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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotlieb et al in view of Christensen et al (20170018048). Gotlieb et al substantially show the claimed subject matter including: disclosing a lottery terminal configured to be connected to a POS system terminal 502 comprising: a housing (computer paragraph 88), a scanner 508 , a POS system , a data transmitter , data receiver, a processor 504 and a memory device 506 all supported by the housing. Gotleib et al show a lottery printer 512 and a memory device that stores instructions 514 to receive scanned data. Gotlieb et al show the the concept of using a UPC code (paragraph 89) to scan the code to cause the lottery terminal create and transmit the UPC data for the lottery ticket to the POS system. Gotleib et al disclose instructions 528 that exchange data from a gaming central system and the activation, cancellation, enrollment and/or purchase of a lottery ticket (paragraph 90). Regarding claim 5, Gotlieb disclose verifying ticket information may involve checking an actual ticket by verifying one or more check-digits or information corresponding to a ticket. (paragraph 94) or can have unique ID information 117. Gotlieb et al processes pre-printed lottery tickets 100 (paragraph 91). As shown in fig 7A, Gotlieb et al show a total due for the order 704 which reads on adding the lottery ticket sale to a POS shopping cart (the total due in the POS terminal is being read on a POS shopping cart) - Gotlieb et al show a lottery ticket 100 and draw type tickets 102 and disclose low 140 and high tier 220 redemptions codes. Gotlieb shows the concept of displaying an error message when sensed data does not correspond to lottery data (paragraph 232). Gotlieb discloses in another embodiment that the lottery system 1720 prints out lottery tickets and would determine any winning tickets including low-tier prizes and high-tier prizes (paragraph 263). The system 1720 would determine any winning tickets which also infers that it would determine non-winning tickets as well. Regarding a mid-tier win category, the examiner notes that Gotlieb teaches a low and high tier win category and adding a mid- tier category would merely be a matter of obvious design choice to separate more categories for winning. As shown in figs 7A-7F, the system requires an activation request to the lottery system which in turn communicates with the POS terminal after verifying the activation request. This process reads on transmitting the scanned data to the POS system terminal system. Gotlieb et al also disclose the lottery system 1720 that allows a user to redeem a low-tier winning amount which could be paid out electronically according to payout instructions provided by a user (paragraph 267). As noted in the previous office action, the examiner notes that the use of POS shopping carts are notoriously well known and would have been entirely obvious to provide a POS shopping cart as one of the ways to configure the redemption of a low-tiered winning amount. The examiner notes that Gotlieb et al show different embodiments as discussed above and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mix embodiments in Gotlieb et al as all of the concepts including printing out lottery tickets as opposed to having virtual tickets or adding redemption amounts to a POS shopping cart are obvious and well known in the art. Since applicant did not traverse the official notice taken for POS shopping carts being well known this limitation is rejected in view of applicant’s admitted prior art. Gotlieb shows a lottery terminal separate from the POS system but does not show receiving scan data from a scan by the lottery terminal scanner. In related prior art, Christensen et al show a lottery terminal housing means 20 separate from a POS 18 with a scanner 40 that scans data from the lottery ticket terminal. This scanned data is in communication with POS register means 18 (paragraph 28) through lottery central system 34 as Christensen et al teach the scanner 40 passes the ticket purchase code 17 to the POS register 18 or other POS entry functionality (paragraph 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to provide Gotlieb with scanning means at a separate lottery terminal as taught by Christensen et al to provide direct scanning means at known lottery ticket terminals to communicate with POS means. Since the lottery terminal means of Christensen et al is in communication with the POS means, the printing means of Gotlieb would be communicatively connected to a lottery ticket printer as claimed. Both Gotlieb and Christensen teach the lottery tickets to include unique ticket data which contains ticket data packet information which creates in real time the ticket request data as claimed. Regarding the lottery ticket containing certain data, such as, redemption related data, the examiner notes that the particular data is directed towards nonfunctional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05 and See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ 2d at 1035. As discussed supra, Gotlieb teaches a lottery 100 and draw ticket 102 as claimed and transmitting data from the lottery terminal to the POS for one of the these tickets as claimed would be met with the combination of Gotlieb in view of Christensen et al.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Secondary reference Chrisetensen et al teach the separate scanning means at a lottery ticket terminal so that applicant’s arguments with respect to Gotlieb not teaching newly amended limitations are moot.
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 EUGENE LEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6am-4pm.
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.
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.
/EUGENE L KIM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights