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 .
Response to Arguments
The objections to the Specification have been withdrawn in part in light of the amendments to claims 8 and 11-12, filed 12/18/25. However, the objection to the Specification as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the subject matter recited in claim 20 is maintained, as presented in detail below.
The rejections of claims 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 12/18/25. However, claims 4 and 16 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as presented in detail below.
The rejections of claims 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been maintained, as presented in detail below. While Applicant argues that claim 9 includes certain elements similar to certain elements of independent claim 1, claim 9 has not been amended to include the additional limitation of amended claims 1 and 13 which recites data associated with a play of a wagering game comprising an outcome determined by the streaming device.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-8 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. That is, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose the amended limitations of independent claims 1 and 13. Accordingly, the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been withdrawn. However, a new ground(s) of rejection is presented in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 12/18/25, as discussed in detail below.
Specification
The Specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The Specification does not appear to disclose “wherein the streaming device comprises any of an electronic gaming machine and a slot machine interface board” as recited in claim 20. Rather, the Specification only discloses “the streaming device […] comprises a component of a gaming establishment management system in communication with an EGM, such as a slot machine interface board (“SMIB”) in communication with an EGM” (Specification, [0022]; see further [0119]).
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 4 and 16 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 4 recites “The live streaming platform server of Claim 3, wherein the condition is satisfied based on an identity of a user of the streaming device having a designated relationship with the eligible user.” However, claim 3, upon which claim 4 depends, recites “wherein the condition is satisfied based on a user of the device being an eligible user.” Accordingly, it is indefinite as to what satisfies the condition – a user of the device being an eligible user, or an identity of a user of the streaming device having a designated relationship with the eligible user?
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salivar et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0319666 A1) (hereinafter “Salivar”).
Regarding claim 9, Salivar discloses a live streaming platform server ([0017]; [0022]; [0046]; [0069-0072]) comprising:
a processor ([0017]; [0046]; [0069-0072]; [0081-0083]); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor cause the processor to ([0017]; [0046]; [0069-0072]; [0081-0083]):
receive, from a streaming device, data associated with a wagering game being executed by a processor of the streaming device (Figs. 1-2A & 4A; [0017]; [0019-0020]; [0046]; [0080], receive from a gaming system (e.g., an electronic gaming machine (“EGM”)) one or more available and displayed sporting events (data associated with a wagering game)),
responsive to a determination that a notification event occurs in association with the data received from the streaming device and a satisfaction of a condition associated with the notification event, communicate, to a client device, a notification of a live stream associated with the wagering game being displayed in association with the streaming device (Fig. 2A; [0017]; [0019-0022]; [0025-0028]; [0104]; [0151], wherein a sporting event wagering opportunity (notification event) is determined in association with the received data and a satisfaction of a condition associated with the wagering opportunity (e.g., a deposited amount of funds to increase a credit balance, the types of sporting events previously wagered on, a player log in), and wherein the gaming system displays different configurations of such sporting events and/or certain information regarding the different available selections of sporting events (a notification of a live stream associated with the wagering game being displayed) (i.e., enabling a user to select one or more different “football” sporting events, for example, to potentially wager on), and wherein the gaming system (e.g., EGM) is configured to communicate with a personal gaming device (e.g., smartphone, tablet, etc.)), and
responsive to the determination that the notification event occurs in association with the data received from the streaming device and no satisfaction of the condition associated with the notification event, forgo communicating, to the client device, any notification of the live stream associated with the wagering game being displayed in association with the streaming device (Fig. 2A; [0017]; [0019-0022]; [0025-0028]; [0104]; [0151], wherein the gaming system may also determine to not display certain sporting events and/or information thereof to the user (i.e., based on no satisfaction of a condition associated with the notification event (e.g., according to the player’s historic sporting event wagering activity and/or the player’s preferences))).
Regarding claim 10, Salivar further discloses wherein the wagering game comprises a first play of a streaming session occurring at the streaming device (Figs. 1-2B & 4A; [0017]; [0019-0020]; [0046]; [0080], receive from a gaming system (e.g., EGM) one or more available and displayed sporting events (data associated with a wagering game) (e.g., regarding a first play/first drive in a football game)).
Regarding claim 11, Salivar further discloses wherein the streaming device comprises any one of an electronic gaming machine and a slot machine interface board ([0017]).
Regarding claim 12, Salivar further discloses wherein the client device comprises any one of an electronic gaming machine and a personal gaming device ([0069]; [0151], wherein the personal gaming device may include a desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, personal digital assistant, mobile phone, or the like).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salivar et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0319666 A1) (hereinafter “Salivar”) in view of Srinivasan (U.S. Pub. 2023/0319360 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Salivar discloses a live streaming platform server ([0017]; [0022]; [0046]; [0069-0072]) comprising:
a processor ([0017]; [0046]; [0069-0072]; [0081-0083]); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor cause the processor to ([0017]; [0046]; [0069-0072]; [0081-0083]):
receive, from a streaming device, data associated with a play of a wagering game (Figs. 1-2A; [0017]; [0019-0020]; [0046], receive from a gaming system (e.g., an electronic gaming machine (“EGM”)) one or more available sporting events (data associated with a play of a wagering game)),
responsive to a determination that a notification event occurs in association with the data received from the streaming device and a satisfaction of a condition associated with the notification event, automatically generate content associated with an available live stream based on the play of the wagering game (Figs. 1-2A; [0017]; [0019-0022]; [0026-0028], wherein a sporting event wagering opportunity (notification event) is determined in association with the received data and a satisfaction of a condition associated with the wagering opportunity (e.g., a deposited amount of funds to increase a credit balance, the types of sporting events previously wagered on, a player log in), and generating associated content (e.g., one or more of the available sporting event wagers)), and
communicate, to a device and at least partially based on the data communicated from the streaming device, a notification comprising the generated content (Fig. 2A; [0017]; [0026-0028]; [0104]; [0151], where the gaming system (e.g., EGM) is configured to communicate with a personal gaming device (e.g., smartphone, tablet, etc.), and wherein the available wagers are displayed to a user for selection).
Salivar may not explicitly disclose wherein the data associated with the play of the wagering game comprises an outcome determined by the streaming device. However, Srinivasan, directed to a live stream sports gaming application ([0042]; [0045-0048]), teaches this limitation ([0060-0061], wherein probabilities (outcome(s)) of a sporting event are determined by the gaming engine and influence a price of at least one betting scenario accordingly). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include with the data associated with the play of a wagering game (one or more available sporting events), a probability (outcome) determined by the gaming engine (streaming device), as taught by Srinivasan, in the invention of Salivar in order to set the prices of betting scenarios/wagering opportunities accordingly ([0060-0061]).
Regarding claim 2, Salivar further discloses wherein the device comprises a client device ([0069]; [0104]; [0151], wherein the gaming system includes the EGM configured to communicate with a personal gaming device, such as a smartphone, tablet computer, desktop computer, or laptop computer).
Regarding claim 3, Salivar further discloses wherein the condition is satisfied based on a user of the device being an eligible user ([0021], wherein the wagering opportunity (notification event) may occur upon a user logging into a player tracking system associated with the gaming system, and thus becoming an eligible user).
Regarding claim 4, Salivar further discloses – as best understood in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) – wherein the condition is satisfied based on an identity of a user of the streaming device having a designated relationship with the eligible user ([0021]).
Regarding claim 5, Salivar further discloses wherein the condition is satisfied based on a compliance of a parameter of a streaming session associated with the streaming device ([0021], e.g., a deposited amount of funds to increase a credit balance or a type of sporting event).
Regarding claim 6, Salivar further discloses wherein the condition is satisfied based on a compliance of a game event occurring in association with the streaming device ([0020-0021], e.g., type of sporting event).
Regarding claim 7, Salivar further discloses wherein the content comprises interactive content that enables a placement of a wager in association with the play of the wagering game (Fig. 2A; [0017]; [0026-0028], wherein the available wagers are displayed to a user for selection).
Regarding claim 8, Salivar further discloses wherein the streaming device comprises any of an electronic gaming machine and a slot machine interface board ([0017]).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is a method of claim 1 and is rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is a method of claim 2 and is rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is a method of claim 3 and is rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is a method of claim 4 and is rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is a method of claim 5 and is rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is a method of claim 6 and is rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is a method of claim 7 and is rejected for like reasoning.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is a method of claim 8 and is rejected for like reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub 2022/0058917 A1 – This reference is directed to virtual gaming, wherein a remote player can place bets based on their player data and/or the gaming table.
U.S. Pub. 2021/0090386 A1 – This reference teaches streaming a sporting event or wagering game to a player at an EGM, wherein the player can place wagers on the displayed sporting event or wagering game.
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 ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715