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 1, 2025 directed to the Non-Final Office Action dated July 1, 2025. Claims 1-20 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
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 1-20 are directed to a lottery 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 abstract idea is underlined) a lottery system comprising:
a processor;
a memory storing instructions that when executed cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
executing a smart contract associated with a lottery game, the lottery game comprising a plurality of winning numbers (certain methods of organizing human activity);
under control of the smart contract executed (certain methods of organizing human activity):
receiving an initial plurality of lottery ticket requests, each initial lottery ticket request associated with a respective one player of an initial plurality of players and having an initial defined requested total lottery ticket count associated with the respective one player (certain methods of organizing human activity);
issuing and recording on a distributed ledger technology (DLT) an initial number of lottery tickets to each respective one player of the initial plurality of players in accordance with the initial defined requested total lottery ticket count associated therewith (certain methods of organizing human activity),
wherein each lottery ticket issued and recorded on the DLT is a unique digital asset associated with the respective one player and each lottery ticket of the initial number of lottery tickets issued comprising a plurality of potential winning numbers (certain methods of organizing human activity);
executing an initial round of the lottery game (certain methods of organizing human activity);
determining whether any respective one player of the initial plurality of players is a winner of the initial round of the lottery game executed based on a matching of a specified number of required winning number matches between the plurality of potential winning numbers of a particular one lottery ticket of the initial number of lottery tickets issued thereto with the plurality of winning numbers of the lottery game (certain methods of organizing human activity and mental process), and in accordance with the determination:
if the winner of the lottery game is determined then (certain methods of organizing human activity):
identifying the particular one lottery ticket of the initial number of lottery tickets issued to the respective one player determined as the winner of the lottery game based on the matching (certain methods of organizing human activity and mental process);
notifying the respective one player determined as the winner of the lottery game of their lottery game win (certain methods of organizing human activity);
transmitting a lottery prize associated with the lottery game to the respective one player determined as the winner (certain methods of organizing human activity); and
recording results of the lottery game executed on the DLT ledger (certain methods of organizing human activity);
otherwise, if the winner of the lottery game is not determined then (certain methods of organizing human activity):
(a) updating the plurality of winning lottery numbers and redefining the specified number of required winning number matches (certain methods of organizing human activity);
(b) receiving one or more subsequent lottery ticket requests, each of the one or more subsequent lottery ticket requests associated with a respective one player of a subsequent plurality of players and having a subsequent defined requested total lottery ticket count associated with the respective one player of the subsequent plurality of players, and wherein the subsequent plurality of players comprises all or any portion of the initial plurality of players and any new player joining for any subsequent round and the subsequent defined requested total lottery ticket count may be any number of lottery tickets (certain methods of organizing human activity);
(c) issuing and recording on the DLT ledger a subsequent number of lottery tickets to each respective one player of the subsequent plurality of players making the one or more subsequent lottery ticket requests in accordance with the subsequent defined requested total lottery ticket count associated therewith (certain methods of organizing human activity),
wherein each lottery ticket of the subsequent number of lottery tickets issued and recorded on the DLT is a unique digital asset associated with the respective one player and each lottery ticket of the subsequent number of lottery tickets issued comprising a plurality of potential winning numbers (certain methods of organizing human activity);
(d) defining a current total number of lottery tickets issued for each respective one player of the subsequent plurality of players, the current total number of lottery tickets defined comprising a combination of the initial number of lottery tickets issued to the respective one player and any and all of the subsequent number of lottery tickets issued thereto (certain methods of organizing human activity);
(e) executing a subsequent round of the lottery game (certain methods of organizing human activity);
(f) determining whether any respective one player of the respective one players of the subsequent plurality of players is a winner of the subsequent round of the lottery game executed based on a matching of the specified number of required winning number matches redefined between the plurality of potential winning numbers of a particular one lottery ticket of the current total number of lottery tickets defined with the plurality of winning numbers updated (certain methods of organizing human activity and mental process), and in accordance with the determination:
(g) if the winner is identified then (certain methods of organizing human activity):
identifying the particular one lottery ticket of the current total number of lottery tickets issued to the respective one player of the subsequent plurality of players determined as the winner of the lottery game (certain methods of organizing human activity and mental process);
notifying the respective one player of the subsequent plurality of players determined as the winner of the lottery game of their lottery win (certain methods of organizing human activity);
transmitting the lottery prize associated with the lottery game to the respective one player of the subsequent plurality of players determined as the winner; and recording results of the lottery game executed on the DLT ledger (certain methods of organizing human activity);
otherwise, if the winner of the subsequent round of the lottery game executed is not determined then repeating steps (a) through (g) until the winner is determined (certain methods of organizing human activity).
The present claims are directed to a distributed ledger technology (DLT)-based lottery gaming system for implementing and executing lottery games. The underlined limitations fall into the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, they are directed to the sub-category of fundamental economic practices because they recite rules for conducting a wagering game where prizes may be awarded. The prizes may be a cryptocurrency or fiat currency and transmitted to a digital wallet. The claims also fall into the sub-category of commercial or legal interactions because they recite a smart contract. The claims also fall into the sub-category of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because they relate to the rules for playing a game and tracking financial transactions in a distributed ledger. Finally, the determining and identifying steps can be performed by the human mind, therefore falling into the category of mental processes. 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 processor, a memory, a random number generator, a blockchain-based verifiable random number generator, and a display. 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.
Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
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, as shown:
a processor, a memory, a random number generator, a blockchain-based verifiable random number generator, and a display (Walker et al., US 2004/0082384 A1, components well known in the art, specifically a processor, Ram and ROM, a data storage device, a random number generator, a communication port, a hopper controller, a hopper, a video controller, a touch screen, a coin acceptor controller, a coin acceptor, a bill acceptor controller, a bill acceptor, a reel controller, reels, an input device, an output device and a sensor [0058]).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
As a result, the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Prior Art Rejections
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1-20.
The closest prior art of record includes PHAN et al., US 2021/0295303 A1 (hereinafter Phan); Nelson et al., US 2022/0366762 A1 (hereinafter Nelson); and XIAO et al., US 2021/0150558 A1 (hereinafter Xiao).
Phan teaches a computer server platform and application programming software installed in primary devices of users for exchanging and trading digital asset securely and anonymously between two users of the system where said digital asset is registered under a device account of a primary device of a user with the system using a unique device account name (Phan [Abstract]). Digital assets can include digital lottery tickets (Phan [0004]). Phan teaches a central ledger connected with nodes and a Blockchain of distributed ledger technology (DLT) structure of fully distributed ledgers where each node stores the same duplicated copy of the entire full ledger as prior art (Phan [0059]). The major advantages of the recording with Blockchain structure are well known in which each new transaction or change is recorded in a new block represented by a hash code linked with the previous block by hashing the hash code of said previous block together with the contents of the present block so that it is not possible to modify the content of each block without breaking the Blockchain link (Phan [0059]). Each user of a node can access to all contents stores in the Blockchain (Phan [0059]).
Nelson teaches systems and methods of the present disclosure provide zero, one or more non-fungible tokens to a player (Nelson [0014]). It should be appreciated that one or more non-fungible tokens of the present disclosure may be implemented in accordance with any suitable distributed ledger technology (Nelson [0049]). Such distributed ledger technology which the non-fungible tokens of the present disclosure may be associated with includes any suitable distributed ledger that enables recording and sharing of information across multiple data stores wherein each of the data stores (i.e., ledgers) includes the same data records, subject to maintenance and control through a distributed network of computing nodes (Nelson [0049]). If the system determines that a non-fungible token distribution event did not occur, the system continues to periodically monitor for an occurrence of a non-fungible token distribution event (Nelson [0055]). In other words, while, in certain embodiments, ownership of a created non-fungible token may remain temporarily remain, in the blockchain, with the gaming establishment host system, in an effort to transfer ownership, in the blockchain, from the gaming establishment host system to a crypto wallet associated with a player, the system periodically redetermines whether a non-fungible token distribution event occurs (Nelson [0055]). In certain embodiments, the system utilizes a non-fungible token as an entry into a lottery (Nelson [0067]). In these embodiments, the system utilizes non-fungible tokens in place of paper lottery tickets for a lottery drawing for one or more awards (Nelson [0067]). It should be appreciated that the increased security associated with non-fungible tokens (relative to paper lottery tickets) gives the lottery operator and players benefits of blockchain security to reduce fraud and ensures confidence in the system (Nelson [0067]).
Xiao teaches methods, apparatuses, and electronic devices for resource allocation based on blockchain (Xiao [Abstract]). The blockchain stores a mapping relationship between a digital digest of an invoice and a resource allocation state corresponding to the invoice (Xiao [Abstract]). The method includes: receiving a target transaction submitted by a client to participate in resource allocation based on a target invoice; in response to the target transaction, calculating a digital digest of the target invoice, and querying a resource allocation state stored in the blockchain and corresponding to the digital digest; and if the detected resource allocation state is an unallocated state, invoking resource allocation logic declared in a smart contract published in the blockchain, to allocate resources to the client from a predetermined resource pool based on a predetermined allocation rule, and returning a resource allocation result to the client (Xiao [Abstract]).
The prior art, alone or in combination, does not fairly teach or suggest the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to prong 1 of step 2A, applicant summarizes the invention and identifies the newly added claim language (Response [pp. 17-20]). Applicant goes on to state:
As such, the pending independent claims recite the use of a number of technologies and/or operations that cannot be practically deemed "a method of organization human activity", "commercial or legal interactions", "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between peoples because they relate to playing a game", and/or "determining and identifying steps can be performed by the human mind", as asserted in the Office Action. That is, the amended claims more particularly recite and require the establishment and execution of a lottery game via a smart contract and the issuance and recordation of individual lottery tickets - unique digital assets - on a DLT. This is not merely "social networking connection between people" as asserted in the Office Action. The claimed invention requires the use of specific hardware (i.e., the lottery system) to establish a particular computer/software-based infrastructure (i.e., invocation of and execution under control of a smart contract and the recordation of individual unique digital assets (the lottery tickets) on a DLT for electronic gaming purposes). As such, the claimed invention is directed to providing the automatic administration - based on ledger-specific populations of unique digital articles - of an electronic lottery game in an online gaming platform, as now more particularly set forth in the amended independent claims herein. As noted in In re Smith (815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) the Court stated, "all inventions in the gaming arts would be foreclosed from patent protection under 101" and" claims directed to conducting a game using a new or original deck of cards [could] potentially surviv[e] step two of Alice'. Id. Thus, claims directed to a method of conducting a wagering game may be patent-eligible if the claims recite unconventional steps. Cf Micro, Inc. Bankai Nameco Games America, Inc. 836 F. 3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (an ordered combination of claimed steps using unconventional rules is not directed to an abstract idea and thus patent-eligible.) (Response [pp. 20-21])
First, the previous Office Action did not argue that the claims are merely “social networking connection between people”. Instead, the claims were analyzed and determined to fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. These groupings (and sub-groupings) are identified in MPEP 2106.04(a):
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) 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) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The groupings and sub-groupings are based on case law and are not necessarily limited to how a layperson may understand them. Thus, applicant’s apparent characterization the claims are “social networking connection between people” is improper and ignores the nuanced descriptions about the groupings in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity is used to describe concepts relating to
• 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, and business relations); and
• managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Even then, the sub-groupings are further described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The present claims are directed to “a distributed ledger technology (DLT)-based lottery gaming system and method for implementing and executing lottery games” (Specification [0007]).
The lottery games provides lottery tickets that are issued to players and recorded in a digital ledger. This clearly falls into the sub-grouping “fundamental economic practices or principles” at least because it describes the rules for conducting a wagering game. Furthermore, because the claims recite a smart contract associated with the lottery game, the claims also fall into the sub-grouping at least because they recite a commercial or legal interaction in the form of a contract. The claims also fall into the sub-grouping of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people at least because the claims recite the rules for playing a game and recording the transactions related to the gameplay in the digital ledger.
Next, with respect to prong 2 of step 2A, applicant states:
As discussed above, the pending claims do not recite an abstract idea and/or solve a problem necessarily rooted in the computing technology associated with modern electronic lottery/wagering gaming (and gaming machines) and thus no further analysis is necessary. Nevertheless, Applicant submits that regardless of whether the claims recite subject matter identified as abstract, each of the pending claims are further directed to patent eligible subject matter because they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application that imposes a meaningful limitation on the claims in accordance with the 2019 PEG. Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that the pending claims, as amended, recite an abstract idea (which they do not), the claims still recite patent eligible subject matter because each of the claims integrates the exception into a practical application and that claims in practice amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of managing, playing, or conducting a game. (Response [p. 23])
According to MPEP 2106.04(d):
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Whether or not a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is evaluated using the considerations set forth in subsection I below, in accordance with the procedure described below in subsection II.
Relevant considerations for evaluating whether additional elements integrate a judicial into a practical application includes:
• 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.
Applicant argues “the amended independent claims are directed to improvements players are able to participate in a multi-round lottery game offered and executed by the DLT-based lottery gaming system” (Response [p. 23]) and goes on to describe the steps recited by the abstract idea. Applicant goes on to say:
Thus, the claimed invention implements a sophisticated electronic gaming environment and methodology thereby representing improvements to the computer itself (see, e.g., FIGs. 1, 2, and 6-8 and the associated computational architecture of the subject disclosure) and the above-detailed claim limitations set forth in Applicant's pending independent claims provide an advantage over currently available systems and methods, and Applicant respectfully submits that the currently pending independent claims are beyond any reasonable characterization of "a method of organization human activity", "commercial or legal interactions", "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between peoples because they relate to playing a game", and/or "determining and identifying steps can be performed by the human mind", as asserted in the Office Action.
Using applicant’s reasoning, any abstract idea carried out by a computer would be patent eligible.
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s reasoning.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states:
A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception.
The abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer. The alleged improvement does not improve the functioning of a computer. The alleged improvements also do not improve a technology or technical field.
The additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Applicant also argues:
Further, a machine is a "concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348-49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)). This category "includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result." Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355, 84 USPQ2d at 1501 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252,267, 14 L. Ed. 683,690 (1854)). The recited elements of the amended independent claims, when considered together, are directed to a lottery system which provides improvements in electronic lottery gaming platforms and technology and therefore is not a judicial exception. For example, the amended independent claims include specific elements that at a minimum improve the relevant technology, provide meaningful limitations, and when considered as a whole as required by the 2019 PEG, recite a practical application that enables actuating a uniquely configured lottery game in combination with specific data sets (including the issued and recorded digital assets - lottery tickets - on the blockchain) for analyzing the issued lottery tickets and identifying potential matches for establishing the lottery jackpot winner, as now required by the amended independent claims. (Response [p. 25])
According to MPEP 2106.04(d):
It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point").
With respect to step 2B, applicant states:
Applicant respectfully submits that the additional elements - i.e., the decentralized ledger, the smart contract, and the blockchain - amount to significantly more that the judicial exception in providing the automatic administration based on ledger-specific populations of unique digital assets (i.e., the lottery tickets) in executing a specially-configured electronic lottery game using an online gaming platform. The amended independent claims herein do not recite computer elements using in their ordinary capacity. Instead, these amended claims recite a specially programmed lottery system (e.g., processors and memories storing instructions - the lottery gaming app – that when executed cause the processor to perform operations including execution of a smart contract for administering and controlling the electronic lottery game) such that the recited hardware are configured by machine-readable instructions to carry out a detailed set of separate and distinct steps to facilitate administration of the specially-configured lottery game on an online gaming platform. For example, the features related to the DLT and the smart contract are not within the "ordinary capacity" of a computing platform or server. The details of processor(s) functions are sufficient to distinguish them from any ordinary use and/or functionality.
Applicant points to elements of the abstract idea instead of the additional elements. The additional elements in the present claims are a processor, a memory, a random number generator, a blockchain-based verifiable random number generator, and a display. Applicant has not identified any of the additional elements that are not used in their ordinary capacity other than asserting the execution of an abstract idea is significantly more. The specification does not suggest that the processor, the memory, the random number generator, the blockchain-based verifiable random number generator, and the display are used in anything other than their usual way.
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A prong 2, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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