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 10/20/2026 and is a response to said Amendment.
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:
receive, from a streaming device, data associated with a plurality of plays of a wagering game occurring at the streaming device,
communicate, to a client device and based on the data associated with the plurality of plays of the wagering game received from the streaming device, data associated with a streaming session, and
after to a conclusion of the streaming session and responsive to an occurrence of a benefit realization event:
determine an amount of a benefit, the determination being at least partially based on a quantity of wagers placed from the client device on a quantity of the plurality of plays of the wagering game occurring at the streaming device, and
modify, based on the determined amount of the benefit, a balance associated with the client 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:
track an amount of wagers placed from a client device on plays of a wagering game of a streaming session occurring at a streaming device, and
after to a conclusion of the streaming session and responsive to an occurrence of a benefit realization event:
determine, based at least partially on the tracked amount of wagers placed from the client device, a benefit, and
communicate, to the client device, data that results in the client device displaying the determined benefit.
Claim 12 recites:
A method of operating a live streaming platform server, the method comprising:
receiving, from a streaming device, data associated with a plurality of plays of a wagering game occurring at the streaming device,
communicating, to a client device and based on the data associated with the plurality of plays of the wagering game received from the streaming device, data associated with a streaming session, and
after to a conclusion of the streaming session and responsive to an occurrence of a benefit realization event:
determining, by a processor, an amount of a benefit, the determination being at least partially based on a quantity of wagers placed from the client device on a quantity of the plurality of plays of the wagering game occurring at the streaming device, and
modifying, by the processor and based on the determined amount of the benefit, a balance associated with the client 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, 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:
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baker et al., US 20200302734 (Baker).
Regarding Claim 1.A live streaming platform server comprising:
a processor (para 2-3); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (para 2-3):
receive, from a streaming device, data associated with a plurality of plays of a wagering game occurring at the streaming device (para 15-16, 34, 46-47, 66-67, 70)
communicate, to a client device and based on the data associated with the plurality of plays of the wagering game received from the streaming device, data associated with a streaming session (para 34, 55-57, 70), and
after to a conclusion of the streaming session (para 30, 41, 43-45, 47, 55-56, 134) and responsive to an occurrence of a benefit realization event (para 32, 55. Players at an EGM winning is interpreted as a benefit realization event):
determine an amount of a benefit, the determination being at least partially based on a quantity of wagers placed from the client device on a quantity of the plurality of plays of the wagering game occurring at the streaming device (para 55-57), and
modify, based on the determined amount of the benefit, a balance associated with the client device (para 33, 39-41, 46, 55-59, 86.)
Regarding Claims 2, 13.
Baker further discloses wherein the balance associated with the client device comprises a balance of an account associated with a user of the client device (para 66-67. Client devices are associated with users).
Regarding Claims 3, 14.
Baker further discloses wherein the balance associated with the client device comprises a credit meter of the client device (para 57. Monetary credits that can be won is interpreted as a credit meter).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, 15.Baker further discloses wherein the conclusion of the streaming session comprises a conclusion of a client device wagering enabled portion of the streaming session (para 30, 41, 43-45, 47, 55-56, 134. A gaming session is interpreted as having a beginning and an ending before a new session can begin.).Regarding Claims 5, 16.
Baker further discloses wherein the benefit realization event randomly occurs (para 118. Game outcomes are randomly occurring).
Regarding Claims 6, 17
Baker further discloses wherein the benefit realization event occurs independent of the play of any of the plurality of plays of the wagering game (para 33, 43, 119).
Regarding Claims 8, 19.
Baker further discloses wherein the streaming device comprises any of an electronic gaming machine and a slot machine interface board (para 19-20).
Regarding Claims 9, 20.
Baker further discloses wherein the client device comprises any of an electronic gaming machine and a personal gaming device (para 19, 61).
Regarding Claim 10.
Baker discloses a live streaming platform server comprising:
a processor (para 2-3); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (para 2-3):
track an amount of wagers placed from a client device on plays of a wagering game of a streaming session occurring at a streaming device (para 18, 41-42, 134-135), and
after to a conclusion of the streaming session (para 30, 41, 43-45, 47, 55-56, 134) and responsive to an occurrence of a benefit realization event (para 32, 55):
determine, based at least partially on the tracked amount of wagers placed from the client device, a benefit (para 32, 55), and
communicate, to the client device, data that results in the client device displaying the determined benefit (para 33, 39-41, 46, 55-59, 86.).
Regarding Claim 12.
Baker discloses a method of operating a live streaming platform server, the method comprising:
receiving, from a streaming device, data associated with a plurality of plays of a wagering game occurring at the streaming device (para 15-16, 34, 46-47, 66-67, 70);
communicating, to a client device and based on the data associated with the plurality of plays of the wagering game received from the streaming device, data associated with a streaming session (para 34, 55-57, 70), and
after to a conclusion of the streaming session (para 30, 41, 43-45, 47, 55-56, 134) and responsive to an occurrence of a benefit realization event (para 32, 55):
determining, by a processor, an amount of a benefit, the determination being at least partially based on a quantity of wagers placed from the client device on a quantity of the plurality of plays of the wagering game occurring at the streaming device (para 55-57), and
modifying, by the processor and based on the determined amount of the benefit, a balance associated with the client device (para 33, 39-41, 46, 55-59, 86).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant respectfully submits that the live streaming platform servers and methods recited in the claims, even if somehow directed to the alleged abstract idea, integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, thereby satisfying the subj ect matter eligibility requirement of § 101.
Specifically, the particular manner which the live streaming platform server of representative independent Claim 1 operates provides a solution to the recognized problem with prior attempts that failed to enable selective tracking of wagering activity and bulk processing to facilitate a single benefit at least partially based on a plurality of engagements regarding a live stream. That is, certain prior attempts to offer streaming services encountered a technical problem in that such prior attempts required each individual wager on a play of a game to be tracked and a corresponding benefit to be determined for each individual wager, thus requiring a large amount of processing resources to facilitate providing benefits associated with a quantity of wagers to a plurality of client devices.
In solving these technical limitations and as described in at least paragraph [0020] of the present application, the claimed live streaming platform servers and methods utilize, during a plurality of plays of a game, tracking of quantities of wagers placed from client devices on the plurality of plays of the game and, after a conclusion of the streaming session, a single determination of a benefit at least partially based on the tracked quantity of wagers placed from each client device and a single modification of a balance associated with each client device based on each determination. In other words, only a final benefit based on a quantity of wagers on a plurality of plays of a game is determined (i.e., a benefit based on each individual wager of the quantity of wagers need not be determined). Such utilization of selective tracking and bulk processing represents a technical improvement over prior attempts which required a benefit determination associated with each individual wager on each play of a game. This technical achievement results in reducing the required storage space and processing resources to facilitate the placement of a quantity of wagers by multiple client devices on a plurality of plays of a game and the determination of a benefit at least partially based on the quantity of wagers (e.g., by bifurcating these processes to during and after the streaming session, respectively).
As such, representative Claim 1 recites a patent-eligible live streaming platform server -- an improved way to utilize bulk processing in a streaming environment (by reducing the amount of data communicated by the live streaming platform server and further reducing the frequency of the live streaming platform server communicating data). Accordingly, since the claims are directed to these specific improvements in technology whereby the specific claimed features allow for the improvement to be realized, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and are patent eligible. (middle of page 8 to middle of page 9)
The Examiner disagrees because there appears to be no change to the actual gaming system such that there is an actual technological improvement in the functioning of the gaming machine nor the gaming technology implementing game play. In this case, the Examiner argues that the claimed invention changes the function of a game being played and presented which is not the same as changing/improving the functioning of the actual gaming machine itself. Furthermore, paragraph 20 appears to disclose there being tracking activities but fails to disclose there being a technical problem in which the tracking provides the technical solution.
Applicant submits that while relied on paragraph [0055] of Baker includes "following the remote viewer ... accessing a live stream associated with a gaming session at an EGM, the live streaming platform enables the remote viewer to place a back bet on a play of a game ... based on the bet placed by the player at the EGM," Baker does not appear to determine any benefit at least partially based on a quantity of wagers placed from the client device after the conclusion of a streaming session. Specifically, while relied on paragraph [0055] of Baker includes "if a player at the EGM wins an award ... based on the placed wager, then any remote viewer who was back betting along with the player at the EGM will win the same amount," Baker lacks the remote viewer receiving any benefit responsive to a benefit realization event occurring after a conclusion of the gaming session at the EGM (i.e., after back betting has concluded). As such, Baker does not appear to determine an amount of a benefit based at least partially based on a quantity of wagers, after a conclusion of the streaming session, and responsive to an occurrence of a benefit realization event. (middle of page 9 to page 10)
The Examiner disagrees. Paragraph [0055] states: On the other hand, if the player at the EGM wins an award (having a value greater than zero) based on the placed wager, then any remote viewer who was back betting along with the player at the EGM will win the same amount.
In this case, the Examiner believes that when a remote player makes a back bet and is provided a win amount when a player at the EGM wins and award, it means Baker determines an amount of a benefit (ie: the amount to be awarded to the remote player) based at least partially based on a quantity of wagers (ie: the one back wager made by the remote playr), after a conclusion of the streaming session (ie: the streaming session is interpreted as the session in which the remote player made the back bet with regard to the player at the EGM), and responsive to an occurrence of a benefit realization event (ie: the player at the EGM winning).
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 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
Prosecution Insights