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 – 20 remains pending.
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 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al (US 2018/0221774) in view of Azuolas et al (US 20200162796) in view of Joao (US 2019/0122500)
As per claim 1, Sullivan discloses a video game streaming system:
a processor; and (Sullivan discloses a hosting service comprising servers that further comprise a processor) (Sullivan 0017)
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (Sullivan discloses a hosting service comprising servers that further comprise memory) (Sullivan 0017)
receive, from a streaming device, video data associated with a play of a … game associated with the streaming device, (Sullivan discloses a client devices receiving video game data and voice chat data from the hosting service streaming the data) (Sullivan 0067 – 72)
encode the chat data associated with the chat message with the video data associated with the play of the … game, and (Sullivan discloses the #902 encoding the video game data and the voice chat data) (Sullivan 0072, 0074)
communicate, to a client device, consolidated data associated with a live stream comprising the video data and the chat data. (Sullivan discloses the communicating of the mixed audio and video game data to the client devices) (Sullivan 0073, 0074)
Sullivan fails to disclose specifically that the game is a “wagering game.”
Or
“separately receive, from the streaming device, chat data associated with a chat message originating with the streaming device,
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Joao discloses a betting system that enables users to watch a live stream of a game and communicate with other users to convey bets between players by the means of chat room, electronic forums or websites (Joao 0089, 0092).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Sullivan in view of Joao in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to specify that the live streamed game is a wagering, as this would provide a way for users to stay engaged in the live streamed game as they would have a vested interest in seeing how their bet was resolved based upon the results of the game.
In a similar field of endeavor, Azuolas discloses a live streaming system wherein a broadcast streamer transmits to the streaming system the live stream video data and commentary data (i.e. chat data) that is then combined or integrated into a single stream and transmitted to the viewers (Azuolas 0244, 0255).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Sullivan in view of Azuolas to combine chat data related to chat messages along with separately received live stream video and integrated or encode the separate data together for a single transmission as this would ensure that livestream event and live stream chats and commentaries are synchronized for cohesive viewing by the viewers.
As per claim 2, wherein the chat data associated with the chat message is automatically generated responsive to a chat message generation event. (Combination of Sullivan in view of Joao as applied above wherein players transmit chat messages and the host system encodes and transmits them to the client) (Sullivan 0067 – 0071)
As per claim 3, wherein the chat message generation event occurs in association with the play of the wagering game. (Combination of Sullivan in view of Joao as applied above wherein players transmit chat messages in association with the play of the game) (Sullivan 0067 – 0071)
As per claim 4, wherein the chat message generation event occurs independent of the play of the wagering game. (Combination of Sullivan in view of Joao as applied above wherein players transmit chat messages in association with the play of the game) (Sullivan 0067 – 0071)
As per claim 5, wherein the streaming device comprises any of an electronic gaming machine and a slot machine interface board. (Combination of Sullivan in view of Joao) (Sullivan 0066) (Joao 0019 - 0021)
As per claim 6, wherein the client device comprises any of an electronic gaming machine and a personal gaming device. (Combination of Sullivan in view of Joao) (Sullivan 0066) (Joao 0019 - 0021)
Independent claim(s) 7 is/are made obvious by the combination of Sullivan in view of Joao based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
As per claim 8, wherein chat message is associated with an opportunity to place a wager in association with the play of the wagering game. (Combination of Sullivan and Joao, wherein Joao discloses chat messages associated with betting opportunities) (Joao 0075)
As per claim 9, wherein the chat message is associated with a wager identifier. (Combination of Sullivan and Joao, wherein Joao discloses chat messages associated with wager identifier) (Joao 0075)
As per claim 10, wherein the wager is independent of any wager placed in association with the streaming device. (Combination of Sullivan and Joao, wherein Joao discloses players can place individual wagers independent of the of other placed wagers) (Joao 0075)
As per claims 11, wherein the chat data associated with the chat message is automatically generated responsive to a chat message generation event. (Combination of Sullivan in view of Joao as applied above wherein players transmit chat messages and the host system encodes and transmits them to the client) (Sullivan 0067 – 0071)
Independent claim(s) 15 is/are made obvious by the combination of Sullivan, Azuolas and Joao based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 12, 13, 14 is/are made obvious by the combination of Sullivan, Azuolas and Joao based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 3, 5, 6 which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 16 - 20 is/are made obvious by the combination of Sullivan, Azuolas and Joao based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 2-6 which are similar in claim scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that Azuolas is non-analogous prior art and thus cannot form the basis of the rejection” (Remarks page 6). Applicant states further “Regarding the first part of this test, the claimed invention pertains to interactions between users at a streaming device streaming a play of a wagering game and at client devices viewing the stream of the play of the wagering game. Thus, the field of endeavor of the claimed invention is a gameplay streaming environment or even more broadly wagering game streaming. On the other hand, Azuolas pertains to viewing of integrated broadcast commentary of live events. Thus, the field of endeavor for Azuolas is broadcasting of live events.
Accordingly, since Azuolas falls within the broadcasting of live events field of endeavor and the claimed invention pertains to a wagering game streaming field of endeavor, Azuolas and the claimed invention clearly do not reside in the same field of endeavor under MPEP §2141.01(a).” (Remarks Page 6)
“Regarding the second part of this test, it is necessary to examine whether a reference is still reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Clay, 966 F 2d 656,568 (Fed Cir. 1992). A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem. Moreover, it is necessary to determine whether an inventor would reasonably be motivated to go to the field in which the examiner found the reference, in order to solve the problem confronting the inventor. In re Oetiker, 977 F. 2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
As described in the specification, the instant application addresses the need for interaction opportunities for viewers of a live stream of a wagering game. Azuolas, on the other hand, addresses certain problems with enabling broadcasters to provide video-based commentary on a live event (such as a sporting event), integrating the commentary with feeds of the live event without latency, and delivering synchronized event information (like real-time scores) to viewers.
As the instant application pertains to an improvement in interaction opportunities for viewers of a live stream of a wagering game and as Azuolas pertains to an improvement in broadcasting commentary on live events, one of ordinary skill in the art would not logically have commended the attention of Azuolas in considering the above-described problem addressed in the present application.” (Remarks page 6 – 7)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the first part of the test, the Examiner notes that Azuolas is indeed analogous based on the fact that Azoulas pertains to the broadcasting or streaming of game play events. Azuolas further discloses the that the broadcasted or streamed events may be games (Azuolas 0012) and even video games (Azuolas 0018). Thus as can be seen, Azuolas is in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding the second part of the test, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicants alleged differences and notes that one would indeed look to Azuolas as Azuolas teaches in paragraph 0006 of the specification “With these various technological challenges in mind, the present disclosure relates generally to inventive systems, apparatus, and methods for facilitating one or more broadcasters to create/provide video and/or audio (also referred to herein as a “broadcast”) and allow one or more viewers to consume the video and/or audio, either by receiving a copy of a live stream representing the video and/or audio essentially in real-time as created/provided by a given broadcaster, or by retrieving and playing a recording of the live stream at a later time. In the context of essentially real-time viewing of live streams, in various implementations the inventive systems, apparatus and methods discussed in detail herein address one or more technological problems relating to viewer latency, synchronization amongst different numbers of viewers, and providing scalable and flexible access to live streams to different classes/types of viewers and/or with different qualities of service.” (Azuolas 0006). As can be seen, Azuolas does address similar improvements to a streaming platform as does the instant claimed invention. The Examiner further notes that in paragraphs 0020 and 0021 of the Applicant’s instant invention, the specification specifically addresses solutions to problems such as delays or latencies encountered when live streaming.
Applicant further states with regards to claim 1 and 7:
“Assuming, arguendo, that Azuolas is somehow considered to be analogous prior art, Applicant respectfully submits that Azuolas does not cure the Office's acknowledged deficiencies that Sullivan fails to disclose "separately receive, from the streaming device, chat data associated with a chat message originating with the streaming device," (Office Action, p. 3).” (Remarks page 7)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and first notes that the claims do not detail in any way “how” or in what fashion the chat data is received separately from the streaming device. The Examiner further notes that Azuolas discloses a broadcasting device that transmits at least two discrete (i.e. separate) forms of data such the audio/video feed of the live event and the broadcasters video based commentary and then transmits this integrated live event comprising two separate forms of data to a media server which then copies and forwards it along to the client devices. “In view of the foregoing, to achieve appropriate synchronization of the broadcaster's video-based commentary and the audio/video of the live event in one inventive implementation, each broadcaster's client device first ingests a copy of an audio/video feed of the live event and displays the live event to the broadcaster on their client device based on the audio/video feed. As the broadcaster watches the displayed video of the live event on their client device, they provide their video-based commentary based on the video of the live event as displayed on their device. The broadcaster's client device creates a composite outgoing stream of the audio/video feed of the live event and the broadcaster's video-based commentary (an “integrated live event and commentary stream”), and transmits this integrated live event and commentary stream to a media server.” (Azuolas 0240). Thus Azuolas does indeed disclose the claimed limitation of receiving separately from a streamer or a broadcaster the data of a live event and a chat data (i.e. commentary) which is them copied and forwarded along to client devices. The same reasoning applies to Applicant’s arguments directed towards claims 7.
Applicant further argues with respect to claim 7 that “While Joao was relied upon for a wagering game, Joao does not cure these deficiencies of Sullivan because while Joao includes a content provider computer that transmits broadcast content to a central processing computer (see paragraphs [0033] and [0035]) and a social network computer that facilitates a social networking group (see paragraph [0041]), the social networking computer of Joao does not appear to transmit chat data to the central processing computer of Joao. As such, the central processing computer of Joao does not appear to encode the received broadcast content and any chat data or to transmit such encoded data to the content provider computer or the social network computer. Put differently, Joao lacks a computer (distinct from a first device and a second device) that receives broadcast content from the first device and chat data from the second device, encodes such data, and transmits the encoded data to the first or second device.” The Examiner notes that Joao discloses the use of a chat room that is also use to watch a live stream of a broadcasted video event such as a sporting event (Joao 0092) wherein multiple different users are able to use the same chatroom to send chat messages to each other while utilizing the same chat room to watch the streamed live video event/game etc. Thus the chat room computer of Joao providing both the chatroom and the associated received live stream game event would indeed receive both the live streamed game, various chat messages from client devices and also would be transmitting the live game and received chat messages to client devices, in a synchronized manner as messages are received. As stated in the previous office action, It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Sullivan in view of Joao in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to specify that the live streamed game is a wagering game, as this would provide a way for users to stay engaged in the live streamed game as they would have a vested interest in seeing how their bet was resolved based upon the results of the game. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
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 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
1/22/2026 /KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715