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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) with mailroom dates 4/9/2025 and 9/23/2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97-1.98. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the information disclosure statements.
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 1-17, 19, 20, and 22 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.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 each recite the limitation “the platform” on the last line of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each respective claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-11, 13-16, 19, 20, and 22 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claims 1, 12, and 17.
Claims 2 and 13 each recite the limitation “the raffle initiator” on the second line of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each respective claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17, 19, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “‘[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. Claims 17, 19, 20, and 22 are directed to computer-readable media. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 17, 19, 20, and 22 encompass transitory propagating signals per se, which are not an eligible statutory class. See MPEP § 2106.03. For this reason, claims 17, 19, 20, and 22 fail at Step 1. By contrast, claims 1-16 are directed to systems and methods. As such, the claimed invention of claims 1-16 falls into the broad categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309.
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, “The present invention relates to a computer implemented system and method that provides a centralized platform for conducting raffles in respect of products and/or services (for example, new or used items) or prize items (for example, cash prizes) rather than conducting raffles on a number of disparate computer systems.” Spec. ¶ 1. Representative claim 12 recites the following (with emphasis):
12. A computer-implemented system for conducting raffles, the system comprising one or more processors operable to:
receive details from a first registered user in relation to a proposed raffle, the details comprising:
a description of a prize in respect of which raffle tickets are offered for purchase by one or more second registered users; and
a price associated with the prize;
prompt the first registered user to select:
a proposed raffle end date; and
one or more ticket distribution option(s) from a plurality of different ticket distribution options, each ticket distribution option involving a different number of tickets available for purchase prior to the proposed raffle end date;
associate the one or more selected ticket distribution option(s) with the proposed raffle; and
based upon the item details and the selected ticket distribution option(s), automatically generate a raffle interface accessible by the one or more second registered users, the interface providing details relating to the proposed raffle and the one or more raffle ticket purchasing option(s) based upon the ticket distribution option(s) selected by the registered first user; and
manage the purchasing of tickets for the raffle by the one or more second registered users according to the ticket distribution option(s) associated with the raffle;
wherein each raffle ticket purchasing option comprises a raffle ticket purchase price where the purchase price is automatically generated according to the ticket distribution option selected by the first registered user and/or the raffle end date; and
the interface comprises search functionality enabling the one or more registered users to conduct searches for raffles and goods and/or services that are available for purchase, wherein the one or more goods and/or services are advertised to the one or more second registered users according to their interaction with the platform.
The underlined portions of claim 12 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially similar features in claims 1 and 17. Claims 2-11, 13-16, 19, 20, and 22 further define the abstract idea such as by a user initiating the raffle, various goods or services that may serve as the prize, limiting the number of tickets sold, transferring funds to a bank account, complying with a profit distribution arrangement, validating a fair market value of a prize item, selecting start or end dates for the raffle, etc.
Under prong 1, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. For instance, the claims recite a system, method, and medium for generating conducting a raffle in exchange for a fee, thus creating market for the buying and selling of raffle tickets by individuals. This is a method of exchanging and resolving financial obligations using probability (i.e., odds of winning) and is therefore a certain method of organizing human activities. Furthermore, the conducting of the raffle drawing is a type of wagering game, which has been found to be abstract by the courts. See, e.g., In re Smith and In re Marco Guldenaar Holdings. See also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The claimed abstract idea could be performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pen and paper. This indicates that the claimed invention amounts to a mental process which, while carried out with a computer system in the claims, remains an abstract idea.
Under prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While certain physical elements (i.e., elements that are not an abstract idea) are present in the claims, such features do not effect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. Similarly, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. The claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) are not applied with any particular machine, (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: one or more computers each having at least a processor and an interface which are networked together to carry out the abstract idea.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer to accept and perform calculations on data (in this case, to generate prices or collect or access information) is the most basic function of a computer. Each of the claimed computer functions is well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry and/or constitutes extra-solution activity. Such functions include receiving data, displaying data, and showing the outcome of a game on an interface, etc. As demonstrated in Berkheimer v. HP, such computer functions cannot save an otherwise ineligible claim under §101. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
Considered as an ordered combination, only generic computer components are present (e.g., computer, processor(s), network, interface, etc.). Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the concept of generating prices and posting tickets for sale as performed by generic computers on a generic network. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. Under relevant court precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH whose telephone number is (571)272-2818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
