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 .
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 as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a live platform server /electronic gaming machine (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-11, and a method of operating a live streaming platform server (i.e., a process) in claims 12-20
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. 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 occurring at the streaming device,
communicate, to a plurality of independently operating client devices, data associated with a live stream that is at least partially based on the data communicated from the streaming device and comprises the play of the wagering game occurring at the streaming device, and
responsive to a receipt of data associated with a handpay lockup event occurring in association with the play of the wagering game occurring at the streaming device, for each of the plurality of independently operating client devices associated with a gaming establishment that are displaying the live stream;
cause that client device to enter a locked up operational state during which that client device ceases displaying any subsequent plays of the wagering game occurring at the streaming device that are part of the live stream,
responsive to a user of that client device being associated with a handpay lockup event clearing feature, enable an exit from the locked up operational state independent of any gaming establishment personnel associated with maintaining that client device, clearing any handpay lockup event at that client device, wherein that client device comprises one of an electronic gaming machine and a slot machine interface board supported by a housing of the electronic gaming machine , and
responsive to the user of that client device not being associated with any handpay lockup event clearing features, maintain the locked up operational state until gaming establishment personnel associated with maintaining that client device clears a handpay lockup event at that client device.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions involving agreements in the form of legal obligations and business relations as well as managing personal behavior including interactions between people involving social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of a game interface and game rules for clearing handpay lockup events involving a user and/or gaming establishment personnel.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on a processor, a memory device, a streaming device, client devices (including an electronic gaming machine or a slot machine interface board) and a housing, it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other network connected devices such as generic computers, smart phones, game consoles, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including a processor, a memory device, a streaming device, client devices (including an electronic gaming machine or a slot machine interface board) and a housing, amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0002], [0022], [0024], [0087], [0153], [0159]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0002], [0022], [0024], [0087], [0153], [0159]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-20 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of a processor, a memory device, a display, an interface, a streaming device, client device(s) (including an electronic gaming machine(s) or a slot machine interface board(s)) and a housing as respectively presented that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B for the reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 and further present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and therefore are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 26th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on pages 8-10 of the Applicant’s above dated response the applicant presents the following arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more including:
i) That the Applicant reiterates previously presented remarks submitted with previously filed responses (Applicant Remark’s Page 9);
ii) That the claimed invention should not fall under the enumerated grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” because “because the clearing of handpay lockup events by a user is not an explicitly stated subgrouping of these certain methods and instead that the court’s decision in In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V, "a defined set of steps" can fall outside of a certain "method of organizing human activity" and the instructions of representative independent Claim 1 define steps for enabling a clearing of a handpay lockup event independent of any personnel associated with maintaining a client device. Such steps are not personal behavior or relationships, social activity, or rules for humans to interact (Applicant Remark’s Pages 9-10);
iii) That that the Office's position that "the process of clearing a hand pay lock up event is described as a known and conventional event by the Applicants specification" is not in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(d) because the Applicant’s specification is proposed as not supporting the same and the office has provided no references to support such consistent with the court’s decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Applicant Remark’s Page 10); and
iv) That the invention of amended claim 1, when considered as a whole, provides a practical application based on improving technology to reduce the amount of time required to clear handpay lock up events on gaming machines to enable players to clear handpay events on their own based on the qualification of the user wherein the same provides compounding advantages in gaming environments with a plurality of independently operating client devices (Applicant Remark’s Pages 10-11).
Responsive to the preceding Applicant arguments summarized herein above, the following is respectfully noted in corresponding order and enumeration as presented above:
i.a) Applicant remarks previously submitted in the responses are respectfully noted as being respectively addressed previously in the office action immediately following the Applicant’s response and will similarly not be re-iterated herein for the sake of brevity;
ii.a) The claimed invention, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions involving agreements in the form of legal obligations and business relations as well as managing personal behavior including interactions between people involving social activities and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth the interactions involving one or more parties in the context of a game interface and game rules for clearing handpay lockup events involving a user and/or gaming establishment personnel that is analogous to inventions that the courts have placed under this enumerated grouping of abstract idea1. The court’s decision in In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V, recognized claimed inventions directed to game rules as being ineligible consistent with referenced decisions in In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and Planet Bingo, LLC v VKGS LLC, 576 Fed. Appx. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) but does not speak to supporting the eligibility of the claimed invention as proposed
iii.a) The process of clearing a hand pay lock up event is described as a known and conventional event by the Applicants specification (Applicant’s specification Paragraph [0018]), while the automation of manual task through use of a computer is not sufficient to support an unconventional improvement in technology2. The Applicant’s proposition that the claimed a hand pay lockup and the clearing of the same is not conventional element, is respectfully a) inconsistent with the description of this element in the applicant’s specification per the requirements of the same as set forth by requirements of 37 CFR 1.71 and b) additionally inconsistent with the Applicant’s submitted prior art of record including Acres (US 6,312,333) wherein the process of implementing and clearing handpay lockups is described in the background context as a requirement for meeting IRS regulation in gaming environments. Accordingly, the rejection relies upon the Applicant’s characterizations of these elements in their specification and submitted prior art disclosure in supporting the conclusion of conventionality and as such meets the requirements of Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) as argued. And
iv.a) The Applicant proposed improvement in technology of enabling players to clear handpay lock ups when they are qualified even when considered in the context of the claimed invention as a whole does not improve the functionality of the underlying computer technology as described by MPEP 2106.05(a) because the same reflects an improvement in game rules themselves that are merely performed on a computer, utilizing the same merely as a tool as described in MPEP 2106.05(f) that is not reflective of an improvement in technology and further because this proposed improvement of enabling players who are qualified(with complete records) to clear handpays across a plurality of gaming devices was a known and conventional practice in Applicant admitted prior art (See Acres US 6,312,333; Figures 1, 3) and thus was not an unconventional improvement.
Accordingly, the Applicant’s arguments and disclosure, respectfully do not support an improvement in technology consistent with the requirements of MPEP § 2106.05(a) & 2106.04(d)(1).
In view of the preceding the rejection of record is respectfully maintained as presented herein above.
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 ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016) describing a new set of rules for conducting a wagering game as a "fundamental economic practice"
2 Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality…Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential) (MPEP 2106.05(a) Sub I)
Prosecution Insights