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
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments in the Response dated December 9, 2025 as part of the Request for Continued Examination directed to the rejection set forth in the Final Office Action dated September 11, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and subject to examination as part of this office action.
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 determination of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, relies on the Mayo/Alice two-step analysis.
In step 1 of the analysis, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In the present case, claims 1-9 are directed to a live streaming platform server (i.e., a machine), claims 10-11 are directed to a live streaming platform server (i.e., a machine), and claims 12-20 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). The claims are, therefore directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner is directed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims are compared to groupings of subject matter that have been found by courts as abstract ideas. These groupings include
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 is considered representative and recites (the abstract idea is underlined) 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, from the streaming device, data associated with the play of the wagering game,
responsive to a receipt, from a client device, of data associated with a chat message comprising a non-wager component and a wager identifier, cause a client device wager to be placed in association with the play of the wagering game, and
communicate, to the client device and at least partially based on the data communicated from the streaming device, a live stream.
The present claims are directed to systems and methods that enable a user at a streaming device to interact with one or more users at one or more client devices to trigger one or more events occurring in association with a live streaming platform. These steps fall under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, they are directed to the sub-category of fundamental economic practices or principles because the limitations recite a wagering game. The limitations also fall into the sub-category of commercial or legal interactions because they involve legal obligations and marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations because they involve the invitation to participate and the communication of the game outcome of a game of chance. They also fall into the sub-category of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because they involve rules of a game. Finally, they also fall into the category of mental processes because the determining step (claim 10) can be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the examiner considers whether additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (not considered relevant to the present claims);
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The additional elements in the present claims are a processor, a memory device, a streaming device, a client device, a live stream, an electronic gaming machine, a slot machine interface board, and a personal gaming device. The additional elements do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional elements do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The additional elements do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The examiner considers if the additional elements:
• add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional as follows:
a processor, a memory device, a slot machine interface board (Bradford et al., US 6,709,333 B1, game device 100 includes the normal and well known internals needed in order to have a functioning game, such as at least one central processor, associated memory, input/output interfaces, peripheral interfaces to the video display, control buttons and lever, monetary input devices, slot machine interface board (SMIB), together with the firmware and software needed to implement the full functionality of the game (these internals not shown) [C8:7-21]),
a streaming device, a client device, an electronic gaming machine, and a personal gaming device (Parham, US 2006/0089196 A1, the design and operation of gaming devices is well known and conventional gaming machines are available such as from International Gaming Technology.TM. and Bally.TM. [0022])
a live stream (Streat et al., US 2013/0080184 A1, a variety of well known methods to display the relevant information, to the member, such as, live-streams, Really Simple Syndication (RSS), hyperlinks, or the like [0090]).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As a result, the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Prior Art
There are currently no prior art rejections against claims 1-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, applicant states:
Applicant respectfully submits that the particular manner which the claimed live streaming platform servers and methods operate provides a solution to the technical problems with prior live streaming platform servers that offered client device wagering in association with a play of a wagering game though a designated wagering interface. (Response [p. 6])
Under prong 2 of Step 2A, an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field may integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant argues “technical problems included inefficiencies such as requiring multiple user inputs and, resultingly, a greater total time to place a wager on a play of a streamed game as well as a total amount of processing resources to separately handle both wagers and chats” (Response [p. 6]). The examiner maintains, as stated in the previous office action, that this is not a technical problem. Instead, the problem is an inefficient abstract idea -- not a technical problem. Applicant’s claims are a more efficient abstract idea; however the solution is not technical.
Furthermore, applicant’s argument is directed to the abstract idea and does not disclose how the additional elements (i.e., a processor, a memory device, a streaming device, a client device, a live stream, an electronic gaming machine, a slot machine interface board, and a personal gaming device) integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements are generic computer components and have not been changed. Therefore, the only thing that has improved between the alleged “technical problem” and the alleged “technical improvement” is the abstract idea – not the additional elements. An improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
The examiner maintains the rejections under 35 USC 101 of claims 1-20, as recited above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WERNER G GARNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7147. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-15:30 EST.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/WERNER G GARNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715