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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8, 9 and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims 1 - 20 are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 8 – 13 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
Claim 8 (currently amended): A live streaming platform server comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
during a first period of time when an electronic gaming machine is displaying a first play of a wagering game and during which no individual wagers are available to be placed in association with a client device:
communicate, to the client device, data associated with an individual wager available on an identified second, subsequent play of the wagering game to be played during a second, subsequent period of time, and
receive, from the client device, data associated any individual wagers placed on the identified second, subsequent play of the wagering game, and
responsive to a receipt, from the electronic gaming machine during the second, subsequent period of time, of data associated with an outcome of the identified second play of the wagering game, evaluate any individual wagers placed on the identified second, subsequent play of the wagering game played during the first second, subsequent period of time
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Certain Methods of organizing Human Activity.
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent the process of displaying a first play of a wagering game, accepting wagers upon a game played at a second subsequent time during the first period of time and evaluating the wagers placed upon the play of the game during the second period of time. This is similar to fundamental economic principles or practices (gaming rules for accepting and evaluating wagers from players).
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): display/ client device, interface, processor, memory.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed display device, interface, processor, memory. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’s specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0026] In certain embodiments, the streaming device and/or the client device comprises a personal gaming device. In certain such embodiments in which the personal gaming device operates as the streaming device, the personal gaming device operates with a remote game server to offer one or more plays of one or more games independent of any EGM and any SMIB associated with the EGM. In certain such embodiments, the personal gaming device and/or remote game server interacts with the live streaming platform to facilitate the live streaming system of the present disclosure as well as foster any interactions between a user of the personal gaming device and/or one or more viewers. In these embodiments, the personal gaming device and/or remote game server communicate data regarding one or more aspects of a gaming session to one or more components of the live streaming platform which operate to publish content to zero, one or more client devices. For example, as seen in Fig. 1 C, the system employs a remote game server 170 that operates with a personal gaming device 172, such as a mobile device or a personal computer, and a remote gaming platform 174 (which interacts with the live streaming platform 106) to enable, via an internet browser or application 176 of the personal gaming device, a live stream of one or more events occurring in association with the personal gaming device 172, one or more events occurring in association with the remote game server 170 and/or one or more interactions between the personal gaming device 172 and one or more client devices 108a, 108b, 108c.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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 – 7 and 14 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barclay et al (US 2012/0094737) in view of Van De Berghe (US 2017/0163411) in view of Goldstein et al (2010/0255902).
As per claim 1, Barclay discloses:
a display device; an interface; a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (Barclay discloses a game machine comprising a display device, a user interface, processor and memory) (Barclay 0075 – 0079, 0081 – 0082, 0088, 0095)
responsive to an occurrence of a game triggering event at a first point in time …causing the display device to display a play of a wagering game, and (Barclay discloses the streaming of a live stream of multiple game plays to multiple different clients logged into a game webpage, at a first and second point in time (reels spin at periodic times (i.e. different points in time)). Barclay specifically discloses “The flow 300 continues at processing block 308, where the system detects a wagering game outcome for the wagering game, triggers a secondary wagering game based on the outcome of the wagering game, and presents the secondary wagering game via the webpage of the wagering game website.”) (Barclay 0046)
responsive to the occurrence of the game triggering event the first point in time …causing the display device to display the play of the wagering game. (Barclay discloses the streaming of a live stream of multiple game plays to multiple different clients logged into a game webpage, at a first and second point in time (reels spin at periodic times (i.e. different points in time)). Barclay specifically discloses “The flow 300 continues at processing block 308, where the system detects a wagering game outcome for the wagering game, triggers a secondary wagering game based on the outcome of the wagering game, and presents the secondary wagering game via the webpage of the wagering game website.”) (Barclay 0046)
Barclay fails to disclose the following:
a housing comprising an access door;
a security monitoring circuit supported by the housing;
when an opening of the access door is detected via the security monitoring circuit:
disable any occurrences of any game triggering events, and following at least a closing of the access door detected via the security monitoring circuit:
…associated with a first delay occurring in association with a communication of data, via the interface, with a live streaming platform in communication with a client device, wait a first amount of time before…
… associated with a second, different delay occurring in association with the communication of data, via the interface, with the live streaming platform, wait a second, different amount of time before…
However, in a similar field of endeavor wherein media is streamed to client devices, for a client to view, Van De Berghe teaches the detection of specific events (i.e. triggering events) in a stream wherein due to network conditions the stream is associated with a different delay associated with the multiple synchronization devices (i.e. client devices). The system measure the amount of delay and sets the delay based upon the largest delay amongst the synchronization devices so that all the devices viewing the event are in sync with each other as they are viewing the event in the stream (Van De Berghe 0021 – 0027, 0030)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Barclay in view of Van De Berghe in order to use a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way to utilize a dynamic delay in response to varying network conditions, thus causing a variable delay between when event in the stream is played out for the end devices. This would be beneficial as it would compensate for varying network conditions and “This form of interaction works best if all the members of the group experience the event at the same time and so the delays described in the previous paragraphs will reduce the enjoyment of the shared experience by the group.” (Van De Berghe 0006)
In a similar field of endeavor, Goldstein teaches the use of a gaming machine that utilizes a conventional gaming machine cabinet wherein the cabinet comprises an access door and a security circuit that enables and disables the game upon the closing and opening of the game machine access door (Goldstein 0359, 0371, 0372).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the gaming machine of Barclay in view of Goldstein to utilize a known technique of utilizing a security circuit that enables or disables gaming upon the game machine based upon the status of the access door being open or closed. This would be beneficial as it would ensure that the game machine is in a secure state before any regulated gaming can occur.
As per claim 2, wherein the interface comprises a communication interface of a slot machine interface board. (Barclay discloses a slot machine that comprises a slot machine interface board) (Barclay 0075 – 0079, 0081 – 0082, 0088, 0095)
As per claim 3, wherein the first delay is based on a first amount of network traffic and the second, different delay is based on a second, different amount of network traffic. (Combination of Barclay in view of Berghe, wherein Barclay discloses a live streamed game that is playable over a period of game plays (Barclay 0046), and Van De Berghe teaches the use inducing a delay in the media stream based upon network conditions (Van De Berghe 0022 – 0030)
As per claim 4, wherein data associated with at least one of an automatic determination of the first delay and an automatic determination of the second delay is received from the live streaming platform. (Combination of Barclay in view of Berghe, wherein Barclay discloses a live streamed game that is playable over a period of game plays (Barclay 0046), and Van De Berghe teaches the use inducing a delay in the media stream based upon network conditions (Van De Berghe 0022 – 0030)
As per claim 5, wherein the first delay additionally occurs in association with a communication of data between a client device and the live streaming platform. (Combination of Barclay in view of Berghe, wherein Barclay discloses a live streamed game that is playable over a period of game plays (Barclay 0046), and Van De Berghe teaches the use inducing a delay in the media stream based upon network conditions between a streaming device and the client device (Van De Berghe 0022 – 0030)
As per claim 6, wherein the first occurrence of the game triggering event occurs responsive to a placement of a wager on the play of the game. (Barclay discloses a game triggering event of the streamed game being the activation of spin wherein the spin is responsive to a wager input top play the game) (Barclay 0046)
As per claim 7, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to communicate, via the interface, data associated with the play of the wagering game to the live streaming platform. (Barclay discloses communicating the play of the wagering game to the streaming platform) (Barclay 0042, 0046)
Independent claim(s) 14 is/are made obvious by the combination of Barclay, Van De Berghe and Goldstein based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 15-20 is/are made obvious by the combination of Barclay, Van De Berghe and Goldstein based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 2-7 respectively, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boese et al (US 2016/0328926.
As per claim 8, Boese discloses:
a processor; and (Boese Fig 2, 3)
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (Boese Fig 2, 3)
during a first period of time when an electronic gaming machine is displaying a first play of a wagering game and during which no individual wagers are available to be placed in association with a client device: (Boese discloses a player may select an EGM that is currently being played by anther player (i.e. husband etc.) wherein the player is not able to make a wager on the EGM being played by the “another player.” ( Boese 0228)
communicate, to the client device, data associated with an individual wager available on an identified second, subsequent play of the wagering game to be played during a second, subsequent period of time, and (Boese discloses a player being able to make a wager upon “another player’s” next spins on the EGM. This data is communicated to the player) (Boese 0228)
receive, from the client device, data associated any individual wagers placed on the identified second, subsequent play of the wagering game, and(Boese discloses a player being able to make a wager upon “another player’s” next spins on the EGM. This data is communicated to the player) (Boese 0228)
responsive to a receipt, from the electronic gaming machine during the second, subsequent period of time, of data associated with an outcome of the identified second play of the wagering game, evaluate any individual wagers placed on the identified second, subsequent play of the wagering game played during the second, subsequent period of time. (Boese discloses the first player’s wager upon the “another players” next wagering spins being evaluated to determine if the player first player’s wager won) (Boeses 0228, 023 – 0234, 0242, 0247, 0255, 0263)
As per claim 9, wherein the electronic gaming machine communicates data to the processor via a slot machine interface board. (Boeses Fig 3, 0101 – 0103)
As per claim 10, wherein the first play of the wagering game and the identified second play of the wagering game are sequential plays of the wagering game. (Boeses 0228, 023 – 0234, 0242, 0247, 0255, 0263)
As per claim 11, wherein the first period of time and the second, subsequent period of time are separated by a predefined period of time. (Boeses discloses the wagering on another EGM game events that occur withing a certain amount of time or duration) (Boeses 0242)
As per claim 12, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor during the second, subsequent period of time when the electronic gaming machine is displaying the identified second, subsequent play of the wagering game, cause the processor to communicate, to the client device, data associated with an individual wager available on an identified third play of the wagering game to be played during a third period of time that is subsequent to the second period of time, and receive, from the client device, data associated any individual wagers placed on the identified third play of the wagering game. (Boese discloses the first player’s wager upon the “another players” next wagering spins being evaluated to determine if the player first player’s wager won, wherein the wagering on subsequent spins occur during a first, second, third, fourth etc. subsequent time period) (Boeses 0228, 023 – 0234, 0242, 0247, 0255, 0263)
As per claim 13, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor during the first period of time, cause the processor to communicate, to the client device, data associated with the first play of the wagering game. (Boeses discloses a player can review another player’s game history comprising result (i.e. data) from the spins of the first time period) (Boeses 0228).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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
Applicant's amendment 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 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 ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
10/2/2026
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights