-[0133]);
storing data associated with the lottery ticket (Walker Paragraphs [0132]);
causing the lottery ticket to be provided to a player, the lottery ticket comprising a player symbol set portion comprising an indication of each of the symbols of the player symbol set for the drawing of the draw lottery game, the lottery ticket also comprising a player multi-draw symbol portion comprising an indication of the single player multi-draw symbol for the play of the multi-draw lottery game (Walker Paragraphs [0133]-[0134], [0136]);
for each of a plurality of independent and separate drawings of the draw lottery game that are used for the play of the multi-draw lottery game, randomly determining, via a random number generator, a quantity of drawn symbols for that drawing of the draw lottery game from the plurality of different symbols, the quantity of drawn symbols being more than one (-Wherein numbers drawn during a standard 6/49 type lottery game are understood as inherently generated by a random number generator - Walker Paragraphs [0041], [0133]-[0134]);
determining a first award for the lottery ticket based on the player symbol set and the drawn symbols in one of the drawings of the draw lottery game (Walker Paragraphs [0008], [0112], [0133]);
determining a second award for the lottery ticket based on the single player multi-draw symbol and a total quantity of occurrences of the single player multi-draw symbol in all of the drawn symbols for all of the plurality of drawings of the draw lottery game that are used for the play of the multi-draw lottery game (Walker Paragraphs [0133]-[0134]); and
causing a display, by a display device remote from the processor, of an indication of the first award and the second award (Walker Paragraph [0136]).
Claim 17: Walker teaches the method of Claim 16, wherein the quantity of drawn symbols for each drawing of the draw lottery game is the same (-understood as inherent to the use of a “standard 6/49 lottery”- Walker Paragraph [0133]).
Claim 20: Walker teaches the method of Claim 16, wherein the display device is part of a mobile device or part of a lottery terminal (Walker Paragraphs [0050], [0051]).
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 6-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al (US 2005/0075158) as applied to at least claim 1-5, 8-13, 15-17, and 20 above, and further in view of Meyer et al (US 2003/0114210).
Claim 6: The combination of Walker & Meyer teach the method of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of drawings of the draw lottery game that are used for the play of the multi-draw lottery game are sequential drawings of the draw lottery game.
Walker teaches the invention as presented above and including the use of an aggregated game result for a plurality of drawings and over a period of time(Walker Paragraphs [0041], [0134]). While the prior art of Walker does not explicitly teach if the number of games is performed sequentially or non-sequentially, Meyer teaches that both of these arrangements were known in an analogous lottery teaching (Meyer Paragraphs [0028], [0030] [0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the use of the known execution of a plurality lottery games sequentially or non-sequentially as taught by Meyer in the invention of Walker because such would have provided the predictable and expected result of providing players with greater options in selecting the lottery games they wish to participate in and by extension avoid games that they believe to be unlucky or personally inconvenient.
Claim 7: The combination of Walker & Meyer teach the method of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of drawings of the draw lottery game that are used for the play of the multi-draw lottery game are non-sequential drawings of the draw lottery game (Meyer Paragraphs [0028], [0030] [0045]).
Claim 18: The combination of Walker & Meyer teach the method of Claim 16, wherein the drawing of the draw lottery game that are used for the play of the multi-draw lottery game are sequential drawings of the draw lottery game (Meyer Paragraphs [0028], [0030] [0045]).
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al (US 2005/0075158) as applied to at least claim 1-5, 8-13, 15-17, and 20 above, and further in view of Jubinville et al (US 2005/0107153).
Claim 14: The combination of Walker & Jubinville teach the method of Claim 10, wherein the first draw lottery game is a pick 3 draw lottery game, and the second draw lottery game is a pick 4 draw lottery game (Jubinville Paragraph [0059], [0068]).
The prior art of Walker teaches the invention including the use of known lottery format “standard 6/49 lottery” (Walker Paragraph [0133]). While the prior art Walker does not explicitly teach the inclusion of lottery game formats of a pick 3 draw or pick 4 draw game, Jubinville teaches that these game formats were known at the time invention in an analogous lottery gaming invention (Jubinville Paragraph [0059], [0068]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the use of the known lottery game formats including of a pick 3 draw or pick 4 draw game as taught by Jubinville in lottery invention of Wlaker because such would have provided the predictable and expected result of provided game play aggregation as taught by Walker in a wider variety of lottery game types and associated wider amount gaming markets in manner that would further drive customers to participate in multiple pick 3 or pick 4 draw games
Claim 19: The combination of Walker & Jubinville teach the method of Claim 16, wherein the draw lottery game is one of a pick 3 draw lottery game and a pick 4 draw lottery game (Jubinville Paragraph [0059], [0068]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 17th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on pages 8 and 9 of the Applicant’s above dated remarks, the Applicant proposes that the amended inclusion of a random number generator supports the patent eligibility of the claimed invention because a human mind is not is not capable of generating a random number.
It is respectfully noted that the human mind is capable of generating a random number independently (e.g. Pick a number between 1 and 10) as well as with the benefit of pen and paper (e.g. Picking numbers from a hat). Notwithstanding the preceding, only the enumerated grouping of Mental Process requires consideration if the process can be performed in the human mind with benefit of a pencil and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Sub III.B), whereas the abstract idea presented in the pending claimed invention is identified as falling under both the enumerated groupings of Mental Processes as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as set forth in the rejection as presented herein above. Accordingly, even if the claimed invention as amended was exclude from the grouping of Mental Process, the same would remain rejected based on continuing to fall under the enumerated grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Continuing on pages 10-11 the applicant presents that the prior art of Walker does not teaches the features as amended into claims 1, 10 , and 16 and by extension the remainder of claims dependent thereupon. Specifically, the Applicant proposes that the prior art of Walker does not provide for the election of a Bonus symbol by the player prior to the drawings.
Responsive to the preceding it is respectfully noted that the prior art of Walker provides for the election of a Bonus symbol by the player prior to the drawings (-Wherein the “particular numbers selected by the player”- Walker Paragraphs [0133]-[0134]). Not withstanding the preceding it is additionally noted that the argued feature is additional acknowledged by the applicant’s specification as a known features of a Lottery (Applicant’s Specification Paragraph [0002]). The selection of a player symbols prior to the randomly selected winning numbers is understood as an inherent part of a lottery game in order to prevent players from only selecting known winning outcomes.
In view of the preceding the 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