DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “dematerialization module” in claims 1-4, 7, 9 and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brzozowski et al., US 2022/0319270.
In Reference to Claims 1, 9, 10, and 11
Brzozowski et al. teaches a dematerialization module, a gaming system comprising a dematerialization module of a player, a computer program recorded on a non-transitory media executable by a processor and a method for dematerializing game receipts (Fig. 1, Par. 17-20, Par. 61-64) comprising the following steps, implemented by a game receipt dematerialization module of a processor-based server: creating an electronic vault and associating the created electronic vault with a personal device of a player (Fig. 2 and Par. 26. Particularly step 422-424 where the server stores the data for the digital ticket purchase. See also Par. 27 which teaches storing the digital ticket information. And Par. 38 which teaches that the players telephone number can also be stored by the server in association with the ticket); recording at least one electronic coupon in the electronic vault, upon request from the personal device of the player, an electronic coupon comprising data of a bet to be placed on a game managed by a game engine (Fig. 2 ref. 422. And Par. 26 which teach storing the digital ticket by the server. Fig. 3 and Par. 27 which teach that the ticket is a digital lottery ticket constituting a wager on a lottery game); according to a list of said at least one electronic coupon recorded in the electronic vault, placing at least one bet with at least one game engine (Fig. 3, Par. 27 and Par. 33 “lottery game” and “winning digital lottery ticket”); and receiving, from each game engine with which a bet has been placed, a message confirming the placement of said bet and recording an electronic receipt in the electronic vault (Fig. 2 ref. 424, Fig. 3 and Par. 26-27 which teaches where the server acknowledges the placement of the lottery ticket wager and sends an image of the purchases digital lottery ticket to the user’s mobile telephone based on the provided telephone number).
In Reference to Claim 5
Brzozowski et al. teaches each electronic receipt is recorded in the electronic vault in association with an electronic vault access code associated with the personal device of the player (Fig. 4A 502-510 Par. 27, 36-39 which teaches that the terminal scans a bar code on the ticket to access their lottery ticket for redemption which allows the server to check the scanning information against stored lottery tickets stored with that ticket ID code and telephone number).
In Reference to Claim 6
Brzozowski et al. teaches wherein each electronic coupon is recorded in the electronic vault in association with the electronic vault access code associated with the personal device of the player (Par. 36-39).
In Reference to Claim 7
Brzozowski et al. teaches generating the electronic vault access code in response to a request for activation received from a point-of-sale application; and
transmitting the electronic vault access code to the personal device (Fig. 2-3 and Par. 26-27).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brzozowski et al., US 2022/0319270, in view of Smith, US 10,755,297.
In Reference to Claim 2
Brzozowski et al. teaches obtaining, from each game engine associated with each electronic receipt recorded in the electronic vault, win data associated with the electronic receipt (Fig. 4B ref. 528 “winning digital ticket” see also Par. 33); in case of winning, transmitting the win data to a point-of-sale application (Fig. 4c ref. 536 where examiner considers redemption approval to constitute “win data” since tickets must be winning to be approved); and obtaining payment of the win from the game engine (Fig. 4C ref. 538 and Par. 51).
However, Brzozowski et al. does not explicitly teach receiving a confirmation from the point-of-sale application.
Smith teaches a point of sale based redemption system which includes the system server receiving a confirmation from the point-of-sale application (Col. 5 lines 60-62 “Confirmation of redemption may be communicated from the POS terminal 50 to the digital promotion server 40.”).
It would be desirable to include a confirmation of redemption and payment of the lottery ticket of Brzozowski et al. by particular point of sale terminal as taught by Smith in order to receive confirmation that a particular point of sale terminal had actually provided the winning for the ticket for record keeping and dispute resolution and to ensure reimbursement of particular retail accounts for the balance of lottery ticket sales and redemption if necessary.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to include a confirmation of redemption and payment of the lottery ticket of Brzozowski et al. by particular point of sale terminal as taught by Smith.
In Reference to Claim 3
Brzozowski et al. teaches managing a status associated with each stored electronic receipt; and in case of winning, changing the corresponding status (Fig. 4A ref. 516 and Fig. 4B ref. 518 and Par. 39-41 which teaches that the system tracks whether the digital lottery ticket has already been redeemed or not. Where redemption occurs for winning tickets as shown in Fig. 4B and 4C).
In Reference to Claim 4
Brzozowski et al. teaches in case of winning, generating a temporary payment code (Fig. 4B ref. 518-520); transmitting the generated temporary payment code to the personal device the temporary payment code comprising the win data (Fig. 4B ref. 520 where the code is win validation data); and receiving a request to change said status from the point-of-sale application (Fig. 4B ref. 524-532 and 536 which teaches that the code is entered into the point-of-sale terminal in order to generate a redemption request that is sent to the server).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brzozowski et al., US 2022/0319270, in view of Gotlieb et al., US 2022/0148371.
In Reference to Claim 8
Brzozowski et al. teaches displaying the electronic vault access code, said electronic vault access code allowing reading thereof by a point-of-sale application (Fig. 3, Fig. 4 ref. 504 and Par. 27 and 34). However, Brzozowski et al does not explicitly teach where the access code is a QR code.
Gotlieb et al. teaches a lottery ticket sales system where the redemption code displayed on a device (Fig. 1B) can be either a bar code or a QR code (Par. 69).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Brzozowski et al. to include a QR Code for the scannable access code as taught by Gotlieb et al. in order to include more data in the scanned code such as both the ticket ID and the user telephone number and to allow for improved error correction to help prevent mistakes in scans.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the system of Brzozowski et al. to include a QR Code for the scannable access code as taught by Gotlieb et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL V LARSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday; 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
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.
/CARL V LARSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3715