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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/3/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
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 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 13 are drawn to a server.
Claims 14 – 20 are drawn to a method.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims 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 1 - 7 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 1 (previously presented): 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:
after a wager is placed at a streaming device on a play of a wagering game, receive data from the streaming device associated with the play of the wagering game,
responsive to a determination that an interaction generation event occurs in association with the data received from the streaming device, automatically generate interactive content, and
communicate, to a client device and at least partially based on the data communicated from the streaming device, a live stream associated with the play of the wagering game and comprising the automatically generated interactive content.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent fundamental economic principles or practices, and managing interactions between people such as rules for wagering and presenting wagering content between one or more people. It also is directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) wherein a wager is made, a user monitors for an interaction event, and generates content for a user and communicates this content in a live or real-time manner associated with the play of the wagering game.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to 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): a server, a processor, memory, streaming and client devices.
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 a server, a processor, memory, streaming and client devices. 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 own specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0024] In certain embodiments, the streaming device and/or the client device comprises an electronic gaming machine ("EGM") including, but not limited to, a slot machine, a video poker machine, a video lottery terminal, a terminal associated with an electronic table game, a terminal associated with a live table game, a video keno machine, a video bingo, and/or a sports betting terminal (that offers wagering games and/or sports betting opportunities). In certain such 5 embodiments, the EGM operating as the streaming device 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 EGM and/or one or more viewers. In these embodiments, the EGM communicates 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. IA, the system employs an EGM102 as a streaming device that includes or is otherwise associated with a live streaming platform manager104 that interacts with the live streaming platform106 to enable a live stream of one or more events occurring in association with the streaming EGM and/or interactions between the streaming EGM and one or more client devices108a, 108b, 108c.
[0025] In certain embodiments, the streaming device and/or the client device comprises a component of a gaming establishment management system in communication with an EGM, such as a slot machine interface board ("SMIB") in communication with an EGM. In certain additional or alternative embodiments, the streaming device and/or the client device comprises a component, such as a SMIB, that is in communication with an EGM and that operates independent of a gaming establishment management system. In certain such embodiments, the device operating as the streaming device 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 EGM and/or one or more viewers.
[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…”
[00135] The master gaming controller1012 includes at least one processor1010. The at least one processor1010 is any suitable processing device or set of processing devices, such as a microprocessor, a microcontroller-based platform, a suitable integrated circuit, or one or more application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), configured to execute software enabling various configuration and reconfiguration tasks, such as: (1) communicating with a remote source (such as a server that stores authentication information or game information) via a communication interface1006 of the master gaming controller1012; (2) converting signals read by an interface to a format corresponding to that used by software or memory of the streaming device and/or the client device; (3) accessing memory to configure or reconfigure game parameters in the memory according to indicia read from the streaming device and/or the client device; (4) communicating with interfaces and the peripheral devices1022 (such as input/output devices); and/or (5) controlling the peripheral devices1022. In certain embodiments, one or more components of the master gaming controller1012 (such as the at least one processor1010) reside within a housing of the streaming device and/or the client device (described below), while in other embodiments at least one component of the master gaming controller1012 resides outside of the housing of the streaming device and/or the client device.
[00136] The master gaming controller1012 also includes at least one memory device1016, which includes: (1) volatile memory (e.g., RAM1009, which can include non-volatile RAM, magnetic RAM, ferroelectric RAM, and any other suitable forms); (2) non-volatile memory1019 (e.g., disk memory, FLASH memory, EPROMs, EEPROMs, memristor-based non-volatile solid- state memory, etc.); (3) unalterable memory (e.g., EPROMs1008); (4) read-only memory; and/or (5) a secondary memory storage device1015, such as a non-volatile memory device, configured to store gaming software related information (the gaming software related information and the memory may be used to store various audio files and games not currently being used and invoked in a configuration or reconfiguration). Any other suitable magnetic, optical, and/or semiconductor memory may operate in conjunction with the streaming device and/or the client device of the present disclosure. In certain embodiments, the at least one memory device1016 resides within the housing of the streaming device and/or the client device (described below), while in other embodiments at least one component of the at least one memory device 1016 resides outside of the housing of the streaming device and/or the client device.
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 – 5, 7 – 11, 13 – 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres et al (US2019/0026991) in view of Nguyen (US 2019/0005773)
As per claim 1, Torres discloses:
a processor; and (Torres discloses a system that comprises game servers #150 that comprise processors and memory) (Torres 0020, 0028)
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (Torres discloses a system that comprises game servers #150 that comprise processors and memory) (Torres 0020, 0028)
…receive data from the streaming device associated with a play of the wagering game, responsive to a determination that an interaction generation event occurs in association with the data received from the streaming device, automatically generate interactive content, and (Torres discloses the monitoring of a wagering game stream wherein responsive to game events (i.e. interaction generation events) that occur in the game and based upon those game events occurring, wagers are created (interactive content) and sent to the client device along with the game stream) (Torres 0031 – 0034)
communicate, to a client device and at least partially based on the data communicated from the streaming device, a live stream associated with the play of the wagering game and comprising the automatically generated interactive content. (Torres discloses the communication of proposed wagers and live stream to the client device by means of a browser or native application) (Torres 0031 – 0034, 0035)
Torres fails to specifically disclose: “after a wager is placed on a play of a wagering game…”
However, in a similar field of endeavor wherein Nguyen discloses a game system wherein a gaming machine may stream game information to a social game session manager that is then forwarded or streamed to a user device in response to game events occurring on the streaming game machine such as in response to a wager made on the game machine (Nguyen 0053, 0054, 0056). Nguyen teaches “ The game information may also be specific to a type of the game of chance being played. For example, if the game of chance is an electronic card game, such as video poker or video blackjack, the game information can include, but is not limited to, cards held by the player, communal cards, and actions taken by the player such as hitting or drawing for new cards. If the game of chance is a slot game, the game information can include, but is not limited to, contents of the reels, lines being played, notification of lines won, and images on the reels.
[0071] As the game information is generated, the game information can be simultaneously transmitted to and acquired by the social game server (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2A, and 2B) for distribution to at least one social gaming user at 304. At least a portion of the gaming information may be distributed by any known method. In one example, at least a portion of the gaming information may be posted to the at least one social gaming user. The social game session manager may transfer the game information to a third party sever (as illustrated in FIG. 1). The third party server may be, for example, any known social gaming server or any other server accessible over a network. The third party server can post the gaming information to a webpage, a feed, a notification board, or the like. The at least one social gaming user can retrieve the game information from the webpage, the feed, the notification board, or the like.” (Nguyen 0070, 0071)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Torres in view of Nguyen to use a known technique to modify similar devices a similar way by providing interactive content that is related to the livestream game being broadcasted from a streaming device wherein the interactive content can be detected after it occurs in the livestream and be related to any event that has taken place in a game related context (i.e. game wagering etc.). This would enable a spectator to be notified of important events that may be of interest to them in the livestream.
As per claim 2, Torres discloses: wherein the interactive content comprises a chat message. (Torres discloses the event wagers are being convey to the client device by means of chat messages) (Torres 0038).
As per claim 3, Torres discloses: wherein the chat message is associated with an opportunity to place, at the client device another wager in association with the play of the wagering game. (Torres discloses the challenge message being associated with an opportunity to place a wager in a wagering game) (Torres 0038 – 0039)
As per claim 4, Torres discloses: wherein the interaction generation event occurs in association with the play of the wagering game. (Torres discloses the monitoring of a wagering game stream wherein responsive to game events (i.e. interaction generation events) that occur in the game) (Torres 0031 – 0034)
As per claim 5, Torres discloses: wherein the interaction generation event occurs independent of the play of the wagering game. (Torres discloses that the interaction generation event that causes the creation of wagers can be based upon pre-game game data independent of the wagering game) (Torres 0038 – 0039)
As per claim 7, Torres discloses: wherein the client device comprises any of an electronic gaming machine and a personal gaming device (Torres 0020, 0022, 0028)
Independent claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are made obvious by the combination of Torres and Nguyen based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 9 – 11 and 13 is/are made obvious by the combination of Torres and Nguyen based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 2, 3, 5 and 7, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 15 – 18 and 20 is/are made obvious by the combination of Torres and Nguyen based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 2-5 and 7, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 6, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres et al (US2019/0026991) in view of Nguyen (US 2019/0005773) in view of Friedman (US 10,130,884) .
As per claim 6, Torres discloses :
wherein the streaming device comprises any of an electronic gaming machine… (Torres 0020, 0022, 0028)
Torres fails to discloses:
and a slot machine interface board.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Friedman discloses utilizing streaming technology to stream data to slot machines that comprise interface boards (Friedman 6:33 – 40).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Torres in view of Friedman to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, by streaming data to devices that include slot machines. The use of streaming to convey data to gaming systems is beneficial since client devices can be “thinner” and not need as much processing power and storage.
Dependent claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are made obvious by the combination of Torres , Nguyen and Friedman based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 6, which are similar in claim scope.
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. Please see above rejection addressing the newly added claim limitations in view of Nguyen.
Conclusion
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 on (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
1/8/2025
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715