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
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 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 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,949042 to Dietz, II (hereinafter Dietz).
With regard to claim 15, Dietz discloses a prize kiosk comprising: means for receiving data comprising a set of game data corresponding to a pulltab game (col. 4, line 54 - col. 5, line 8; col. 6, line 54 – col. 7, line 4); a digital memory configured to store the set of game data (col. 8, lines 29-44); a barcode scanner configured to scan a barcode printed under a perforated tab on a winning card of the pulltab game )col. 4, line 49; col. 6, lines 65-66); a cash dispenser (col. 9, lines 6-9); and processing circuitry configured to: determine a prize-verification code encoded by the barcode printed on the winning card (col. 4, lines 54- col. 5, line 8; col. 6, line 54 – col. 7, line 4; col. 8, lines 6-28); locate a winning entry within the set of game data that includes the prize-verification code (col. 8, lines 6-44); determine, from the winning entry, a prize denomination corresponding to the prize-verification code (col. 8, lines 6-44; col. 9, lines 6-9); and cause the cash dispenser to dispense a cash prize corresponding to the prize denomination (col. 9, lines 6-9).
With regard to claim 16, Dietz discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine, based on the set of game data, that the prize-verification code has not already been redeemed, prior to causing the cash dispenser to dispense the cash prize (col. 4, lines 37-41).
Claim 17 is a mirrored claim to claim 15 and is rejected in like manner.
Claim 18 is a mirrored claim to claim 16 and is rejected in like manner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0166725 to Saffari.
With regard to claim 1¸Dietz discloses a prize kiosk configured to: identify a winning card from the set of pulltab cards (col. 4, line 54- col. 5, line 8; col. 6, line 52-col. 7, line 4); and in response to identifying the winning card, dispense a cash prize associated with the winning card (col. 8, lines 6-28; col. 9, lines 6-9).
Dietz does not explicitly disclose a vending machine for dispensing of the cards. However, Saffari teaches a vending machine configured to retain and dispense a set of pulltab cards of a pulltab game (0027).
With regard to claim 2¸Dietz discloses wherein the winning card comprises a prize-verification code, and wherein the prize kiosk is configured to redeem the cash prize by: determining the prize-verification code of the winning card; and verifying the prize-verification code (col. 8, lines 6-28).
With regard to claim 3¸Dietz discloses wherein the prize-verification code comprises an eleven-digit numeric code (col. 4, lines 15-31, wherein there are at least 11 numbers and thus meets the merits of the claim).
With regard to claim 4, Dietz discloses wherein the winning card comprises a barcode encoding the prize-verification code, and wherein the prize kiosk is configured to determine the prize-verification code by scanning the barcode (col. 4, lines 15-31).
With regard to claim 5, Dietz discloses wherein the prize kiosk comprises a user interface, and wherein the prize kiosk is configured to determine the prize-verification code by receiving, via the user interface, user input comprising the prize-verification code (col. 4, lines 30-55).
With regard to claim 6, Dietz discloses wherein the user interface comprises a touchscreen (col. 5, lines 44-55).
With regard to claim 7, Dietz discloses wherein the prize kiosk is configured to verify the prize-verification code by: retrieving, from memory, a set of game data associated with the pulltab game; and locating the prize-verification code within the set of game data (col. 8, lines 29-44).
With regard to claim 11, Saffari teaches further comprising a computing device configured to generate the pulltab game by generating: a set of game data comprising a plurality of randomized game entries; and a set of card graphics corresponding to the set of game data, wherein the set of pulltab cards comprises the set of card graphics (0027).
With regard to claim 12¸Saffari teaches further comprising a printer configured to print the card graphics onto sheets of cardboard for subsequent assembly into the set of pulltab cards (0032).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Saffari with the disclosure of Dietz in order to have a system that actually produces the cards that are later read by Dietz which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize would have to be the case.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz in view of Saffari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0157284 to Wolfe.
With regard to claim 8, Dietz does not appear to explicitly disclose .csv files. However, the combination of Dietz and Wolfe teaches wherein the set of game data comprises a comma-separated values (.CSV) file comprising, for each of a plurality of winning cards of the pulltab game that includes the winning card, a set of values indicating: a serial number of the pulltab game; the prize-verification code; a cash-prize denomination; and a graphical card image displayed on a front side of the winning card (Dietz at figs. 1A; 1B; Wolfe at 0073).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Wolfe with Dietz in that .csv files are known as a way to store information in a organized fashion and thus would have been obvious to use when storing the information as needed in Dietz.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz in view of Saffari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0073877 to Deleon.
With regard to claim 9, Dietz does not appear to explicitly disclose removable digital storage media. However, the combination of Dietz and Deleon teaches wherein the prize kiosk is further configured to: receive the set of game data via a removable digital storage device inserted into the prize kiosk; and store the set of game data in memory (Dietz at col. 8, lines 29-44; Deleon at 0046). It would have been obvious to use removable storage media as taught by Deleon in the disclosure of Dietz as Dietz admits that the memory would need to be updated from time to time and using removable media to update data is well-known in the computer arts.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz in view of Saffari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0116032 to Lutnick.
With regard to claim 10, Dietz does not appear to disclose wireless data transfer. However, the combination of Dietz and Lutnick teaches wherein the prize kiosk is further configured to: wirelessly receive the set of game data from a remote computing device; and store the set of game data in memory (Dietz at col. 8, lines 29-44; Lutnick at 0912). It would have been obvious to use wireless transmission as taught by Lutnick in the disclosure of Dietz as Dietz admits that the memory would need to be updated from time to time and using wireless transmission to update data is well-known in the computer arts.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz in view of Saffari as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 9,839,836 to Connolly.
With regard to claim 13, Dietz does not appear to disclose a plurality of tabs. However, Conolly teaches further comprising the set of pulltab cards including the winning card, wherein the winning card comprises: a plurality of perforated tabs; a winning game entry printed underneath one of the perforated tabs; and a prize-verification code printed underneath another one of the perforated tabs (fig. 2f). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Conolly with the disclosure of Dietz as how many pull tabs there, whether it be one or a plurality appears to be a matter of design choice and as Conolly teaches such a design one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that they could use that design in other pulltab games such as Dietz.
With regard to claim 14, Dietz does not appear to explicitly disclose QR codes. However, Weaver teaches the use of QR codes encoding a URL (0077; wherein whether the URL leads to a period prize or to something else is irrelevant as a QR code could lead to any website thus the fact that the website applicant claims is “a periodic prize drawing” is not patentable distinguishable as this is viewed merely as a printed matter. That is Weaver teaches that a QR code can be put onto the card whether that QR code is printed so that it leads to a drawing website or to some other website does not make a patentable difference). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Weaver with the disclosure of Dietz by engaging with the customer more by providing a QR code where the customer can obtain additional information.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz in view of Deleon.
Claim 19 contains similar limitations as claim 9 and is rejected under the same reasoning as presented above including the reasoning to combine Dietz and Deleon.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz in view of Wolfe.
Claim 19 contains similar limitations as claim 8 and is rejected under the same reasoning as presented above including the reasoning to combine Dietz and Wolfe.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715