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, 10 and 12 are amended.
Claims 4 , 11 and 15 are cancelled.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 10, 12-14 and 16-20 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 – 3, 5 – 10, 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 10 are drawn to a system.
Claims 12-14 and 16-20 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 – 3, 5 – 10 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 (original): 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:
receive, from a streaming device, data associated with a play of a wagering game being displayed in association with the streaming device,
communicate, to a client device associated with an identified user, data associated with a live stream that is at least partially based on the data communicated from the streaming device,
during a first period of time, occurring after the first period of time and following a conclusion of the live stream, responsive to a receipt of data associated with a first interaction event of the identified user occurring in association with the live stream displayed by the client device at a first location, determine a first benefit, and
during a second, different period of time, responsive to a receipt of data associated with a second interaction event of the identified user occurring, at the first location, determine a second benefit wherein the second interaction event of the identified user occurs independent of any content displayed in association with any live stream..
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 fundamental economic principles or practices, and managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards the determination of first and second benefits for a user based upon events that occur within a live stream of a wagering game and independent of the live stream. This falls under the grouping of managing interactions between people, i.e., determination of benefits according to game rules of a 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): processors, memory, servers, gaming machines and 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 computer processors, memory, servers, gaming machines and 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, Fulk (US 2021/0358271) establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0079] Those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that the systems and methods described herein may be a standalone system, gaming device, gaming machine or incorporated in an existing gaming system or machine. The gaming machine of the invention may include various computer and network related software and hardware, such as programs, operating systems, memory storage devices, data input/output devices, data processors, servers with links to data communication systems, wireless or otherwise, and data transceiving terminals. It should also be understood that any method steps discussed herein, such as for example, steps involving the receiving or displaying of data, may further include or involve the transmission, receipt and processing of data through conventional hardware and/or software technology to effectuate the steps as described herein. Those skilled in the art will further appreciate that the precise types of software and hardware used are not vital to the full implementation of the methods of the invention so long as players and operators thereof are provided with useful access thereto, either through a mobile device, gaming platform, or other computing platform via a local network or global telecommunication network.
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 1 – 3, 5 – 10, 12-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Baker et al (US 2020/0302734) in view of Khanna (US 9,597,596).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
As per claim 1, Baker discloses:
a processor; and (Baker discloses a computer comprising a processor and memory) (Baker 0066, 0067, 0075, 0076)
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (Baker discloses a computer comprising a processor and memory) (Baker 0066, 0067, 0075, 0076)
receive, from a streaming device, data associated with a play of a wagering game being displayed in association with the streaming device, (Baker discloses an EGM that streams data associated with the play of a displayed wagering game to a streaming platform) (Baker 0015)
communicate, to a client device associated with an identified user, data associated with a live stream that is at least partially based on the data communicated from the streaming device, (Baker discloses the streaming platform communicating the live streamed wagering game to a client device) (Baker 0015, 0052)
during a first period of time, responsive to a receipt of data associated with a first interaction event of the identified user occurring in association with the live stream displayed by the client device at a first location, determine a first benefit, and (Baker discloses a viewer of the livestream at a remote location being awarded a benefit for making a bets (i.e. interaction event) on the wagering game) (Baker 0048)
Baker fails to disclose:
during a second, different period of time occurring after the first period of time and following a conclusion of the live stream, responsive to a receipt of data associated with a second interaction event of the identified user occurring at the first location, determine a second benefit, wherein the second interaction event of the identified user occurs independent of any content displayed in association with any live stream.
However in a similar field of endeavor, Khanna discloses the use of a location based game that allows a user to gain multiple discrete incentives such as achievements by completing location based actions with different games wherein the games are independent of one another and in sequence with one another (i.e. after one is completed). Khanna teaches:
“FIG. 8 is a flowchart illustrating an example method 800 of generating and notifying a user of an opportunity to earn an umbrella achievement. In various embodiments, the method 800 may be implemented by the integration module 301 (FIG. 3).
“ At operation 802, the correspondence module 314 detects an association between a first location-based achievement and a first game.
At operation 804, the correspondence module 314 detects an association between a second-location-based action and a second game.
At operation 806, the correspondence module 314 generates a third-location based achievement as an umbrella achievement. In various embodiments, the umbrella achievement may be earned by a user by completing the first location-based achievement and the second location-based achievement.
Thus, users may be incentivized to complete actions with respect to multiple games of the game networking system to earn one or more umbrella achievements associated with completing game-specific actions in each of at least two different games.” (Khanna 14:1 -24)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Baker in view of Khanna to use a known technique to modify similar games in the same way by providing awards or incentives to users based upon playing different games at a location. This would enable the game administrator to drive traffic to certain locations in hopes of increasing foot traffic and sales at a particular location.
As per claim 2, Baker discloses: wherein the streaming device comprises any of an electronic gaming machine and a slot machine interface board.(Baker 0019, 0020)
As per claim 3, Baker discloses: wherein the client device comprises any of an electronic gaming machine, and a personal gaming device. (Baker 0063, 0064)
As per claim 5, Baker discloses: wherein the first location comprises a gaming establishment. (Baker discloses the EGM being in a location of the game establishment) (Baker 0020)
As per claim 6, Baker discloses: wherein the occurrence of the first interaction event comprises a placement of a wager on the play of the wagering game. (Baker discloses a viewer may make back bet wager) (Baker 0048, 0055)
As per claim 7, Baker discloses: wherein the occurrence of the second interaction event comprises a placement of another wager on another play of another wagering game occurring at the first location. (Baker discloses a viewer may make multiple back bet wager on various live streamed games) (Baker 0048, 0055)
As per claim 8, Baker discloses: wherein the other play of the other wagering game occurs independent of the client device. (Baker discloses the livestreamed wagering game occurring independent of the client devices) (Baker 0052)
As per claim 9, Baker discloses: wherein the occurrence of the second interaction event comprises a non-wagering activity occurring at the first location. (Baker discloses a viewer may be rewarded for viewing a live stream (i.e. interaction event of non-wagering activity)
As per claim 10, Baker discloses:
a processor; and (Baker discloses a computer comprising a processor and memory) (Baker 0066, 0067, 0075, 0076)
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (Baker discloses a computer comprising a processor and memory) (Baker 0066, 0067, 0075, 0076)
during a first period of time, responsive to a receipt of data associated with a first wagering activity of an identified user occurring in association with a live stream displayed by a client device at a gaming establishment, determine a first benefit, (Baker discloses a viewer of the livestream at a remote location being awarded a benefit (i.e. profit from winning a bet) for making a bets (i.e. interaction event) on the wagering game) (Baker 0048)
during a second, different period of time, ….responsive to a receipt of data associated with a second wagering activity of the identified user occurring at the client device determine a second benefit, and ….(Baker discloses the viewer being awarded a benefit in response to the how many bets they place or how much they watch) (Baker 0048)
during the second, different period of time, …responsive to a receipt of data associated with a non-wagering activity of the identified user, …determine a third benefit. (Baker discloses the viewer being awarded a benefit in response to the how many gifts they give to streamers) (Baker 0048)
Baker fails to disclose specifically regarding the time periods that they are “occurring after the first period of time and following a conclusion of the live stream…wherein the second wagering activity of the identified user occurs independent of any content displayed in association with any live stream” or “occurring after the first period of time and following the conclusion of the live stream,… wherein the non-wagering activity of the identified user occurs independent of any content displayed in association with any live stream.”
However in a similar field of endeavor, Khanna discloses the use of a location based game that allows a user to gain multiple discrete incentives such as achievements by completing location based actions with different games wherein the games are independent of one another and in sequence with one another (i.e. after one is completed). Khanna teaches:
“FIG. 8 is a flowchart illustrating an example method 800 of generating and notifying a user of an opportunity to earn an umbrella achievement. In various embodiments, the method 800 may be implemented by the integration module 301 (FIG. 3).
“ At operation 802, the correspondence module 314 detects an association between a first location-based achievement and a first game.
At operation 804, the correspondence module 314 detects an association between a second-location-based action and a second game.
At operation 806, the correspondence module 314 generates a third-location based achievement as an umbrella achievement. In various embodiments, the umbrella achievement may be earned by a user by completing the first location-based achievement and the second location-based achievement.
Thus, users may be incentivized to complete actions with respect to multiple games of the game networking system to earn one or more umbrella achievements associated with completing game-specific actions in each of at least two different games.” (Khanna 14:1 -24)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Baker in view of Khanna to use a known technique to modify similar games in the same way by providing awards or incentives to users based upon playing different games (i.e. wagering or non-wagering games) at a location. This would enable the game administrator to drive traffic to certain locations in hopes of increasing foot traffic and sales at a particular location.
Independent claim(s) 12 is/are obvious by Baker and Khanna based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 13, 14 and 16-20 is/are obvious by Baker and Khanna based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 2,3 5-9, which are similar in claim scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 10, 12-14 and 16-20 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 in view of Khanna.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues “Specifically, the particular manner in which the live streaming platform server of representative independent Claim 1 operates provides a solution to the recognized problem with prior attempts that failed to track activities occurring in association with an identified user and the location of such activities. That is, certain prior attempts to offer streaming services encountered a technical problem in that such prior attempts provided one or more benefits independent of a user's activity and the location of such activities and thus failed to incentivize certain actions by associating one or more benefits with certain actions occurring at certain locations.” (Remarks page 8). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with respect to the Applicant’s alleged “technical problem” that is being solved. The failure to incentivize certain actions that occur at certain locations” appears to be more a business problem or an accounting problem as opposed to solving a technical problem. The Examiner is not persuaded.
Applicant further argues, “Put differently, tracking interaction events of an identified user and providing one or more benefits based on such tracking incentivizes users for certain activities in association with a live stream at a certain location and subsequent activities independent of the live stream at that same location (e.g., by providing a benefit in response to certain of a user's actions at a certain location) and provides a customized user experience both in and outside of the streaming environment.” (Remarks page 8). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasoning as above and further notes that as the Applicant has pointed the tracking of a user’s game activities and providing benefits based upon such activities “provides a customized user experience both in and outside of the streaming environment” which is more akin to a business problem wherein the game administrator is attempting to make the user gaming experience more tailored and specific to the user and thus affecting the user’s game experience rather than an improving of a “technical problem” or the improving of the functioning of a computer or technology.
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
3/18/2026
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715