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 the Application
This Office-Action acknowledges the Amendment filed on 1/8/2026 and is a response to said Amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 discloses the limitations determine an amount of a benefit associated with the client device” and “determine, based on the amount of the wager placed on the play of the wagering game of the streaming device, an award associated with the client device and distinct from the determined benefit”; Claim 10 discloses “determine an amount of a benefit associated with a client device, the benefit being distinct from any award associated with the client device based on any plays of any wagering games of a streaming device”; and Claim 12 discloses “determining, by the processor, an amount of a benefit associated with the client device” and “determining, by the processor and based on the amount of the wager placed on the play of the wagering game of the streaming device, an award associated with the client device and distinct from the determined benefit”
There appears to be no disclosure within the specification supporting such limitations. From what the Examiner can ascertain, it appears as if the applicant is attempting to disclose disclosure from paragraph [0060] which discloses: In certain such embodiments in which the live streaming platform enables the viewer to place a back bet, such as a wager on a play of a wagering game occurring at an EGM operating as the streaming device, in association with the play of the wagering game, the EGM streaming device notifies an associated SMIB of the EGM, using SAS or another gaming protocol, when a game starts, when a wager is placed (COIN IN), when an amount is won (COIN OUT) and when a game ends. Using these events and as seen in Fig. 3A (which illustrates certain interactions between the user, the EGM, the SMIB operating with the EGM, the live streaming platform, the client device and an account associated with the user of the client device to fund back bets placed by the client device), the EGM to SMIB “Game Start” message includes data associated with the wager amount placed at the EGM operating as the streaming device (and could be implemented with the SAS protocol message, such as 0x7E) and the EGM to SMIB “Game End” message includes data associated with the win amount resulting from the wager placed (and could be implemented by the SAS protocol message, such as 0x7F). Using at least these interactions (and assuming that the amount of the back bet is the same as the wager placed at the streaming device and that the live streaming platform credits the account of the user of the client device with the matching amount of the win occurring at the streaming device), the live streaming platform can proceed with withdrawing funds from an account associated with the user of the client device to pay for the back bet placed and depositing fund to the account associated with the user of the client device based on awards won from such back bets placed (without requiring any specific information regarding the paytable of the streaming device and/or any paytable of the client device). That is, if the user at the streaming device does not win any award based on the placed wager at the streaming device, then the live streaming platform determines that the viewer at the client device also loses the back bet. Conversely, if the user at the streaming device wins an award (having a value greater than zero) based on the placed wager at the streaming device, then the live streaming platform determines that the viewer at the client device who placed a back bet (of the same amount as the wager placed at the streaming device) will win an award of the same amount. For example, if the user of the streaming device wagered $5.00 and won $10.00, then if the user of the client device wagered $5.00, the live streaming platform determines, independent of any paytable information, that the user of the client device also wins $10.00. Likewise, if the user of the streaming device wagered $5.00 and lost (i.e., won $0.00), then the live streaming platform determines, independent of any paytable information, that the user of the client device also loses their $5.00 wagered. It should be appreciated that such a configuration further enables scaling of the wager amount and the win amount without requiring any specific information regarding the paytable of the streaming device. For example, if the user of the streaming device wagered $1.00 and won $5.00 and if the user of the client device wagered $0.50 (i.e., half of the $1.00 wagered at the streaming device), then the live streaming platform determines that the user of the client device wins $2.50 (half of the $5.00 won at the streaming device).
However, the limitations appear to disclose that an amount of award is to be associated with a client device but distinct from the determined benefit that is associated with the client device. In this case, the disclosure does not appear to support the limitations disclosed or further explanation for clarity would be required.
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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (What is the statutory category?):
Claims 1-20 are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (ie: process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A; Prong I (Does the claim recite an abstract idea?):
Claim 1 recites:
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:
responsive to a receipt, from a client device, of data associated with an amount of a wager placed on a play of a wagering game of a streaming device, cause a reduction of a balance associated with the client device, and
responsive to an occurrence of a benefit realization event:
determine an amount of a benefit associated with the client device,
cause, based on the determined amount of the benefit, an increase of the balance associated with the client device,
determine, based on the amount of the wager placed on the play of the wagering game of the streaming device, an award associated with the client device and distinct from the determined benefit, and
communicate, to the client device and at least partially based on data associated with the play of the wagering game received from the streaming device, data that results in the client device displaying the determined award as part of a stream of the play of the wagering game of the streaming device.
Claim 10 recites:
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:
responsive to an occurrence of a benefit realization event:
determine an amount of a benefit associated with a client device, the benefit being distinct from any award associated with the client device based on any plays of any wagering games of a streaming device,
cause the determined amount of the benefit to be placed as at least part of a wager on a play of a wagering game of the streaming device, the placement of the at least part of the wager occurs independent of any modification of an account associated with the client device based on the at least part of the wager, and
communicate, to the client device and at least partially based on data associated with the play of the wagering game received from the streaming device, data that results in the client device displaying a stream of the play of the wagering game of the streaming device.Claim 12 recites:A method of operating a live streaming platform server, the method comprising:
responsive to a receipt, from a client device, of data associated with an amount of a wager placed on a play of a wagering game of a streaming device,
causing, by a processor, a reduction of a balance associated with the client device, and responsive to an occurrence of a benefit realization event:
determining, by the processor, an amount of a benefit associated with the client device,
causing, by the processor and based on the determined amount of the benefit, an increase of the balance associated with the client device,
determining, by the processor and based on the amount of the wager placed on the play of the wagering game of the streaming device, an award associated with the client device and distinct from the determined benefit, and
communicating, to the client device and at least partially based on data associated with the play of the wagering game received from the streaming device, data that results in the client device displaying the determined award as part of a stream of the play of the wagering game of the streaming device.
[the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined elements recite certain method of organizing human activity because they describe “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”]
According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) "encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping." (Emphasis added)
To further elaborate on the Examiner’s interpretation regarding the claimed invention being directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner believes the invention describe managing interactions between people and machine (ie: a gaming machine) in which rules or instructions for the gaming machine is being implemented (ie: determining an amount of a benefit, determining an award based on the amount of the wager placed on the play of the wagering game of the streaming device, and communicating the determined award.)
Step 2A; Prong II (Does the claim recite a practical application?):
The Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons. The claim elements of claims 1, 10, and 12 above that are not underlined constitute additional limitations.
The Examiner submits that the following additional limitation merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: processor and computing device.
The Examiner finds that there are concepts regarding the application that simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. For example:
Todorovic, US 20220212101, discloses that for gaming, streaming between being implemented via client devices and servers are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 28);
Wu, US 20120083343 discloses that that it is conventional that online games in which multiple players can play can comprise client computing devices for allowing players to play online (paragraph 6);
Rodriquez, US 7,288,028, teaches that client platform devices are well-known and/or conventional for the purposes of implementing online games (Col. 4, lines 29-39);
Naicker, US 20070167235, discloses the use of generic client platform device for implementing online games (paragraph 16);
Kim, US 20130059656, discloses it is well known in the art for user to play online games by accessing game servers over the internet via client platform devices e.g. representing a computing system (paragraph 3);
Yukishita, US 20140073434, discloses that it is conventionally known in the art for players to playing online games via a server and client configuration (computing system) (paragraph 3);
George, US 20080015006, discloses it is well known in the art for gaming machine (client platform devices) to include interfaces for providing inputs to the gaming machine (paragraph 28);
Rateliff, US 20090181774, discloses it is known to provide user interfaces having known input means to users of gaming client platform devices for purpose of providing gaming inputs (paragraph 53);
Mizrahi, US 20150065243, discloses that traditional online game offer user interface mechanics for performing game actions on selected game objects (paragraph 3).
The above helps to suggest that the claimed components are no more than generic well-known components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology; there is no additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; the additional elements merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B (Are there additional elements that are “something more” than an abstract idea?):
Dependent Claims 2-9, 11, 13-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments in regards to the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicant argues that that the elements of the claimed gaming systems integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by stating:
“Applicant respectfully submits that the particular manner in which the claimed live streaming platform servers and methods operate provides a solution to the technical problems with prior systems that failed to differentiate benefits for individual users viewing a streaming session.
In solving these technical problems, the claimed live streaming platform servers and methods utilize a benefit realization event to provide personalized benefits associated with particular client devices. In other words, by utilizing different benefits with which a client device may be associated, the claimed live streaming platform servers and methods represent a technical improvement over prior systems which simply provided uniform benefits across all users viewing a streaming session. Put differently, the tailoring of live stream experiences (e.g., by providing tailored benefits) in association with a particular client device overcomes a recognized technical limitation of prior systems and thus integrates the alleged abstract ideas into a practical application.” (starting on page 8 to middle of page 9).
The Examiner disagrees because there appears to be no change to the actual gaming system, as claimed, nor any technological improvements. The Examiner believes the claimed invention is directed towards well-known components that are used for implementing streaming. For example, as mentioned in the rejection above, Todorovic, US 20220212101, discloses that for gaming, streaming between being implemented via client devices and servers are well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art (paragraph 28). As such, there appears to be no alleged operational result changes or technical improvements to the functioning of the gaming system. Accordingly, the Examiner must respectfully disagree that the claims recite patent-eligible methods for at least the reasons recited in the rejection as presented above.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments for the USC § 102 rejections of claims 1-20, the Examiner found the arguments persuasive and that the prior art does not fully support the newly amended limitation and has withdrawn the rejection accordingly. However, there appears to be USC § 112 issues with the claim language as outline above.
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 JEFFREY WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5pm.
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.
/JEFFREY K WONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715