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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/26/25 has been entered.
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 1-20 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 and 12 recite the limitation “initiate, independent of each the client device and the live streaming platform.” However, the claim earlier discloses that this initiation is responsive to receipt of data associated with an acceptance of the multi-play session by a client device. This is considered a showing that the initiation of the play of the wagering game is indeed dependent on at least the client device, as the initiation does not begin until the receipt of data from the client device.
A similar issue arises in claim 10, where the electronic gaming machine is claimed to be “operating independent of each of the first device and the live streaming platform server.” Considering that the electronic gaming machine receives data authorizing an initiation of a play of the wagering game and an acceptance of the multi-play session, similar to claims 1 and 12, this renders the limitation contradicted, as the electronic gaming machine now is dependent on the data from the live streaming platform server and first device.
As such, it is unclear what is meant by independent of each the client device and the live streaming platform as it contradicts the earlier claim limitations. The Examiner will assume that the devices are dependent on each other until further clarification and correction is provided by Applicant. Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are dependent on claims 1, 10, and 12 and inherit these deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amaitis et al (US 2012/0214575) in view of LeMay et al (US 2013/0303263).
Re claim 1, Amaitis discloses an electronic gaming machine comprising: a display device, interface, processor, and memory (pars. [0076] to [0078], the invention is implemented by computers with a processor, input devices, executing instructions from memory) executing instructions causing the processor to: receive a parameter of a multi-play session associated with a plurality of future plays of a wagering game to be displayed by the display device ([0139], the gaming machine includes a user configuring betting actions to be performed based on criteria), communicate, via the interface and to a live streaming platform, data associated with the multi-play session ([0129], a stream of state information of an event such as a live sporting event is received in real time), and responsive to a receipt, via the interface and from the live streaming platform, of data associated with an acceptance by a client device of the multi-play session, initiate a play of the wagering game associated with the multi-play session ([0274], options enable users and agents to start a game management program enabling active betting markets associated with a particular game), wherein for each play of the wagering game of the accepted multi-play session, a wager is automatically placed in association with the client device ([0139], users may set preferences such that bets are automatically placed depending on conditions).
However, Amaitis does not explicitly disclose the client device operating independent of the electronic gaming machine and initiating, independent of each the client device and the live streaming platform, a play of the wagering game. LeMay teaches a gaming system wherein a user’s mobile gaming device can be used to play a wager-based game, with the game outcomes being generated remotely in response to inputs made on the mobile device ([0101]). These outcomes can be streamed for display ([0101]). Since the game outcomes are generated remotely and not utilizing any processing power from the remote device itself and instead only awaits input from the remote device to initiate the game (similar to the claimed invention), it is considered independent of the client device and streaming platform. Additionally, LeMay explicitly teaches the gaming device generating game outcomes independent of any servers ([0138]).
It would have been obvious to implement the remote outcome generating game of LeMay with the gaming system of Amaitis in order to decentralize the gaming system, increasing security by isolating client and servers and the overall robustness of the gaming system and network.
Re claim 3, Amaitis discloses the parameter comprises a predefined quantity of at least two plays of the wagering game to be displayed by the display device ([0140], the automatic bet can be triggered for multiple conditions without limits, e.g. “a user may configure automatic bets any time a ‘yes-or-no’ bet is offered by the system 100 concerning a particular favorite player, such that the user bets that the player will (‘yes’) achieve the intended positive result”).
Re claim 4, Amaitis discloses the parameter comprises an amount of time to be spent playing the wagering game ([0139] and [0141], some of the parameters for wagering may be a line moving over time from 5 to 6.5 points, or betting within a certain amount of time by a particular player or team).
Re claim 5, Amaitis discloses the parameter is received from an input device associated with the electronic gaming machine ([0139], the user configures a user interface to perform automatic bets, and [0222], user inputs can be received via a touch-sensitive display device).
Re claim 6, Amaitis discloses the initiated play of the wagering game associated with the multi-play session comprises a first play of the wagering game of the multi-play session ([0123], the game automatically receives game information and users bet on in-game events, therefore when a player makes a wager, there is a first play of the game).
Re claim 7, Amaitis discloses the wager automatically placed is different from any wager placed in association with any play of the wagering game displayed by the display device ([0267], the players are able to also manually place game chips to signify bets which are materially different than bets placed automatically as the automatic bets are not placed with chips).
Re claim 8, Amaitis discloses acceptance by the client device of the multi-play session comprises data associated with a configuration of the automatically placed wagers ([0140], betting is configured by the user).
Re claim 9, Amaitis discloses data associated with which plays of the wagering game of the plurality of future plays of the wagering game to automatically place any wagers on ([0139] to [0141], the user configures conditions for automatic wagers which are dependent on future plays, e.g. a line moving over time from 5 to 6.5 points, when a point spread drops from six to four, various athlete statistics, etc.).
Re claims 10, 12, and 14-20, see the rejections to claims 1 and 3-9 above.
Re claim 11, Amaitis discloses the first device comprises one of the client device and the electronic gaming machine (fig. 1, 10b and 10d-n, fig. 2, 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7-8, filed 11/26/25, with respect to the 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims in view of Amaitis have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715