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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 04/11/2026. Presently, claims 1, 3-6, and 9-19 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 1, the claims now have “the respective winning card” (emphasis added) in lines 13, 14, and 17. First there is no antecedent basis for this phrase. Second, it is unclear if this is the same or different from “a winning card” in line 5 of the claim. The claims then (in lines 20 and 21) switch back to “the winning card,” thus making the claims confusing.
With regard to claim 15, the claims now state, “for the respective winning card” (emphasis added) in line 6 of the claim. However, there is no antecedent basis for this phrase. Later in lines 14, 15, 17, and 19 the claim, Applicant uses “the winning card” (emphasis added), however, Applicant has deleted the antecedent basis for this and now it is unclear if this is different from “the respective winning card” above or not.
Claim 17 has “the respective winning card” (emphasis added) in line 6 of the claim, however there is no antecedent basis for this phrase in the claim.
All dependent claims are rejected as depending from a previously rejected claim.
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, 3-6, 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 and US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0157284 to Wolfe.
With regard to claim 1¸Dietz discloses a prize kiosk configured to: identify a winning card from the set of pulltab cards by: determining a prize-verification code for the winning card (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 appear to explicitly disclose .csv files. However, the combination of Dietz and Wolfe teaches verifying the prize-verification code by: retrieveing from memory, a set of game data ssociated with the pulltab game, wherein the set of game dtaa comprises a comma-separated values (.CSV) file comprising for each of plurality of winning cards of the pull tab game that includes the winning card, a set of values indicating: a serial number of the pulltab game; a prize-verification code for the respective card; a cash-prize denomination for the respective winning card; and a graphical card image displayed on a front side of the respective winning card (Dietz at figs. 1A; 1B; col. 4, lines 15-31; col. 8, lines 29-51; 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.
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 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 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz in view of Saffari and Wolfe 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 and Wolfe 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 and Wolfe 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 the 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz in view of Saffari Wolfe and Connolly as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0321036 to Weaver.
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.
Claims 15-18 aare rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 one of the plurality of winning cards 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 for the winning card 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 for the winning card (col. 8, lines 6-44); determine, from the winning entry, a prize denomination corresponding to the prize-verification code for the wining card (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).
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 plurality of winning cards of the pull tab game, a set of values indicating: a serial number of the pulltab game; a prize-verification code for the respective winning card; a cash-prize denomination for the respective winning card; and a graphical card image displayed on a front side of the respective winning card (Dietz at figs. 1A; 1B; col. 4, lines 15-31; col. 8, lines 29-51; 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.
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz in view of Wolfe as applied to claim 17 and further 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant first argues that the claims include a dual functionality of having a trading card image on the card and having that specific data stored in a .csv file (Arguments, pages 8-9). However, firstly, merely providing images on a card is not a patentable distinction from the prior art because it is merely printed matter (See MPEP 2111.05). Furthermore, as evidence by Dietz the card already do have a graphic on them (Fig. 1A). While Applicant may try to argue that this is not a collectible item that is 1) merely an intended use and 2) a purely personal choice (e.g. some people keep their ticket stubs to a movie while others simply throw them away).
Applicant then argues that the Office has not provided an articulated reason for the combination. This is factually incorrect. While Applicant may choose to not like the reasoning provided each combination provides a clear reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would do it.
Applicant then appears to show a misunderstanding of patent law by stating, with regard to claim 3, “The specific language of claim 13 [sic] is “…comprises an eleven-digit numeric code,” that is consists of exactly eleven digits, and Applicant was careful to phrase it this way intentionally,” (emphasis in original). Comprising does NOT mean “consists of exactly.” Rather the MPEP is explicitly clear, “The transitional term ‘comprising’, which is synonymous with ‘including,’ ‘containing,’ or ‘characterized by,’ is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004),” (MPEP 2111.03). Thus, a having a 14 digit sequence of Dietz has, by its very nature, at least eleven digits, the fact that it includes more is not at all disqualifying as Applicant chose to use the transition phrase of “comprising.” Secondly, this is NOT meant to say that switching the transition phrase would change the rejection much as it would be viewed merely as an element of design choice.
With regard to claim 5, Applicant argues that they do not understand the rejection (Arguments, page 10-11). However, a user interface is merely how a user and a machine interact, thus merely a person placing the ticket in the reader and having it read to verify it would read on the claims as is done in the cited area.
Applicant’s arguments with regard to claim 13 have been considered but are not found convincing. Applicant seems to be arguing that the only winning tabs of Conolly must be only the same tabs where the code is located (Arguments, page 11). No one of ordinary skill in the art would take such a narrow reading. That is the first tab could be the winning tab (e.g, three separate distinct symbols, or alternatively, the three gold bars could be in the top bar). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be convincing.
Finally with regard to Applicant’s arguments to Weaver (Arguments, page 12), as explained above, where the QR code leads to is irrelevant. While Applicant may have the QR code going to “a webpage corresponding to a period prize drawing” is merely an intended use of the QR code. A QR code can literally go to any website in existence. Applicant’s QR code going to a particular website does not make the claim patentably distinguishable.
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 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
Prosecution Insights