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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 12 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative presents arguments to address the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101. Specifically, the Applicant’s representative are not directed to managing a wagering game and/or mental processes but to a specific technological process for operating a live streaming platform server that coordinates the operational state of multiple distinct devices in a live streaming environment through normal-mode wagering and demonstration mode wagering (see Remarks, pg. 10-12). For instance, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because it generates live stream content based on multiple forms of data that include “data associated with the streaming device entering a demonstration mode” that is not simply “manage” wagers but as an intermediary that receives data from a streaming device to appropriately tailor live stream content and operational commands to a client device. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided below.
With respect to the grouping of abstract ideas, the Applicant’s representative appears to assert that the claims are not directed to steps for managing a wager but to a streaming device operating in a demonstration mode or a non-demonstration mode of the game which is not directed to managing a wagering game. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recites steps and/or instructions for managing a wager such as a rule and/or instruction to pay out an award in a normal mode and not pay out the award in a demonstration mode. As determining whether to pay out an award of the outcome of the wagering game is construed as being a rule and/or instruction of the wagering game, the claims are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity which includes rules and/or instructions for managing a wagering game.
With respect to the integration into a practical application, the Applicant’s representatives argues that the claims are directed to a specific technological process for operating a live streaming platform server through a normal-mode wagering and a demonstration mode wagering. However, as noted above, rules and/or instructions for managing a wagering game including rules for a normal-mode and a demonstration mode are found to be within the realm of the abstract idea and are therefore not an indication of integration into a practical application. Similarly, the addition limitations which recite “data associated with the streaming device entering a demonstration mode” is directed to data-gathering and/or invoking a computer (e.g., a streaming device) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., receipt of “data associated with entering a demonstration mode) and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (e.g., a live streaming platform) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). It follows that the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive that the claims recite additional limitations that integrate the claim into a practical application. For at least these reasons, the rejection has been maintained below.
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 grouping of abstract without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, recites a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
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 client device, data associated with a commitment of a plurality of wagers to be placed on a plurality of future plays of a wagering game to be displayed by a display device supported by a housing of a streaming device, -certain method of organizing human activity;
responsive to a receipt, from the steaming device, of first data associated with the plurality of plays of the wagering game; - certain method of organizing human activity;
construct a first live stream at least partially based on the first data, wherein an award is available to be provided at the client device based on the plurality of plays of the wagering game, - certain method of organizing human activity; and
communicate, to the client device, data associated with the first constructed live stream, and
responsive to a receipt, from the streaming device and separate from the client device, of data associated with the streaming device entering a demonstration mode and a determination that at least one wager of the plurality of wagers to be placed remains unplaced; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
modify the commitment associated with the at least one unplaced wager while the streaming device is operating in the demonstration mode, and -certain method of organizing human activity;
communicate, to the client device, data associated with a command that causes a change in operation of the client device comprising disabling any awards being provided at the client device based on any plays of the wagering game while the streaming device is operating in the demonstration mode, and -certain method of organizing human activity;
responsive to a receipt, from the streaming device operating in the demonstration mode, of second data associated with a play of the wagering game displayed by the display device supported by the housing of the streaming device: -certain method of organizing human activity;
construct a second live stream at least partially based on the second data, wherein no award is available to provided at the client device based on the play of the wagering game, -certain method of organizing human activity; and
communicate, to the client device, data associated with the second constructed live stream.
The limitations, as underlined above, are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity such as managing a wagering game including rules and/or instructions for a demonstration mode. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1. Some of the limitations, as indicated above, are found to recite a fundamental economic activity and/or mental processes such as managing a commitment to a plurality of wagers by performing an observation, judgment, evaluation and/or opinion to perform a rule and/or instruction to manage the commitment of the wager in a demonstration mode of the game that is capable of being performed in the human mind. It follows that the claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, is found to recite an abstract idea under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “a processor;” “a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:”, “receive, from a client device, data associated with a commitment of a plurality of wagers”, “to be displayed by a display device supported by a housing of a streaming device and to be streamed to the client device as part of a live stream” “communicate, to the client device, data associated with” “from the streaming device operating in the demonstration mode,” “displayed by the display device supported by the housing of the streaming device:” “construct a second live stream at least partially based on the second data,” and “communicate, to the client device, data associated with the second constructed live stream.” Have been found to amount to steps that invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). It follows that the additional limitations are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as: “a processor”, “a memory device”, and “a client device” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For instance, Randall (US 2007/0249420 A1) discloses that servers and client devices include processors controlled by instructions stored in memories as is well known in the art (see Randall, 0145). Moreover, the additional element of a “display device” associated with a gaming system is well-known, routine, and conventional to convey information associated with a game to a user. For instance, Vancura (US 2010/0029381 A1) discloses a conventional gaming system comprises a process, a memory device, and a display device and that servers used to implement gaming functionality is a well-known conventional gaming platform (see Vancura, Fig. 1, 0008, 0037-0040). It follows that the additional elements of the claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to independent claims 10 and 12, the independent claims recite substantially the same subject matter of independent claim 1. The analysis above has been incorporated herein and the claims are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more for substantially the same reasons as discussed above.
With respect to dependent claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20, the limitations of the claims have been reviewed and were each found to recite: i) additional limitations that recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1, instructions that invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the claims 1-20 have been found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
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 RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights