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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5-10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US 2015/0121437) in view of Graham et al (US 2015/0213683) and Hutchinson-Kay et al (US 2015/0302690).
Re claim 1, Tan discloses a method for live gaming comprising: streaming live video output from a first camera to a display associated with a user device (par. [0021], the system presents participants with selectable camera views);
operating the player machine based on gaming input received at the user device ([0024], client machines participate in the same video game match over the network). However, while Tan discloses a selection to initiate the broadcast of a multiplayer video game (see at least [0049], [0052], and [0062]), Tan does not explicitly disclose receiving from the user device a selection to initiate the game itself at the player machine. Additionally, Tan discloses streaming live video and multiple angles, but is silent on a live video output capturing a first field of view comprising the player machine.
Graham teaches a casino gaming system wherein users may access games from remote clients ([0514]). A game player at the remote clients may select from a number of games to play provided by the host device, and therefore, initiate games from their remote user device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to implement the remote client system of Graham with the broadcasting system of Tan in order to allow players to play games remotely from the comfort of their homes, increasing the number of ways and locations players can play their desired games.
Hutchinson-Kay teaches a livestreaming casino gaming system which allows a player to switch between different views of a game ([0165]), wherein the camera views include views of the gaming area itself ([0165], [0167]). It would have been obvious to include alternate views of the gaming area as taught by Hutchinson-Kay in order to enhance the gaming experience of the player and emulate a live casino gaming experience.
Re claim 5, Hutchinson-Kay teaches the first field of view comprising a plurality of player machines available for gameplay via the user device ([0165] and [0167]).
Re claim 6, Hutchinson-Kay teaches streaming live video output from a second camera to the display associated with the user device ([0165] and fig. 3, 342).
Re claim 7, Hutchinson-Kay teaches switching between the live video output from the first and second camera in response to user input received at the user device ([0165] via the click of a button in the game client).
Re claims 8-9, Tan discloses receiving a selection to change the first field of view and updating the live video output to stream a second field of view to the user device, the second field of view being a gaming area on the player machine ([0046], [0057], [0059]).
Re claim 10, Graham teaches a casino game ([0089]).
Re claims 18-20, see the above rejections.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchinson-Kay in view of Graham.
Re claim 11, Hutchinson-Kay discloses a system comprising: a player machine (fig. 3, 311); at least one camera capturing a gaming floor comprising the player machine (342 and par. [0125]); and an application operating on a user device configured to: stream live video output from a first camera to a display associated with a user device, wherein the live video output captures a first field of view comprising the player machine ([0125], [0165], and [0167]); and switch from the stream of the live video output to stream live gaming output from the player machine to the user device ([0165] and [0167]). However, while Hutchinson-Kay discloses switching between various camera views for a livestream broadcast to a user device, Hutchinson-Kay does not explicitly disclose receiving from the user device a selection to initiate a game at the player machine and operating the player machine based on gaming input received at the user device. Graham teaches a casino gaming system wherein users may access games from remote clients ([0514]). A game player at the remote clients may select from a number of games to play provided by the host device, and therefore, initiate games from their remote user device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to implement the remote client system of Graham with the broadcasting system of Tan in order to allow players to play games remotely from the comfort of their homes, increasing the number of ways and locations players can play their desired games.
Re claims 12-13, Hutchinson-Kay discloses a second camera capturing a second field of view and streaming this view in response to input received at the user device, the second field of view being a region within the gaming floor or gaming area associated with the player machine (]0165] and fig. 3, 342, the view being changed by the click of a button).
Re claim 15, Hutchinson-Kay discloses the user device being a smartphone, personal computer, or a gaming device ([0072] and [0160]).
Re claim 16, Hutchinson-Kay discloses the player machine is a slot machine, poker machine, or an individual gaming machine ([0308]).
Re claim 17, Graham teaches player machines located on a gaming floor comprising a plurality of player machines configured for remote gameplay ([0514]).
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Graham and Hutchinson-Kay as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muir et al (US 2007/0021198).
Re claims 2-3, Tan et al have been discussed above, but do not disclose reserving the player machine for exclusive use by a player or player account, preventing a second player from operating the player machine for a period of time. Muir teaches a system for reserving gaming machines for game play ([0168]), wherein the gaming machine is not available for others while reserved ([0032], [0207], and [0208]).
It would have been obvious to allow players to reserve gaming machines in order to offer the player the opportunity to temporarily suspend game play and move to a different location in the venue to resume game play at a later time.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Graham and Hutchinson-Kay as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goldscheider (US 8,292,717).
Re claim 4, Tan is silent on providing a notification to the user device when the player machine is available for gameplay. Goldscheider teaches a messaging system wherein the game provider notifies users of an open registration for a game (col. 7:41-62). It would have been obvious to send messages or notifications to players when a game is available as taught by Goldscheider in order to enable players to be notified as soon as their favorite games are available for play, increasing the player’s enjoyment and time spent at the casino.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchinson-Kay in view of Graham as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Muir et al.
Re claim 14, Hutchinson-Kay does not disclose reserving the player machine for exclusive use by a player or player account, preventing a second player from operating the player machine for a period of time. Muir teaches a system for reserving gaming machines for game play ([0168]), wherein the gaming machine is not available for others while reserved ([0032], [0207], and [0208]).
It would have been obvious to allow players to reserve gaming machines in order to offer the player the opportunity to temporarily suspend game play and move to a different location in the venue to resume game play at a later time.
Response to Arguments
The remarks regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are persuasive and the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the actual game interface or screen output of the player machine itself) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Since the multiple camera angles of Hutchinson-Kay is more than capable of providing views of live gaming output or video output. Without explicit descriptions as to what the differences are, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to interpret one angle as a live video output (e.g. a view of the gaming machine and floor around it), and another as a gaming output (e.g. a closer view of the game’s display allowing for details of the gaming output to be seen on stream).
Similarly, the claims do not include limitations stating “a transition from a surveillance-style camera view of the machine to the machine’s own digital game display output.”
Again, regarding Graham, the claims do not include limitations stating that the machine itself is being operated remotely and that games are not generated centrally to be displayed remotely on client devices. The term “initiating” simply is interpreted as “starting,” “beginning,” “opening,” and other similar interpretations. As such, the system of Graham is considered to teach the limitations, as inputs received remotely are being used to operate a player machine.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights