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 § 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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 9 are drawn to a process.
Claims 10 is drawn to an CRM.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1 - 9 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
Claim 1, A streaming betting game method comprising:
configuring a user pool for creating a match play;
selecting a match play user who can establish the match play with a current user from the user pool;
creating a game instance from among games stored in a game repository;
streaming the game instance along with a play image of an opponent to the matched user; and
determining wins and losses or priority from game results and performing rewards.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards the determination of pools of users and matching users to engage in a created game instance that is streamed and determining wins and losses. This falls under the grouping of managing interactions between people, i.e., rules for organizing a game
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): repository (i.e. storage), user devices, configuring a screen, a computer.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed computer repository (i.e. storage), user devices, configuring a screen, a computer. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’s specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0087] Referring to FIG. 8, the streaming betting game system and method according to embodiments may be implemented by using a computing device (or computer) 50.
[0088] The computing device 50 may include at least one of a processor 510, a memory 530, a user interface input device 540, a user interface output device 550, and a storage device 560 that communicate via a bus 520. The computing device 50 may also include a network interface 570 that is electrically connected to a network 40, such as a wired or wireless network. The network interface 570 may transmit or receive signals to and from other devices over the network 40.
[0089] The processor 510 may be implemented in various types such as an
[0090] Application Processor (AP), a Central Processing Unit (CPU), a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), etc., and may be any semiconductor device that executes commands stored in the memory 530 or the storage device 560. The processor 510 may be configured to implement the functions and methods described with reference to FIGS. 1 to 7.
[0091] The memory 530 and the storage device 560 may include various types of volatile or non-volatile storage media. For example, the memory 530 may include read-only memory (ROM) 531 and random access memory (RAM) 532. In some embodiments, the memory 530 may be located inside or outside the processor 510, and the memory 530 may be connected to the processor 510 through various known means.
[0092] The streaming betting game system and method according to some embodiments may be implemented with a program or software executed in the computing device 50, and the program or software may be stored in a computer-readable medium.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 10 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites “A computer readable mediums recording a program on a computer for executing:” Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category. For instance, a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. As such, a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. (MPEP 2106.03). The Examiner recommends amending the claim to read “A non-transitory computer-readable medium”. Correction is needed.
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 1 and 10 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. The claims recite in part determining wins and losses or priority… It is not clear what the Applicant is attempting to claim by means of determining a priority. Is this a ranking of some sort of winning players? Is it a queue of some sort? The metes and bounds of this limitation are not clear.
Claims 1 and 10 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. The claims recite in part “performing awards”. It is not clear what the Applicant is attempting to claim. Does this refer to the mere determining or awards? Does this mean the process of awarding players specific awards or payouts. Due to the vagueness of the claims the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be clearly discerned.
Claim 6 is 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. The claims recite in part “based on areas created” or “areas created”. It is not clear what the Applicant is referring to by “areas”. Are these screen regions? Are these areas in memory? Are these areas of an image etc.? The metes and bounds of this limitation are not clear.
Claim 8 is 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. The claims recite in part selecting an optimal opponent. The term “selecting an optimal opponent” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is optimal to one person may not be optimal to another. The metes and bounds of the claims are unclear. Correction is needed.
Claim 9 is 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. The claims recite in part “correcting skill scores by matching players with similar latency.” It is not clear from the claims or the specification how a skill score is corrected by matching players. It appears that the claims is attempting to claims some type of formula for correcting or modifying a score, however it is not clear how a score is corrected or modified based upon matching players with similar latency. The metes and bounds of this limitation are not clear.
Claim 1 and 10 recites the limitation "the matched user" in lines 9 and 6 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chun (US 8,727,892).
As per claim 1, Chun discloses:
configuring a user pool for creating a match play; (Chun discloses the automatic matching or selecting of players from a grouping of users in a tournament to engage in match or gameplay with one another, wherein the matching is based upon skill, experience, etc.) (Chun 7:28 – 35)
selecting a match play user who can establish the match play with a current user from the user pool; (Chun discloses the automatic matching or selecting of players from a grouping of users in a tournament to engage in match or gameplay with one another, wherein the matching is based upon skill, experience, etc.) (Chun 7:28 – 35)
creating a game instance from among games stored in a game repository; (Chun discloses the creation of a game instance from among games that are stored in a game repository, wherein a player selects a game and a game is created wherein the play can engage in game play) (Chun 34:61 – 35:37)
streaming the game instance along with a play image of an opponent to the matched user; and (Chun discloses the streaming of the game instance to along with images of the opponent players) (Chun 35:4 – 12)
determining wins and losses or priority from game results and performing rewards. (Chun discloses the determination of win results and player payouts (i.e. rewards)) (Chun 37:6)
As per claim 6, Chun discloses:
the streaming of the game instance along with the play image of the opponent includes (Chun discloses the streaming of a game instance #1100, a play image of the opponent to other players (#1122, 1124, 1126, 1128)) (Chun Fig 11A) along with statuses of a plurality of opposing players (i.e. see players hand of cards in #1122) based on areas created by an algorithm that a game creator has previously determined and need to be at least shared with other players and areas created by the algorithm that the game creator has previously determined and need to be seen by a player when playing a game. (Chun further teaches the use of cameras viewing any area of the player such a players hands, the players, or any combination thereof and transmitting these images to the gaming table to thereby be used to generated an image of the game that needs to be seen or shared) (Chun 15:9 – 15)
As per claim 7, Chun discloses:
reconfiguring an image captured by a camera included in a user device of each user and sharing the reconfigured image with other users. (Chun discloses a player’s EGT (electronic game terminal) comprising a camera being used to image a player to generate real time video feed of the player, as a player in the real-time video feed moves about, the image is “reconfigured” to show the player in the updated player position) (Chun 20:56 – 62)
Independent claim(s) 10 is/are anticipated by Chun based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (US 8,727,892) in view of Buchheit (US 9,438,937).
As per claim 2, Chun fails to disclose:
storing additional information for view configuration received from the game instance as a separate metafile in a match repository; and streaming play images stored in the match repository to a user device along with a streaming game.
However in a similar field of endeavor wherein an entertainment game is streamed to a viewer, Buchheit teaches a system wherein a main game is streamed to a remote viewer and along with the main game that is being streamed a second stream of replay images is also streamed in a picture in picture format. The replay images can be played separately from the from the main displayed streamed game and looped for continuous replay. The Examiner notes that as these are two separate streams each stream is stored in its corresponding file format in storage and streamed to the viewer. (Buchheit 14:6 – 55, Fig 6)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Chun in view of Buchheit to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way by modifying a streamed gamed to display separately stored replay images/videos of the main streamed game along with the main streamed game. This would be beneficial to the view as they would be able to see supplemented information such as important events that they might have missed while watching the streamed game.
As per claim 3, the streaming includes configuring a screen including two or more images in a picture in picture or split screen format; and streaming a configured final image to the user device. (The combination of Chun in view of Buchheit as applied to claim 2, wherein Buchheit discloses the use of a main image and a PIP image that are displayed together to display a final image to the user) (Buchheit 14:6 – 55, Fig 6)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (US 8,727,892) in view of Miyaki (US 2018/0367608).
As per claim 4, Chun discloses matchmaking players based upon player skill level (Chun 7:27 – 35)
However, Chun fails to disclose:
the selecting of the match play user includes selecting users who can establish a match play based on ELO rating.
In a similar field of endeavor, wherein player are matched upon player skill, Miyaki teaches “A widely used match making algorithm is the Elo rating system. The Elo rating system ranks players based on wins losses and draws. Players lose or gain ratings based on their rating and the expected score of each match. Thus matching players by Elo rating is an appropriate way to generate fair and competitive teams. (Miyaki 0027).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Chun in view of Miyaki to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to utilize an ELO rating to match players together. As Miyaki teaches “Thus matching players by Elo rating is an appropriate way to generate fair and competitive teams.” (Miyaki 0027).
Claim(s) 5, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (US 8,727,892) in view of Miyaki (US 2018/0367608) in view of “Matchmaking, Your Way: Amazon GameLift FlexMatch and Game Session Queues” by Justin Miles on 16 AUG 2017 (hereinafter “Miles”)
As per claim 5, the selecting of the match play user includes selecting a target pool based on ELO points (The combination of Chun and Miyaki as applied to claim 4 teaches the use of matchmaking users based upon ELO rankings (Miyaki 0027),
The combination fails to disclose:
and selecting an optimal user from among users belonging to the selected target pool by considering a quantified game streaming status.
However, Miles discloses matchmaking of players based upon player skill and a quantifiable streaming status such as connection latencies. Miles specifically discloses that a developer can select matchmaking options that set a player skill level of all players within a pool of matched players to be within a set range of skill and also to match players withing regions that have similar connection latencies. (Miles page 1: par 8 – page 2, par3; page 2 par 5- 8; page 3, par 1 – 6). Miles further teaches the selecting of different player from different grouped pools of players in the event that match requirements of skill and latency being too stringent ) (Miles page 5 “Rules Relaxation)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Chun, Miyaki in view of Miles to use a known technique to improve similar systems in the same way by matchmaking according to both a player skill and the status of their connection such as a quantifiable latency. This be beneficial as it would help players of similar skills to find fair matches at the best connection speeds.
As per claim 8, the selecting of the match play user includes periodically or aperiodically inspecting at least one of a communication status between a user device and a streaming game cloud, a status of the user device, a status of a game instance from a game start stage, and selecting an optimal opponent found by quantifying a status value as the match play user. (The combination of Chun, Miyaki and Miles as applied to claim 6, wherein Miles discloses the inspecting of a player’s latency between the player and server and matching players based upon a required latency value) (Miles page 1: par 8 – page 2, par3; page 2 par 5- 8; page 3, par 1 – 6).
As per claim 9, the selecting of the match play user includes correcting skill scores by matching players with similar latency. (The combination of Chun, Miyaki and Miles as applied to claim 6, wherein Miles teaches the relaxing (i.e. correcting) of match requirements such as skill levels of players, in order to match players with similar latencies.) (Miles page 5 “Rules Relaxation)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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.
ROSS A. WILLIAMS
Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/Ross A Williams/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 10/12/2025