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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites an application operating on a user device. However, the claim then discloses that the application streams live video output from a first camera to a display associated with a user device. Typically, streaming software operates on the source side of the network communication (i.e. a computer connected to a camera or application streams video output to client devices). It is not clear how the user device would be able to stream live video from a camera that is not directly associated with the user device. Indeed, a client being able to control a livestream on the source camera via an application on their device would potentially introduce security and privacy issues. The Examiner will assume that the application is operating on a device attached to the camera near the gaming floor and player machine, and that a separate client application is being used to view the live video on the user device.
Claim 11 also recites “a user device” in lines 5-6. It is unclear whether this user device is the same device as the user device claimed in line 4, or a new, separate device. The Examiner will assume that the devices are meant to be the same until further clarification and correction can be provided by Applicant.
Claims 12-17 are dependent on claim 11 and inherit these deficiencies.
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.
Conclusion
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