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) 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karmarkar (US 8,123,618) in view of Joao (US 2002/0108125).
Re claim 1, Karmarkar discloses a method comprising: streaming live video output of a gaming event to a display associated with a first remote user device (col. 2:35-46, players viewing live video of a local player at a casino game on remote device, shown in fig. 2, 182, 184, 186, fig. 5, 316, fig. 7, 324, and fig. 8, 370), wherein the gaming event is occurring on an individual player machine at a gaming location (see at least fig. 1A, fig. 2, 164), and wherein the individual player machine is operated in real-time by a local player at the gaming location (2:35-53, the remote player views a live video of a live player and is able to bet for or against said live player, therefore the games are operated in real-time by the local player); streaming live video output of the gaming event to a display associated with a second remote user device (see above, the live video can be streamed to multiple remote devices); receiving, during a betting window, a first wager from the first remote user device and a second wager from the second remote user device (fig. 12, 5A and 20:34-46); displaying, in real-time, an outcome of the gaming event to the first remote user device and the second remote user device (see above where Karmarkar discloses live video of a local player at a gaming location, and fig. 12, 470 wherein the game result is communicated to the player); and resolving the first wager and the second wager based on the outcome (19:32-50).
However, Karmarkar is silent on automatically switching from a first field of view captured by a first camera of a gaming area to a second field of view comprising a live gaming output generated by the individual player machine, and switching back to the first field of view in response to further input. While Karmarkar has disclosed streaming the video output of the gaming event, using input to switch between view of the gaming area and the gaming output is not necessarily disclosed.
Joao teaches a gaming system with a central broadcasting system in communication with a user interactive device and a local broadcasting system (fig. 1). During broadcast of a game, the viewer can select or change viewing cameras from multiple camera angles (par. [0248]). As such, in combination with the presentation of the gaming output from Karmarkar, it would be obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to implement the ability to switch between different views being broadcast as taught by Joao in order to provide more views of a gaming area as desired by the player, increasing the amount of perspectives and information available to the player.
Re claim 2, Karmarkar discloses the remote user devices not affecting the outcome of the gaming event (20:47-63, since the remote players are betting on the local player and not playing the game, there is no unique game related decision making learning curve as all gaming decisions are handled by the local player, therefore the decisions of the remote players have no bearing on the local game).
Re claim 3, Karmarkar discloses the betting window corresponds to a period of time before the local player takes an action with respect to the gaming event (20:34-46, a flashing “wager now” message lets remote players know that wagers are being accepted prior to the start of the next virtual game, therefore before the local player has taken action).
Re claim 4, Karmarkar discloses a slot game, card game, dice game, and a casino game (18:63-67 and 19:1-31).
Re claim 5, Karmarkar discloses updating the live video output from a first field of view to a second field of view associated with the gaming event (19:51-67 and 20:1-3, wherein the casino provides multiple cameras for different perspective views of the game). While Karmarkar does not explicitly disclose receiving an input from the first remote user device to change the video output, Karmarkar has disclosed allowing the user to pick a game to view (17:15-32). Since Karmarkar discloses switching cameras via user input, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to also allow the player to switch viewpoints for the same game that are already being provided by the casino in order to expand the available viewing angles and viewpoints for games, increasing visibility, accessibility, and enjoyment of the gaming experience.
Re claim 6, Karmarkar discloses the first field of view comprises a gaming area on the individual player machine (see the above rejections), and wherein the second field of view is at least one of an alternate view of the individual player machine, a region within the first field of view, the local player, and a view of the gaming location (20:1-3).
Re claim 7, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to concurrently stream multiple fields of view in order to provide more information simultaneously, increasing the versatility and flexibility of the system.
Re claim 8, since every remote player has their own autonomy and agency, each remote player has the ability to choose whatever field of view desired. See the rejections to claims 5-7 regarding different fields of view for a game.
Re claim 9, Karmarkar discloses a casino (2:35-53).
Re claim 10, Karmarkar discloses updating a wallet respectively associated with each wager (12:24-43, wherein a player’s credit balance is considered a wallet).
Re claim 11, Karmarkar discloses the first wager from the first remote user device corresponds to a gaming decision to be made by the local player during the gaming event (17:15-32 and 19-41).
Re claim 12, Karmarkar discloses a back or lay bet (17:15-32 and 19-41, betting for or against the live player is considered a back or lay bet).
Re claim 13, Karmarkar discloses each wager corresponds to an outcome of the gaming event (see the above rejections, since the remote player is betting for or against the live local player, their wagers are dependent on the outcomes of the gaming event played by the local player).
Re claim 14, see the rejection to claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Re claim 15, Karmarkar discloses the gaming interface is associated with a casino application operating on the remote user device (5:65-67 and 6:1-12, since the remote users are accessing the game via the remote system provided by the casino, it is considered a casino application).
Re claim 16, Karmarkar discloses the streaming device is a camera capturing at least one of the individual player machine and a display associated with the individual player machine (fig. 1A, 60, 70, and 80).
Re claim 17, Karmarkar discloses the streaming device streams live gaming output generated by the individual player machine (fig. 1B, 28).
Re claim 18, Karmarkar discloses the individual player machine is operated in real-time by a local player at the gaming location (see at least 6:13-34, the games are live games played by local players, and additionally 2:35-53, the remote player views a live video of a live player and is able to bet for or against said live player, therefore the games are operated in real-time by the local player).
Re claim 19, Karmarkar discloses the individual player machine is a slot machine (9:31-49).
Re claim 20, Karmarkar discloses the remote user device comprises at least one of a smartphone, personal computer, and a gaming device (5:65-67 and 6:1-12).
Re claim 21, Karmarkar discloses the gaming event includes at least one of slots, poker, roulette, craps, blackjack, sic-bo, baccarat, and a casino game (5:65-67 and 6:1-12).
Re claims 22 and 24-26, see the above rejections.
Re claims 23, 27, and 29-30, see the rejections to claims 5-8.
Re claim 28, Karmarkar discloses resolving the first and second wager by adding or deducting value to a player account associated with each wager (12:24-43).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 8-9, filed 1/28/26, with respect to the 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims in view of Karmarkar 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
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 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