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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/18/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 12, 14-16, and 20 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity such as managing a commitment to wagers but to “modify the commitment while the streaming device is operating in a demonstration mode” which is “an improved way to modify, not manage, a commitment of wagers” (see Remarks, pg. 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Whether the claims are directed to “modify the commitment” or to “manage a commitment” of the wager, the claims are found to be directed to rules and/or instructions for managing a wagering game and/or managing a wager as the term “commitment”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to hedging and/or mitigating the risk associated with the wager amount.. For at least these reasons, the limitations are found to be directed to a certain method of reorganizing human activity under Step 2A-prong 1.
The Applicant’s representative further argues that the claims do not recite a mental process because the claimed “live streaming platform servers and methods of operating live streaming platform servers” are not capable of “communicating, to a client device, data associated with a command that causes a change in operation of the client device comprising disabling any awards being provided by the client device based on any plays of a wagering game displayed by a display device supported by a housing of a streaming device while the streaming device is operating in a demonstration mode” (see Remarks, pg. 10-11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously acknowledged, the claimed subject matter recites rules and/or instructions for managing a modification of a commitment to a wager based upon a “determination that at least a determination that at least one wager of the plurality of wagers to be placed remains unplaced” which recites an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that is capable of being performed in the human mind. For instance, a human mind is capable of receiving and processing information to modify at least one wager when a wager remains unplaced. As to the steps of “communicating, to a client device, data associated with a command”, the Examiner notes that communicating data to a client device, without any description of how a client device and the live streaming platform to command the modification of the wager recites only the idea of a solution but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). In this instance, the claims recite highly-generalized computer or computer components that are invoked merely as a tool to perform the steps of communicating information in a nascent but well-known technical gaming environment (e.g., a live streaming platform server and client device) that does not indicate an improvement to computer functionality and/or improvement to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)I-II). It follows that the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claims are not found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2).
Moreover, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter because they are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity but to modify the operation of the client device by “disabling the client device from placing certain wagers while the streaming device is operating in a demonstration mode” (see Remarks, pg. 10-11). In particular, the Applicant’s representative argues that the technical problems overcome by the claimed live streaming platform occurs when “one device (e.g., a streaming deice) is operating in a demonstration mode (e.g., a mode in which wagers cannot be placed on plays of a game displayed by the streaming device) but another device (i.e., a client device) is operating as if wagers can be placed on the plays of the game displayed in association with the streaming device, resulting in a discrepancy in expected and/or available functionality across devices in a streaming environment” (see Remarks, pg. 9-10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Managing the rules and/or instructions associated with a wager whether it be modifying the game in accordance to rules associated with the selected mode for disabling/enabling the payout of awards for the game outcome was found to be within the realm of the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity (see MPEP 2106.04(a)II-similar to mitigating settlement risk, rules for conducting a wagering game, financial instruments that are designed to protect against the risk of investing in financial instruments, placing an order based on displayed market information)). Disabling/enabling the payout of award of a wager based upon a mode of the game, without reciting the details of how the solution to the technical problem in the claim does not reflect an improvement to the functioning of the computer that integrates the claim into a practical application but to the abstract idea itself. As noted in the discussion above, the claims are directed to a series of instructions to manage a commitment to a wager when in a demonstration mode or in a normal play of the game are within the realm of the abstract idea of managing a wagering game. In particular, the claims that recite steps to modify the client device to disable any awards being provided by the client device based on any plays of the wagering game does not change and/or transform the operation of the computer but to rules of the wagering game to mitigates risk and/or hedging the legal obligations associated with the payout of the wager. For at least these reasons, the Examiner finds that “disabling the client device from placing certain wagers while the streaming device is operating in a demonstration mode” does not provide the details of how a technical solution to a problem is found but is directed to mere instructions to 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 (e.g., server/client environment manage/modify the commitment to the wager)(see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and 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 and to be streamed to the client device as part of a live stream, and -certain method of organizing human activity;
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 displayed by the display device supported by the housing of the streaming device while the streaming device is operating in the demonstration mode. -certain method of organizing human activity;
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” 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 “communicate, to the client device, data associated with a command that causes a change in operation of the client device comprising” amounts to step 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, and have been 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
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