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 .
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 12, the limitation of “independent of any operator input” is not described in the specification in a manner to indicate that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. While the specification makes it clear that the status identifier may be automatically modified, there does not appear to be any mention that such modification is done “independent of any operator input”.
Regarding claims 2-9, 11 and 13-20, the claims are rejected due to their dependency from claims 1, 10 and 12.
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 9 and 20 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 claims 9 and 20, there is no antecedent basis for “the client device” as there are multiple client devices being claimed. The phrase “another display device associated with another client device displaying the status of the identified user of the client device” is considered indefinite as it is not clear which device is being referenced. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that there is a first client device and additional client devices where “the client device” is referencing the first client device.
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) 1-8, 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (US 20200302734) in view of Colvin et al (US 10373433).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Baker discloses a live streaming platform server comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions (para. 4) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive, from a streaming device (EGM 206, fig. 2), data associated with a play of a wagering game being displayed in association with the streaming device, communicate, to a client device and at least partially based on the data communicated from the streaming device, a live stream (para. 4), and responsive to a receipt of data associated with an interaction event occurring in association with the client device, automatically modify, independent of any operator input, a status of an identified user of the client device (para 4, 48, 57-58 and fig. 3, where a status change is considered to be the change to viewer benefit based on interaction events such as: how much they watch, how many gifts they give players, or how many bets they place).
Although Baker discloses a viewer display device (fig. 3) displaying a variety of data (para. 58) including an area 304 for offering viewers different levels of benefits (paragraph 48), the reference does not explicitly disclose that a display device associated with the client device displays the modified status/status identifier of the identified user of the client device.
Colvin is relied upon to teach that it is known to display a modified benefit status/identofied and associated identified of a user on the users display device (fig. 6B, comp indicator 602 comprising image 702, col. 27, ll. 50+ to col. 28, ll. 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to have displayed the modified status of the viewer on the client device display for the purpose of promoting desired activity and making the viewer aware when the status change has been reached.
Regarding claim 2, 11 and 13, see EGM 206 as disclosed in fig. 2.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, see fig. 2, devices 228 and 230.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, see para. 48 where the streaming platform enables the viewer to automatically receive different levels of benefits based on the association of the viewer with various interaction events (e.g. how much they watch, how many gifts they give players, or how many bets they placed).
Regarding claim 5-8 and 16-19, see para. 48 as noted above.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (US 20200302734) and Colvin et al (US 10373433) as stated above and further in view of Pasley (US 20240153350).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Baker and Colvin fail to disclose/teach instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to communicate data that results in at least one of: a display device associated with the streaming device displaying the status of the identified user of the client device, and another display device associated with another client device displaying the status of the identified user of the client device.
Pasley teaches that it is known to provide a streaming platform (platform of server 10, fig. 1, para. 42) where viewer status is modified based on money spent/gifts sent and is made visible to all parties on their devices (20, 30a and 30b) including other viewers and the streamer for the purpose of identifying those viewers and their contribution to the game (fig. 6, ranked viewers PZc, para. 66-67).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included server with instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to communicate data that results in at least one of: a display device associated with the streaming device displaying the status of the identified user of the client device, and another display device associated with another client device displaying the status of the identified user of the client device for the purpose of identifying those viewers and their contribution to the game being streamed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRY SUHOL whose telephone number is (571)272-4430. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday - Friday 8am-4PM.
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.
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.
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
