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 2 and 13 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 2 recites the limitation "a balance" in line 2. However, there was disclosure of “a balance” previously before in Claim 1, line 16. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back. In other words, Claim 2 discloses of “a balance” that is associated with “an account of a user”, whereas Claim 1 discloses of “a balance” that is associated with a client device. In this case, the Examiner is not sure if there is, from an interpretative point of view, “a client device balance” and “a user account balance” or if the “balance” refers to the same thing, (ie: the balance of an account associated with a user of the client device). The Examiner will assume the “balance” refers to the latter.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a balance" in line 2. However, there was disclosure of “a balance” previously before in Claim 12, lines 12-13. It is not clear if these are the same element or distinct elements. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with “said” or “the” when referring back. In other words, Claim 13 discloses of “a balance” that is associated with “an account of a user”, whereas Claim 12 discloses of “a balance” that is associated with a client device. In this case, the Examiner is not sure if there is, from an interpretative point of view, “a client device balance” and “a user account balance” or if the “balance” refers to the same thing, (ie: the balance of an account associated with a user of the client device). The Examiner will assume the “balance” refers to the latter.
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
responsive to a conclusion of the streaming session and 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
responsive to a conclusion of the streaming session and 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
responsive to a conclusion of the streaming session and 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
responsive to a conclusion of the streaming session (para 30, 41, 43-45, 47, 55-56, 134) and 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
responsive to a conclusion of the streaming session (para 30, 41, 43-45, 47, 55-56, 134) and 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
responsive to a conclusion of the streaming session (para 30, 41, 43-45, 47, 55-56, 134) and 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY KEITH 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