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 Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 16 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 13 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3 – 12 and 14 - 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 – 12 and 14 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that claims 1, 3 – 12 and 14 - 20 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 - 9 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 (currently amended): 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:
during a first period of time:
receive, from a streaming device, data associated with a play of a wagering game being displayed in association with the streaming device during the first period of time, and
communicate, to a client device separate from the streaming device and at least partially based on the data received from the streaming device, a live stream comprising at least the play of the wagering game, and
during a second, subsequent period of time after a completion of the play of the wagering game and responsive to a receipt, from the client device, of data associated with a review input occurring distinct from the streaming device, communicate, to the client device, data associated with a review of the play of the wagering game previously displayed in association with the streaming device, wherein the data associated with the review of the play of the wagering game comprises at least one of data associated with a review of a wager placed from the client device on the play of the wagering game displayed in association with the streaming device during the first period of time and data associated with a review of any award won at the client device on the play of the wagering game displayed in association with the streaming device during the first period of time.
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 managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are making a record of a transaction and making it available for further review and/or dispute at a subsequent time.
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): processor, memory, streaming and client devices and servers.
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 processor, memory, streaming and client devices and servers. 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, Applicants own specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[00165] In certain embodiments, the one or more servers enable web-based game play using a personal gaming device only if the personal gaming device satisfies one or more jurisdictional requirements. In one embodiment, the one or more servers enable web-based game play using the personal gaming device only if the personal gaming device is located within a designated geographic area (such as within certain state or county lines). In this embodiment, the geolocation module of the personal gaming device determines the location of the personal gaming device and sends the location to the one or more servers, which determine whether the personal gaming device is located within the designated geographic area. In various embodiments, the one or more servers enable non-monetary wager-based game play if the personal gaming device is located outside of the designated geographic area.
[00166] In various embodiments, the system includes a streaming device and/or a client device configured to communicate with a personal gaming device—such as a smartphone, a tablet computer, a desktop computer, or a laptop computer—to enable tethered mobile game play using the personal gaming device. Generally, in these embodiments, the streaming device and/or the client device establishes communication with the personal gaming device and enables the user to play games on the streaming device and/or the client device remotely via the personal gaming device. In certain embodiments, the system includes a geo-fence system that enables tethered game play within a particular geographic area but not outside of that geographic area.
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(s) 1 and 3 – 4, 6 – 9, 12, 14– 15 and 17 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al (US 2020/0302734) in view of Azuolas et al (US 2020/0162796).
As per claim 1,
a processor; and (Baker Fig 4)
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (Baker Fig 4)
during a first period of time:
receive, from a streaming device, data associated with a play of a wagering game being displayed in association with the streaming device during the first period of time, and (Baker discloses a streaming platform receiving data associated with associated with a play of a wagering game at a first period of time from a wagering game device (i.e. streaming device) (Baker 0019, 0020, 0033 – 0036)
communicate, to a client device separate from the streaming device and at least partially based on the data received from the streaming device, a live stream comprising at least the play of the wagering game, and (Baker discloses the transmitting of the live stream of the wagering game to client devices) (Baker 0019, 0020, 0033 – 0036)
The Examiner notes that Baker discloses a
…at least one of data associated with a review of a wager placed from the client device on the play of the wagering game displayed in association with the streaming device during the first period of time and data associated with any award won at the client device on the play of the wagering game displayed in association with the streaming device during the first period of time. (Baker discloses that a remote player may make a backbet upon the wagering game that is being streamed by the EGM and streaming platform, wherein that remote players wagering activity and awards are incorporated into the live stream that is being streamed to the remote players) (Baker 0054, 0055, 0057, 0058 – 0059).
Baker fails to specifically disclose:
during a second, subsequent period of time after a completion of the play of the wagering game and responsive to a receipt, from the client device, of data associated with a review input occurring distinct from the streaming device, communicate, to the client device, data associated with a review of the play of the wagering game previously displayed in association with the streaming device, wherein the data associated with the review of the play of the wagering game comprises… a review of…
However in a similar field of endeavor wherein content is being live streamed to remote viewers, Azuolas discloses a system that enables remote players can request a replay of a live stream that was previously streamed at a previous period wherein the live stream includes content such as chat messages , system related messages and event information updates that occurred in association with the live stream, wherein the chat messages are messages from remote viewers (Azuolas 0008, 0009, 0014, 0083).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Baker in view of Azuolas to use a known technique to improve similar systems in the same way by providing a mechanism for a user watching and participating in a live stream of a wagering game to, at a second period of time after the livestream, to make a client request that enables the remote viewer to be able to review the live stream that was previously streamed and also data association with actions such as wagers or chat messages received from remote viewers included in the livestream replay. This would enable remote viewers to verify certain events actually occurred in case they were distracted and missed them.
As per claim 3, wherein the data associated with the review of the play of the wagering game further comprises a video of at least part of the play of the wagering game. (Combination of Baker in view of Azuolas as applied above, wherein Azuolas discloses a system that enables remote players can request a replay of a live stream that was previously streamed at a previous period wherein the live stream includes content such as chat messages , system related messages and event information updates that occurred in association with the live stream, wherein the chat messages are messages from remote viewers (Azuolas 0008, 0009, 0014, 0083).
As per claim 4, wherein the video comprises at least one of a video of the play of the wagering game displayed in association with the streaming device during the first period of time and a video of the play of the wagering game displayed in association with the client device during the first period of time. (Combination of Baker in view of Azuolas as applied above, wherein Azuolas discloses a system that enables remote players can request a replay of a live stream that was previously streamed at a previous period wherein the live stream includes content such as chat messages , system related messages and event information updates that occurred in association with the live stream, wherein the chat messages are messages from remote viewers (Azuolas 0008, 0009, 0014, 0083). Baker discloses the live stream comprising the streamed wagering game and additionally the game that remote viewer engages in, that of placing backbets upon the wagering game of the live streamed game.) (Baker 0058)
As per claim 6, wherein the data associated with the review input is received after the client device displays at least one prompt to identify the play of the wagering game from a plurality of plays of the wagering game of the live stream. (Combination of Baker and Azuolas, wherein Azuolas provides an interface that allows a player to review game results after a plurality of plays of a wagering game) (Azuolas 0008, 0009, 0014, 0083)
As per claim 7, wherein the streaming device comprises any of an electronic gaming machine and a slot machine interface board. (Baker 0020).
As per claim 8, wherein the client device comprises any of an electronic gaming machine, a slot machine interface board, and a personal gaming device. (Baker 0020).
As per claim 9, wherein the play of the wagering game is part of a gaming session associated with the live stream and the second, subsequent period of time occurs after a conclusion of the gaming session. (Combination of Baker and Azuolas, wherein Azuolas discloses the communication of a replay (i.e. review of the a live stream of content) to the client device in a stream at a second time period at the conclusion of the of an initial livestream) (Azuolas 0008, 0009, 0014, 0083).
Independent claim(s) 12 is/are made obvious by the combination of Baker and Azuolas based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 14-15, 17-20 is/are made obvious by the combination Baker and Azuolas based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 3-4 and 6-9, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al (US 2020/0302734) in view of Azuolas et al (US 2020/0162796) in view of Chun et al (US2015/0279155).
As per claim 5, Baker and Azuolas fail to teach:
wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor after communicating, to the client device, the data associated with the review of the play of the wagering game, cause the processor to enable the client device to dispute at least one of a-the wager placed from the client device on the play of the wagering game displayed in association with the streaming device during the first period of time and any award won at the client device on the play of the wagering game displayed in association with the streaming device during the first period of time.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Chun teaches a game history server that enables player of client device to dispute an outcome of a wagering game that comprises a wager and an award by recreating game events based upon stored game states (Chun 0181).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Baker and Azuolas in view of Chun to use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way by utilizing a mechanism to allow client players to dispute game outcome of a wagering game. This would be beneficial as it would provide game players peace of mind knowing that all game results can be disputed and verified to ensure fair play.
As per claim 10,
a processor; and (Baker Fig 4)
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (Baker Fig 4)
receive, from a streaming device, data associated with a play of a wagering game being displayed in association with the streaming device, (Baker discloses a streaming platform receiving data associated with associated with a play of a wagering game at a first period of time from a wagering game device (i.e. streaming device) (Baker 0019, 0020, 0033 – 0036)
communicate, to a client device separate from the streaming device and at least partially based on the data received from the streaming device, a live stream comprising at least the play of the wagering game, and (Baker discloses the transmitting of the live stream of the wagering game to client devices) (Baker 0019, 0020, 0033 – 0036)
Baker fails to specifically disclose:
responsive to an occurrence of a recollection event after a completion of the play of the wagering game, communicate, to the client device, data that results in a display, by the client device, of a review of the play of the wagering game previously displayed in association with the streaming device and then enables a receipt, by the client device, of a dispute of the play of the wagering game, the receipt of the dispute occurring distinct from the streaming device, wherein the review of the play of the wagering game comprises at least one of a review of a wager placed from the client device on the play of the wagering game, and a review of any award won at the client device on the play of the wagering game.
However in a similar field of endeavor wherein content is being live streamed to remote viewers, Azuolas discloses a system that enables remote players can request a replay of a live stream that was previously streamed at a previous period wherein the live stream includes content such as chat messages , system related messages and event information updates that occurred in association with the live stream, wherein the chat messages are messages from remote viewers (Azuolas 0008, 0009, 0014, 0083).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Baker in view of Azuolas to use a known technique to improve similar systems in the same way by providing a mechanism for a user watching and participating in a live stream of a wagering game to, at a second period of time after the livestream, to make a client request that enables the remote viewer to be able to review the live stream that was previously streamed and also data association with actions such as wagers or chat messages received from remote viewers included in the livestream replay. This would enable remote viewers to verify certain events actually occurred in case they were distracted and missed them.
In a similar field of endeavor, Chun teaches a game history server that enables player of client device to dispute an outcome of a wagering game that comprises a wager and an award by recreating game events based upon stored game states (Chun 0181).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Baker and Azuolas in view of Chun to use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way by utilizing a mechanism to allow client players to dispute game outcome of a wagering game. This would be beneficial as it would provide game players peace of mind knowing that all game results can be disputed and verified to ensure fair play.
As per claim 11, wherein the review of the play of the wagering game further comprises at least one of a review of video of at least part of the play of the wagering game displayed in association with the streaming device and a review of video of at least part of the play of the wagering game displayed in association with the client device. (Combination of Baker in view of Azuolas as applied above, wherein Azuolas discloses a system that enables remote players can request a replay of a live stream that was previously streamed at a previous period wherein the live stream includes content such as chat messages , system related messages and event information updates that occurred in association with the live stream, wherein the chat messages are messages from remote viewers (Azuolas 0008, 0009, 0014, 0083). Baker discloses the live stream comprising the streamed wagering game and additionally the game that remote viewer engages in, that of placing backbets upon the wagering game of the live streamed game.) (Baker 0058)
Dependent claim(s) 16 is/are made obvious by the combination of Baker, Azuolas and Chun based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 5, which are similar in claim scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3 – 12 and 14 - 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.
Conclusion
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
3/27/2026
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights