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, 4, 7, 8, 10 -12, 15, 18 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 2, 5, 13, 16 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 therefore, 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, 3,4 6 – 15 and 17 - 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, 3,4 6 – 15 and 17 - 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, 4 and 6 - 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 occurring at and being displayed by a display device of an electronic gaming machine 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 occurring at and being displayed by the display device of the electronic gaming machine, and
during a second, subsequent period of time after a completion of the play of the wagering game:
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 that previously occurred at and was displayed by the display device of the electronic gaming machine, 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 by the display device of the electronic gaming machine 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 by the display device of the electronic gaming machine during the first period of time, and
after communicating, to the client device, the data associated with the review of the play of the wagering game, enable the client device to dispute at least one of the wager placed from the client device on the play of the wagering game that previously occurred at and was displayed by the display device of the electronic gaming machine during the first period of time and any award won at the client device on the play of the wagering game displayed by the display device of the electronic gaming machine 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, display of an electronic gaming machine 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:
[0026] In certain embodiments, the streaming device and/or the client device comprises an electronic gaming machine (“EGM”) including, but not limited to, a slot machine, a video poker machine, a video lottery terminal, a terminal associated with an electronic table game, a terminal associated with a live table game, a video keno machine, a video bingo, and/or a sports betting terminal (that offers wagering games and/or sports betting opportunities). In certain such embodiments, the EGM operating as the streaming device interacts with the live streaming platform to facilitate the live streaming system of the present disclosure as well as foster any interactions between a user of the EGM and/or one or more viewers. In these embodiments, the EGM communicates data regarding one or more aspects of a gaming session to one or more components of the live streaming platform which operate to publish content to zero, one or more client devices. For example, as seen in Fig. 1A, the system employs an EGM 102 as a streaming device that includes or is otherwise associated with a live streaming platform manager 104 that interacts with the live streaming platform 106 to enable a live stream of one or more events occurring in association with the streaming EGM and/or interactions between the streaming EGM and one or more client devices 108a, 108b, 108c.
[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 – 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 Brosnan et al (US 2009/0036190) 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 occurring at and by a display device of an electronic gaming machine 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 occurring at and being displayed by the display device of the electronic game machine, 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 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 occurred at and was displayed by the display device of the electronic gaming machine, wherein the data associated with the review of the play of the wagering game comprises… a review of…
after communicating, to the client device, the data associated with the review of the play of the wagering game, enable the client device to dispute at least one of the wager placed from the client device on the play of the wagering game that previously occurred at and was displayed by the display device of the electronic gaming machine during the first period of time and any award won at the client device on the play of the wagering game displayed by the display device of the electronic gaming machine during the first period of time.
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, Brosnan et al teaches a system of verifying game results and outcomes of games that were played on a client device. Brosnan teaches the client device can play a wagering game wherein they may make a wager upon a game outcome. At a second period of time different from the first, the player may initiate an outcome dispute of a wagering game outcome that was presented on the client device, wherein the dispute may be review of a game outcome and the award won at the client device at a previous time period (Brosnan 0048, 0049 – 0053, 0074).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Baker in view of Brosnan to enable a player at a client device that is wagering on a game outcome that is presented on the client device, wherein the game and associated outcome is a game displayed and streamed from an electronic game machine located remotely from the client. This would be beneficial to the player as they would have some measure of recourse and arbitration if they feel that they were incorrectly paid out or there was a technical issue with their client device that prevented their wager from being paid out correctly.
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 by the display device of the electronic gaming machine 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, Brosnan and 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 a slot machine interface board. Combination of Baker and Brosnan as applied above) (Baker 0020).
As per claim 8, wherein the client device comprises one of another electronic gaming machine, a slot machine interface board, and a personal gaming device. (Combination of Baker and Brosnan as applied above (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 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) 10 and 12 is/are made obvious by the combination of Baker, Brosnan and Azuolas based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
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 Brosnan as applied above, wherein Brosnan discloses the review and recreation of game events such as video of previously played games displayed by the client device (Brosnan 0048, 0049 – 0053, 0074).
Dependent claim(s) 14-15, 17-20 is/are made obvious by the combination Baker Brosnan and Azuolas based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 3-4 and 6-9, which are similar in claim scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3,4 6 – 15 and 17 - 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 Brosnan.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues “For example, although a human user at a client device may be affected by a display of a live stream insofar as the human user makes a review input, the claimed live streaming platform server does not organize any user interactions. As such, the processor executed instructions that define these steps do not pertain to any personal behavior or relationships or rules for humans to engage in any social activity or rules for humans to interact. Said differently, the claims are directed to a specific cross-device streaming/retrieval architecture which cannot be reasonably considered any methods of organizing human activity.” (Remarks page 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims manage interactions for a person as they are directed towards the presentation or a means of allowing a human to initiate a dispute of a game outcome and review the disputed game outcome that was presented in a previous time period.
Applicant further argues with regard to the integration into a practical application that the claims provide “a solution to the inefficiencies in dispute resolution proceedings which occurred when the events that did (or did not) occur in association with one device needed to be reviewed and potentially disputed in association with a different device.” (Remarks page 10), and “The live streaming platform servers thus provide a streamlined interface for a user of a client device direct access to information pertaining to events that may (or may not) have occurred in the streaming environment.” (Remarks page 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the arguments amount to more of an improvement to the user experience of initiating a dispute and reviewing a disputed game outcome. The Examiner notes that the improvement of a user experience is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or a related technology. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
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
9/4/2026
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights