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 .
Response to Amendment
Original claims 1-20 remain pending. The response to the amendment is presented below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) set the status of a user. This is a method of organizing human activities because the user’s activities are based on the user’s status. To the extent that the claims are drawn to gambling, it is also a method of determining financial obligation. Furthermore, the method can be performed by a human without the use of a computer. For at least these reasons, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
(a) It does not improve the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field;
(b) Applying the judicial exception does not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
(c) Do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine;
(d) It does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
(e) It does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor, memory, display, interface, client device, and gaming machine are generic/conventional computer hardware. (See Chen et al., United States Pre-Grant Publication 2006/0116208, ¶ 0005 for conventionality of gaming machines and their components.)
As can readily be seen, the claimed method can be implemented by a human without the use of a computer:
A human can receive data associated with a play of a wagering game being displayed in association with a streaming device,
A human can communicate, at least partially based on the data communicated from the streaming device, a live stream, and
Responsive to a receipt of data associated with an interaction event occurring in association with the client device, a human can modify a status of an identified user of the client device.
In other words, A human can receive data, provide a “live stream” (i.e., a commentary on live events such as might be delivered by radio or television commentators), and a human can use data received to change the status of a user.
Nor do the dependent claims add “significantly more” than the abstract idea because they merely specify the generic/conventional hardware components used to implement the abstract idea or specifying details of the abstract idea.
Currently, implementation of an abstract idea on generic computers is not patent-eligible without “significantly more.” Neither the abstract idea itself nor parts of the abstract idea can supply “significantly more” than the abstract idea. As written, current claims are drawn to an abstract idea with essentially the words “implement it” on a generic computer appended thereto. As such, the claims are not patent-eligible.
A thorough analysis or each and every limitation of each and every claim, both individually and as a part of an ordered combination shows that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention lacks patentable utility. The claims are directed to pure data manipulation. No use is made of the data once the manipulation is complete. No actions are taken based on the results of the manipulation. Except for claims 9 & 20, the results are not even displayed. Even then, there is no recitation of using the data for any purpose. Mere manipulation of data has no patentable utility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that “the claims do not include any elements which are performed as a mental process in the human mind or can be performed by a human using a pen and paper,” the examiner respectfully disagrees. See Applicant’s reply filed 6/2/2025, pp. 6-7.
First of all, claim 1 recites an abstract idea by reciting the steps of “responsive to a receipt of data associated with an interaction event[], modify a status of an identified user.” A review of the arguments reveals that the “modify a status” steps are never challenged to not to be an abstract idea. As at least the “modify” step recites an abstract idea, Applicant fails to show an error in Step 2A, prong I. Also, Applicant appears to argue about mental process and ignores another alternative basis – certain organization of human activities. Indeed, MPEP explicitly states describing a new set of rules for conducting a wagering game as a “fundamental economic practice,” which the court already found as certain organization of human activities. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
Second, the examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization that the steps of “receive [intangible data]” and “communicating [intangible data]” do not recite an abstract idea. Claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions such that a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)(citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54)(Fed. Cir. 2016). Also, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people are considered certain organization of human activities. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Here, receiving/communicating intangible information such as numbers and symbols can be surely considered mental activities (observation and displaying info) or interaction between people (interacting wagering info between dealer and players) under Step 2A, prong I. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Step 2A, prong I analysis indicates that claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Back to Applicant’s argument, Applicant appears to argue that the steps cannot be performed mentally as it is required to be performed via streaming devices. However, as already explained above, Step 2A, prong I analysis indicates that claim 1 recites at least one limitation directed to an abstract idea. It is noted that Step 2A, prong II analysis was provided later to address the streaming device limitations as additional elements. See supra rejection. It is noted that claim requires “receiving [displayed] data” and not “displaying data.” A human can receive displayed data, e.g., observing displayed data. Similarly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human can provide a “live stream” (i.e., a commentary on live events such as might be delivered by radio or television commentators). To the extent that a live stream is considered additional element, it is noted that merely streaming data is extra-solution activity, which is well-known, routine, or conventional. See supra rejection.
Next, in response to the argument that “[because] Claim 1 recites a patent-eligible live streaming platform server an improved way to maintain up-to-date statuses based on tracking interaction events occurring in association with a client device communicated a live stream at least partially based on data from a streaming device[,] the claims are directed to these specific improvements in technology,” the examiner respectfully disagrees. See Applicant’s reply filed 6/2/2025, pp. 7-8.
Novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. MPEP 2106.04(I). A careful review of the specification, including paragraph 16, reveals that the claimed invention relates to tracking activities occurring in association with a client and utilizes such tracked activities to indicate a level of status or rank. See Spec. ¶ 0016. These are an improvement directed to rules for conducting a wagering game, such as a dealer tracking poker player’s plays and utilizing the information to determine the player’s status, which is directed to an abstract idea of "fundamental economic principles or practices." MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A). Further, the specification does not provide any detail as to improving the streaming technology itself. Given the consideration, the cited portion of the specification does not provide sufficient disclosure of practical application. Thus, arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER S VASAT whose telephone number is (571)270-7625. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM, Friday 9:00 AM - 1:00 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.
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.
PETER S. VASAT
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/PETER S VASAT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights