DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment and response filed on 03/06/2026.
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended.
Claims 11-20 have been canceled.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 01/15/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
After careful review of the original specification, the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See MPEP §2111.01 IV.
Terms such as “when”, “if”, “only if”, “on the condition”, “in the event” and “in a case where” are representative of optional limitations; therefore, optional or conditional language do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted.
Arguments and Assertions by the Applicant
Applicant’s arguments received 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of the independent claims, Applicant argues, “Generally, Cage does not appear to teach or suggest the digital wallet portion on the substrate that contains both (1) machine-readable embodying a digital wallet address and a private key, and (2) redundant human-readable indicia embodying the digital wallet address and the private key. Cage also does not appear to teach or suggest that this digital wallet portion is fundable with cryptocurrency at a specified time after a drawing for the draw game.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to paragraphs 0114, (ewallet), 0131 ( auto-deposit of winning tickets), 0089 (integrated circuit (IC) card, or smart card), 0321 ( encryption/decryption), Figure 13 as well as associated and related text (substrate, printed matter on the face of the card). In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine and modify the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)).
With regard to claim 10, the common knowledge declared to be well-known in the art is hereby taken to be admitted prior art because the Applicant either failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE or failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE adequately. See MPEP §2144.03. To adequately traverse the examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE, the Applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE would be inadequate. Support for the Applicant’s assertion should be included.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cage et al. (USPGP 2018/0102018 A1) hereinafter CAGE.
Claim 1:
CAGE as shown below discloses the following limitations:
a substrate; (see at least Figures 13, 19 as well as associated and related text)
an inventory control number portion on the substrate and comprising: (see at least Figures 13, 19 as well as associated and related text)
machine-readable indicia, and redundant human-readable text indicia; (see at least Figures 13, 19 as well as associated and related text)
a digital wallet portion on the substrate and comprising: (see at least paragraphs 0062, 0064, 0072, 0114, 0131, 0270)
machine-readable indicia embodying a digital wallet address and a private key, (see at least paragraphs 0083, 0096, 0316)
redundant human-readable text indicia embodying the digital wallet address and the private key; (see at least paragraphs 0083, 0096, 0316)
wherein the digital wallet portion is fundable with cryptocurrency at a specified time after a drawing for the draw game. (see at least paragraphs 0062, 0064, 0072, 0114, 0131, 0270)
CAGE does not specifically disclose each of the above limitation within a single embodiment. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of CAGE because, “Many governments have passed laws permitting lottery games to be legalized within their borders. These laws are due to the public support for this style of entertainment. Currently, these games are presented through specific manned terminals that connect to lottery operators—corporations responsible for running the lottery games. While these games have proven to be popular, a large segment of the population does not participate. This is due to many factors including a lack of desire to interact with personnel running the game kiosks, the inconvenience of the manned terminals, the concern over losing a ticket, and, more recently, the lack of cash to play the games as many people are only using payment cards for purchases.” (CAGE: paragraph 0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 2-5 and 7:
CAGE discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. CAGE further discloses the following limitations:
which is associated with a plurality of possible different prize levels.
wherein only a portion of the different prize levels is fundable with cryptocurrency.
wherein the plurality of possible different prize levels comprises a prize level of $1 that is not fundable with cryptocurrency.
wherein the plurality of possible different prize levels comprises a grand prize that is fundable with cryptocurrency.
Which is associated with a plurality of possible different prize levels that comprise a prize amount that can be received in fiat currency or cryptocurrency.
See at least paragraphs 0270, 0281, 0300, 0302, 0303,
Claim 6:
CAGE discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. CAGE further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the specified time is a predetermined time period after the drawing for the draw game.
See at least paragraphs 0092, 0110.
Claims 8 and 9:
CAGE discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. CAGE further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the digital wallet portion is funded with cryptocurrency after a lottery terminal scans the machine-readable indicia of the inventory control number portion and then designates a prize to be paid out in cryptocurrency via the lottery terminal.
wherein the digital wallet portion is funded with cryptocurrency after an electronic personal device running a lottery application scans the machine-readable indicia of the inventory control number portion.
See at least paragraphs 0114, 0124, 0131, 0138, 0155.
Claim 10 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAGE and further in view of Applicant’s Own Admissions, hereinafter AOA.
Claim 10:
CAGE discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. CAGE does not specifically disclose:
wherein the digital wallet portion is fundable with the cryptocurrency based on a conversion rate from a quoted prize amount in fiat currency to an equivalent prize amount in cryptocurrency at the time the digital wallet portion is funded with the cryptocurrency.
However, the Examiner accepts AOA that it is old and well known in the currency arts to facilitate currency exchange. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of CAGE with the technique of currency exchange platforms because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
Business Insider. “LOTTOBLOKK: The World’s First Crypto Blockchain Lottery.”(Jan. 22, 2026). Retrieved online 01/28/2026. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/lottoblokk-the-world-s-first-crypto-blockchain-lottery----set-to-launch-june-1-1035737335
FireLotto. “Fire Lotto.” (January 2018). Retrieved online 01/28/2026. https://firelotto.io/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/whitepaper_en.pdf
Quanta. “White Paper.” (September 2018). Retrieved online 01/28/2026. https://www.quanta.im/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Quanta-whitepaper.pdf
Foreign Art:
CARLSON et al. “Interactive Gaming System E.g. For Playing Keno, Has Remote Player Devices To Receive Game Information From Host Gaming Device In Location Approved By Gaming Agencies.” (WO 2004/034223 A2)
HAYASHIDA et al. “Lottery Game Providing Method For Use In E.g. Hotel, Involves Providing Copy Of Audio/video Content And Pay Slip To Player, And Determining Whether Payout Criteria Are Satisfied By Audio/video Content.” (WO 2007/107883 A2)
Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/06/2026 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)