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 § 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.
Claim(s) 17, 22, 24, 25, 28-31, 33, 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DePaul (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0084935).
Re claim 17: DePaul discloses a method for issuing a ticket using a ticketing system, the method comprising the steps of:
accessing a plurality of tickets that are provided in a physical format and that include pre-printed content including human-readable content and machine-readable content, wherein each ticket is associated with a unique identifier (see paragraph [0151]: “As described above, it is contemplated that the lottery ticket 150 may comprise one or more lottery tickets 100′, each of which may have its own scannable item or all of which together have one scannable item, e.g., a single bar code 140′. It is contemplated that in the Step 350, the user 220 may scan each lottery ticket 100 or 100′ individually or multiple lottery tickets 100 or 100′ at one time. In the Step 350, the computer system 220 may upload one image of multiple lottery tickets at a time for decoding, or the computer system 220 may decode the encoded information from the one image and transmit it in the Step 350. One image may correspond to a batch of lottery tickets 100 or 100′.“); and
issuing a ticket that associates client information for a first client with the unique identifier of a first ticket of the plurality of ticket in an electronic storage by (i) imaging at least a portion of the machine-readable content of a first ticket of the first plurality of tickets with a user device (see paragraph [0064]” “By logging uploaded and pooled tickets in the database 465, by maintaining pooling participants' accounts in the database 265, and by linking the users' accounts with their uploaded and pooled tickets”).
Re claim 22: DePaul discloses with respect to the method of claim 17, wherein the client record stores at least two of: client identification information, a date and time of issuance of the first ticket, a location of issuance of the first ticket, or a description of a basis for issuance of the first ticket (see paragraph [0028]: “The encoded data comprises information relating to the sale of the ticket 100′ contained in the receipt 150. For example, such encoded data may include any of the text 120 identifying the lottery in which the ticket 100′ is participating, the ticket number 125 of the ticket 100′, the date and time 130 of purchase of the ticket 100′, the lottery numbers 140 of the ticket 100, the location of the point of sale of the ticket 100′, and/or a unique identification code for the receipt 150”).
Re claim 24: Depaul discloses with respect to the method of claim 17, further comprising the step of capturing at least two of text, an image, a video, audio, or positional data using the user device and associating the captured information with the unique identifier of the first ticket (see [0046, 0048]: “In an exemplary embodiment, the user 220 captures an image of the one or more lottery tickets and uploads the image in the Step 350 via the pooling interface portal.”; see paragraph [0155]: “In an exemplary embodiment, the system 260 only accepts uploads of lottery tickets from the computer system 220 if the computer system 220 is a smart phone that embeds information identifying the smart phone and GPS data of the smart phone in data messages, including the message(s) uploading the one or more lottery tickets 100 to the computer system 260, so that the computer system 260 is able to identify the smart phone that uploaded the one or more lottery tickets and its location.”).
Re claim 25: DePaul discloses with respect to the method of claim 17, wherein each of the first plurality of tickets is provided in a non-activated ticket state, and wherein issuing the first ticket transitions the first ticket from the non-activated ticket state to an activated ticket state (see paragraph [0064]: the tickets only become activated when associated with a player for redeeming).
Re claim 28 and 31: DePaul discloses with respect to the method of claim 17, further comprising the step of automatically updating the client record in response to a second ticket being issued that is associated with client information related to the first client (the client record is associated and updated with each ticket that is uploaded to the gaming system).
Re claim 29: Depaul discloses with respect to the method of claim 17, wherein the computer-based platform is accessible over the network via a web-based interface or mobile application installed on the user device (see paragraphs [0031, 0042, 0044]).
Re claim 30: DePaul discloses with respect to the method of claim 17, wherein the user device captures positional data of the user device at the time of issuance and associates the positional data with the client record (see paragraph [0155]: “In an exemplary embodiment, the system 260 only accepts uploads of lottery tickets from the computer system 220 if the computer system 220 is a smart phone that embeds information identifying the smart phone and GPS data of the smart phone in data messages, including the message(s) uploading the one or more lottery tickets 100 to the computer system 260, so that the computer system 260 is able to identify the smart phone that uploaded the one or more lottery tickets and its location.”).
Re claim 33 and 34: Depaul discloses with respect to the method of claim 17, wherein issuing the first ticket comprises imaging at least a portion of the machine-readable content of the first ticket with a camera of the user device (see paragraph [0032, 0046]: a user computer system consist of either a mobile phone, or tablet; see [0150]: Or, it is contemplated that in another exemplary embodiment, the user 220 uses a digital camera to take a photograph of each of the one or more lottery tickets 100 and uploads the photograph of each lottery ticket 100 to the computer system 260 using the computer system 220.)
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.
Claim(s) 18, 20, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePaul in view of Gotleib (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0410889).
Re claim 18: DePaul fails to disclose with respect to the method of claim 17 wherein each of the plurality of tickets is provided with an adhesive configured to permit the ticket to be removably attached to a surface, the method further comprising the step of removably adhering the ticket to said surface with the adhesive. However, Gotleib discloses a pre-printed ticket that includes an adhesive substance (see paragraph [0276, 0279]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify the lottery ticket of DePaul to incorporate adhesive for the purpose of attaching and placing the lottery ticket to a well known place that a user could remember.
Re claim 20. DePaul fails to disclose with respect to the method of claim 17, wherein the machine-readable content of each ticket comprises a QR code that encodes the unique identifier associated with the ticket. However, Gotleib discloses such (see paragraph [0082]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to simply substitute the barcode of DePaul with the QR code of Gotleib for the purpose of producing the predictable results of a lottery ticket with a computer readable QR code.
Re claim 35: DePaul in view of Gotleib fails to specifically disclose with respect to the method of claim 18, wherein the surface is a windshield of a vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lottery ticket of DePaul to attach or stick the lottery ticket to a windshield of a vehicle as once a paper has an adhesive surface, said paper or ticket can be attached to any surface, wherein attaching and placing the lottery ticket to a well known place aids the user in keeping track of the lottery ticket.
Claim(s) 19 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePaul in view of (U.S. Patent No. 3,949,947).
Re claim 19 and 36: DePaul fails to disclose with respect to the method of claim 17 further comprising the step of loading the first plurality of tickets into a ticket dispenser having: a body having an internal space defined by peripheral wall and a closed bottom located at one end of the peripheral wall, wherein the internal space is sized and configured to hold the first plurality of tickets; an open top of the body located at an end of the peripheral wall opposite the closed bottom; a cap configured to removably mount over the open top to secure the first plurality of tickets within the internal space; and a slot formed in the peripheral wall of the body that is sized and configured to permit the first plurality of tickets to be unrolled within the internal space by guiding a free end of the first plurality of tickets through the slot. However, Youngquist discloses a paper dispenser that as shown in Figs. 1 and Figs. 4, includes a cap, object 20, a cylinder, object 12, a slot, object 18 and 22, and a bottom as presented by object 24 (see Fig.1 and Fig. 4). Because DePaul discloses a ticket dispenser, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to simply substitute the ticket dispenser of DePaul for that of Youngquist as such would produce predictable results.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePaul in view of Hsu-Hoffman (U.S. Patent No. 10,360,576).
Re claims 23: DePaul fails to disclose with respect to the method of claim 17, wherein the client information comprises at least two of: a license plate number, a vehicle identification number, or a make and model of a vehicle. However, Hus-Hoffman discloses a lottery game wherein, client information can include “In some embodiments, signing-up may also include providing driver information (e.g., name, birthdate, address, gender, etc.), vehicle information (e.g., make, model, year, vehicle identification number (VIN), etc.), and/or mobile device 210 information (e.g., smartphone identifier, smartphone make and model, phone number, etc.)” (see column, lines 16-34).It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify the client information of DePaul to incorporate further information such as vehicle information for the purpose of having more information available in case the client needs to verify their account for security purposes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 26, 27, and 32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights