DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/16/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 21, 23-26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116.
Re Claims 1, 21, and 26: The limitation, “in response to the validation request,” lacks support in the original disclosure. Relevant portions of the Specification, Para 122, discloses “At step 745, in response to validation of the request, the provider server system 130 may authorize, approve, enact, or execute a transfer of a corresponding prize.” Thus, specification teaches, “in response to validation of the request” NOT “in response to the validation request,” each of which has a distinct meaning.
All dependent claims are also non-compliant at least due the dependency on the base claims.
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) 1, 4, 7, 21, 24, 26, 29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marek (US 20120214582 A1) in view of Kolios (US 20150194008 A1) Du (US 20140100896 A1) and Michel (US 20140378204 A1).
Re Claims 1 and 26: Marek discloses
a computer-implemented method for remotely operating an activity involving physical media, the computer-implemented method and a computer-implemented method for remotely operating an activity involving physical media, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, via an electronic network and at a server system, at least one request (fig 6a: 416) for one or more physical media elements, the at least one request received from an electronic application operating on one or more user devices (p46: computing devices 106 are mobile, wireless computing devices including mobile phones);
causing, via the server system, a first physical media device to generate one or more physical request elements (fig 6b: 508, fig 6c: 606, p56: At step 506, the lottery agent may select virtual lottery slips to be printed. At step 508, the selected virtual lottery slips are printed onto corresponding lottery slip media using a printer at the lottery agent location forming an actual lottery slip including the user/player selections.) based on the at least one request from the electronic application operating on one or more user devices;
physical media elements generated by a second physical media device in response to submission of the one or more physical request elements to the second physical media device (fig 6b: 510, 512, fig 6c: 608, 610);
associating, via the server system, the media data for each physical media element with a corresponding one of the at least one requests (p56: the lottery agent may retain the virtual lottery slip and the actual lottery slip as records of the lottery entry.).
However, Marek does not disclose receiving, at the server system, media data, and transmitting, via the server system, the media data for each physical media element to at least one of the one or more user devices associated with the corresponding one of the at least one requests, and
receiving, at the server system, a validation request from the electronic application operating on at least one of the one or more user devices with regard to an evaluation of a position.
Kolios however discloses receiving, at the server system, media data, and transmitting, via the server system, the media data for each physical media element to at least one of the one or more user devices (p85: The ordered image tickets 912 are sent to the player's mobile device and displayed on page 910 through an email, MMS, or similar transmission (block 815)) associated with the corresponding one of the at least one requests (p57: an order summary page 520 that shows, in summary, the order information associated with a list 522 of selected tickets, as illustrated in FIG. 5B), and
receiving, at the server system, a validation request from the electronic application operating on at least one of the one or more user devices with regard to an evaluation of a position (p86: the player going to the retailer and presenting his electronic ticket as shown on page 910 with the barcode. Next, the barcode is scanned by the retailer's optical scanner. Similar to the procedure followed for the paper tickets, the retailer's computer communicates with the host system for verification of the winnings).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Kolios’ teaching in the method of Marek for the purpose of enhancing lottery customer’s convenience by automatically delivering the electronic lottery ticket directly to the customer as well as receiving a request originated from the customer.
However, Marek modified by Kolios does not disclose scanned media from at least one sensor configured to scan.
Du however discloses scanned media from at least one sensor configured to scan (fig 1, abst).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Du’s teaching in the method of Marek modified by Kolios for the purpose of facilitating transfer of the ticket data.
However, Marek modified by Kolios and Du does not disclose causing, via the server system, transfer of a prize to at least one user account associated with the at least one of the one or more user devices in response to the validation request.
Michel however discloses causing, via the server system, transfer of a prize to at least one user account associated with the at least one of the one or more user devices (p56: the mobile device 330 receives the indication of the outcome and prizes and presents them in the browser application 412…. that a given number of customer loyalty points are awarded for a player account.) in response to the validation request (p54: At a fifth stage, "E," the game server 350 determines that the link 336 is valid and generates an outcome for a secondary game. The outcome is a winning outcome,).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Michel’s teaching in the method of Marek modified by Kolios and Du for the purpose of securely transmitting the prize to the right account holder.
Re Claim 4: Marek modified by Kolios Du and Michel discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein causing the first physical media device to generate the one or more physical request elements includes:
translating information from the at least one request into a format associated with the second physical media device (Marek fig 6b: 510 fig 6c: 608, Kolios: fig 3f: 352, fig 5d: 532, p47: The display page 330 depicts the generated machine-readable image 332 that represents the player's selections so that the player's selections may be easily decoded in an efficient manner. The machine-readable image 332 is suited to be read by an optical scanner, and so may include a machine-readable image 332 such as a bar code or QR code); and
causing the first physical media device to generate one or more physical media elements having the translated information in the associated format (Marek fig 6b: 508 fig 6c: 606, Marek Kolios: fig 3f, fig 5d).
Re Claim 7: Marek modified by Kolios Du and Michel discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
causing an automated feeder system to convey the one or more physical request elements to the second physical media device (Marek: fig 7: 130, p62: a lottery slip transfer device (automatic document feeder) 130 operatively connected to printer 114 and operatively connected to a lottery terminal 12 for receiving a printed lottery slip 132 from the printer and transferring the printed lottery slip to the lottery terminal 12 for processing.).
Re Claim 21: Marek discloses
a system for processing physical media elements, the system comprising:
a server system in communication with an electronic network, the server system
configured to receive at least one request (fig 6a: 416) for one or more physical media elements from an electronic application operating on one or more user devices (p46: computing devices 106 are mobile, wireless computing devices including mobile phones);
a first physical media device configured to generate one or more physical request
elements (fig 6b: 508, fig 6c: 606, p56: At step 506, the lottery agent may select virtual lottery slips to be printed. At step 508, the selected virtual lottery slips are printed onto corresponding lottery slip media using a printer at the lottery agent location forming an actual lottery slip including the user/player selections.) based on the at least one request from the electronic application operating on one or more user devices;
wherein the physical media elements are generated by a second physical media
device in response to submission of the one or more physical request elements to the
second physical media device (fig 6b: 510, 512, fig 6c: 608, 610);
wherein the server system is configured to associate media data for
each physical media element with a corresponding one of the at least one requests (p56: the lottery agent may retain the virtual lottery slip and the actual lottery slip as records of the lottery entry.).
However, Marek does not disclose that the server system is configured to transmit media data for each physical media element to at least one of the one or more user devices associated with the corresponding one of the at least one requests.
Kolios however discloses that the server system is configured to transmit media data for each physical media element to at least one of the one or more user devices (p85: The ordered image tickets 912 are sent to the player's mobile device and displayed on page 910 through an email, MMS, or similar transmission (block 815)) associated with the corresponding one of the at least one requests (p57: an order summary page 520 that shows, in summary, the order information associated with a list 522 of selected tickets, as illustrated in FIG. 5B),
wherein the server system is further configured to: receive a validation request from the electronic application operating on at least one of the one or more user devices with regard to an evaluation of a position (p86: the player going to the retailer and presenting his electronic ticket as shown on page 910 with the barcode. Next, the barcode is scanned by the retailer's optical scanner. Similar to the procedure followed for the paper tickets, the retailer's computer communicates with the host system for verification of the winnings).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Kolios’ teaching in the system of Marek for the purpose of enhancing lottery customer’s convenience by automatically delivering the electronic lottery ticket directly to the customer as well as receiving a request originated from the customer.
However, Marek modified by Kolios does not disclose least one sensor configured to scan physical media elements and generate scanned media data,
Du however discloses scanned media from at least one sensor configured to scan (fig 1, abst).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Du’s teaching in the system of Marek modified by Kolios for the purpose of facilitating transfer of the ticket data.
However, Marek modified by Kolios and Du does not disclose causing a transfer of a prize to at least one user account associated with the at least one of the one or more user devices in response to the validation request.
Michel however discloses causing a transfer of a prize to at least one user account associated with the at least one of the one or more user devices (p56: the mobile device 330 receives the indication of the outcome and prizes and presents them in the browser application 412…. that a given number of customer loyalty points are awarded for a player account.) in response to the validation request (p54: At a fifth stage, "E," the game server 350 determines that the link 336 is valid and generates an outcome for a secondary game. The outcome is a winning outcome,).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Michel’s teaching in the system of Marek modified by Kolios and Du for the purpose of securely transmitting the prize to the right account holder.
Re Claim 24: Marek modified by Kolios Du and Michel discloses the system for processing physical media elements of claim 21, wherein generating the one or more physical request elements includes translating information from the at least one request into a format associated with the second physical media device (Marek fig 6b: 510 fig 6c: 608, Kolios: fig 3f: 352, fig 5d: 532, p47: The display page 330 depicts the generated machine-readable image 332 that represents the player's selections so that the player's selections may be easily decoded in an efficient manner. The machine-readable image 332 is suited to be read by an optical scanner, and so may include a machine-readable image 332 such as a bar code or QR code).
Re Claim 29: Marek modified by Kolios Du and Michel discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 26, wherein causing the first physical media device to generate the physical request element includes translating information from the request into a format associated with the second physical media device (Marek fig 6b: 510 fig 6c: 608, Kolios: fig 3f: 352, fig 5d: 532, p47: The display page 330 depicts the generated machine-readable image 332 that represents the player's selections so that the player's selections may be easily decoded in an efficient manner. The machine-readable image 332 is suited to be read by an optical scanner, and so may include a machine-readable image 332 such as a bar code or QR code).
Re Claim 30: Marek modified by Kolios Du and Michel discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 29, wherein causing the first physical media device to generate the physical request element further includes causing the first physical media device to generate a physical media element having the translated information in the associated format (Marek fig 6b: 508 fig 6c: 606, Marek Kolios: fig 3f, fig 5d, p47: The display page 330 depicts the generated machine-readable image 332 that represents the player's selections so that the player's selections may be easily decoded in an efficient manner. The machine-readable image 332 is suited to be read by an optical scanner, and so may include a machine-readable image 332 such as a bar code or QR code).
Claim(s) 3, 23, and 28, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marek (US 20120214582 A1) modified by Kolios (US 20150194008 A1) Du (US 20140100896 A1) and Michel (US 20140378204 A1) in view of Irwin (US 20060279038 A1).
Re Claim 3 and 28: Marek modified by Kolios Du and Michel discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the computer-implemented method of claim 26.
However, Marek modified by Kolios Du and Michel does not disclose further comprising: blocking, via the server system, further evaluation associated with the corresponding physical media element.
Irwin however discloses blocking, via the server system, further evaluation associated with the corresponding physical media element (p280: stigmatization prevents winning tickets from being presented multiple times).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Irwin’s teaching in the method of Marek modified by Kolios Du and Michel for the purpose of preventing winning tickets from being presented multiple times (Irwin p280).
Re Claim 23: Marek modified by Kolios Du and Michel discloses the system for processing physical media elements of claim 21, wherein the server system is further configured to process.
However, Marek modified by Kolios Du and Michel does not disclose blocking further evaluation associated with the corresponding physical media element.
Irwin however discloses blocking further evaluation associated with the corresponding physical media element (p280: stigmatization prevents winning tickets from being presented multiple times).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Irwin’s teaching in the system of Marek modified by Kolios Du and Michel for the purpose of preventing winning tickets from being presented multiple times (Irwin p280).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marek (US 20120214582 A1) modified by Kolios (US 20150194008 A1) Du (US 20140100896 A1) and Michel (US 20140378204 A1) in view of Jubinville (US 20050064930 A1).
Re Claim 25: Marek modified by Kolios Du and Michel discloses the system for processing physical media elements of claim 24, wherein server system is further configured to process requests for physical media elements, and to cause the first physical media device to generate physical request elements.
However, Marek modified by Kolios Du and Michel does not disclose aggregating requests into a batch and generating based on the batch.
Jubinville however discloses batch process (p26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Jubinville’s teaching in the system of Marek modified by Kolios Du and Michel for the purpose of lower operational costs, improved efficiency, and better resource utilization by automating large, routine tasks to run in the background or during off-peak hours.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot due to the new ground of rejection.
Kolios discloses receiving, at the server system, a validation request from the electronic application operating on at least one of the one or more user devices with regard to an evaluation of a position (p86: the player going to the retailer and presenting his electronic ticket as shown on page 910 with the barcode. Next, the barcode is scanned by the retailer's optical scanner. Similar to the procedure followed for the paper tickets, the retailer's computer communicates with the host system for verification of the winnings). Thus, the validation request from the application operating on the user devices is received at the server system. The validation request is presented to the retailer’s system which in turn communicates the request to the server.
Michel discloses causing, via the server system, transfer of a prize to at least one user account associated with the at least one of the one or more user devices (p56: the mobile device 330 receives the indication of the outcome and prizes and presents them in the browser application 412…. that a given number of customer loyalty points are awarded for a player account.) in response to the validation request (p54: At a fifth stage, "E," the game server 350 determines that the link 336 is valid and generates an outcome for a secondary game. The outcome is a winning outcome,).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE W KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Steven S Paik can be reached at 5712722404. 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.
/TAE W KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/STEVEN S PAIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876