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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recites limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas as indicated below:
1. 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 determination to place, in association with a client device, a wager on a play of a wagering game displayed by a streaming device: - certain method of organizing human activity (“cmoha”)
receive, from a first remote game server operating with the streaming device, first data determined by the first remote game server in association with the play of the wagering game displayed by the streaming device, - cmoha;
responsive to a validation of the first data received from the first remote game server operating with the streaming device, communicate the first data to a second remote game server operating with the client device, and - cmoha;
responsive to a receipt, from the second remote game server operating with the client device, of second data determined by the second remote game server, communicate the second data to the client device, wherein the second data is based, at least in part, on the first data received from the first remote game server. – cmoha;
The portions, as underlined above, are found to be directed to hedging and/or mitigating risk associated with a placed wager (e.g., validation of the first data received;) and/or rules and/or instructions for managing a wagering game which the courts have indicated the types of abstract ideas that are directed to an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For at least these reasons, the claims are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “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:”, “displayed by a streaming device:”, “from a first remote game server operating with the streaming device”, “from the first remote game server operating with the streaming device, communicate the first data to a second remote game server operating with the client device,”, and “from the second remote server operating with the client device, of second data determined by the second remote gaming server, communicate the second data to the client device,” are found to recite steps and/or instructions that invoke a highly-generalized computer components to be used as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., communicating data, receiving data, displaying data); and/or a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (e.g., a live streaming platform server, a first and second game server, in communication with a streaming device) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the additional limitations are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited additional elements such as: “a live streaming platform server”, “first game server, “second game server”, and “a streaming device”. Each of these limitations, as indicated by the Specification are disclosed as commercially available and well-known generalized computing devices such as: “game server”, “a mobile computer or personal computer” and/or “general purpose computers” (see Specification, 0028, 0096-0097, 0162; 0168 – “streaming devices” “servers” and “a plurality of servers” are highly-generalized personal computing devices and/or “server/servers”). For at least these reasons, the additional elements when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements are not found to amount to significantly more but amount to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea which does not indicate an improvement to computer functionality and/or to a different field. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
With respect to independent Claim 10, the claims recites substantially the same subject matter as analyzed by independent Claim 1 above and is incorporated herein. The differences between claim 1 and 10 is that the claim recite the resolving of any wagers placed from the client device which is directed to the abstract idea to the fundamental economic activity of managing a wager. For at least these reasons, independent Claim 10 is found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
With respect to independent Claim 12, the claim recites substantially the same subject matter as analyzed by independent Claim 1 above and is incorporated herein. The differences between Claim 12 and independent Claim 1 is that Claim 12 is directed to the method as opposed to the live streaming platform server of independent Claim 1. However, these differences do not alter the analysis above. For at least these reasons, independent Claim 12 is found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
With respect to dependent claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20 are found to further recite at least one of: limitations directed to a grouping of abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)), invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)).
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 1-8, 10, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baker et al. (US 2020/0302734 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baker discloses a live streaming platform server comprising (see Baker, Fig. 2, 0015-0016): a processor (see Baker, 0065); and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (see Baker, 0065):
responsive to a determination to place, in association with a client device, a wager on a play of a wagering game displayed by a streaming device (see Baker, 0049, wherein the EGM client device is response to a wager made placed on a sporting device and are displayed (e.g., broadcast) of the live stream):
receive, from a first remote game server operating with the streaming device, first data determined by the first remote game server in association with the play of the wagering game displayed by the streaming device (see Baker, 0049-0053, wherein the live stream may be viewed by other remote players),
responsive to a validation of the first data received from the first remote game server operating with the streaming device, communicate the first data to a second remote game server operating with the client device (see Baker, 0049-0057, 0137-0138, 0141, wherein the live streaming platform must validate the wagers and data associated with the remote users operating with a second remote game server of such as from the gaming establishment operator, advertising server, back betting server) and
responsive to a receipt, from the second remote game server operating with the client device, of second data determined by the second remote game server, communicate the second data to the client device, wherein the second data is based, at least in part, on the first data received from the first remote game server (see Baker, 0054-0057, wherein the system resolves the wagers placed by the player in the remote live stream and any back bet or transfer to the live streaming wagering game associated with the remote viewer of the second remote gaming server).
Regarding claim 2, Baker discloses the live streaming platform server of Claim 1, wherein the communication of the second data to the client device results in a display, by a display device of the client device, of the play of the wagering game (see Baker, 0054-0058, wherein the second data associated with a back bet results in display of the live stream associated with the play of the wagering game from the first data (e.g., wager from player of the live streaming game).
Regarding claim 3, Baker discloses the live streaming platform server of Claim 2, wherein the second data comprises an amount of any award associated with the wager (see Baker, 0054-0058).
Regarding claim 4, Baker discloses the live streaming platform server of Claim 1, wherein the communication of the second data to the client device results in a display, by a display device of the client device, of a balance of an account associated with a user of the client device maintained by a remote gaming platform operating with the second remote game server (see Baker, 0054-0058, 0086, wherein the remote viewers associated with the back bets of the second remote game server which includes displaying an amount of wagers or an account balance associated with the user).
Regarding claim 5, Baker discloses the live streaming platform server of Claim 1, wherein the first data comprises a game outcome of the play of the wagering game determined by the first remote game server and the second data comprises a replication of the game outcome of the play of the wagering game determined by the second remote game server (see Baker, 0054-0058, wherein the broadcast of the live streaming game provides a replication of the game outcome of the play of the wagering game so the player wins in accordance with the player the remote viewer placed a bet on).
Regarding claim 6, Baker discloses the live streaming platform server of Claim 1, wherein the determination to place, in association with the client device, the wager on the play of the wagering game displayed by the streaming device occurs based on a determination by a remote gaming platform operating with the second remote game server that an account associated with a user of the client device has adequate funds for the wager to be placed (see Baker, 0054-0058, wherein the remote viewer may place a bet when adequate funds are placed or in an associated account balance transferred to the live streaming wagering account).
Regarding claim 7, Baker discloses the live streaming platform server of Claim 1, wherein the first remote game server and the second remote game server are associated with a single jurisdiction (see Baker, 0141).
Regarding claim 10, Baker discloses a live streaming platform server comprising (see Baker, Fig. 2, 0015-0016):
a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to a game being played in association with a remote game server operating with a streaming device, cause the processor to (see Baker, 0065):
receive, from the remote game server operating with the streaming device, wager information and game outcome information associated with the game being played (see Baker, 0049-0053),
determine a validity of the wager information and the game outcome information, and responsive to the wager information and the game outcome information being determined valid (see Baker, 0049-0057, 0137-0138, 0141),
communicate at least the game outcome information to a remote game server operating with a client device to enable the remote game server operating with the client device to resolve any wager placed from the client device in association with the game being played (see Baker, 0054-0058).
Regarding claim 12, Baker discloses a method of operating a live streaming platform server, the method comprising (see Baker, Fig. 2, 0015-0016):
responsive to a determination, by a processor (see Baker, 0065), to place, in association with a client device, a wager on a play of a wagering game displayed by a streaming device (see Baker, 0049):
receiving, from a first remote game server operating with the streaming device, first data determined by the first remote game server in association with the play of the wagering game displayed by the streaming device (see Baker, 0049-0053),
responsive to a validation of the first data received from the first remote game server operating with the streaming device, causing, by the processor, a communication of the first data to a second remote game server operating with the client device (see Baker, 0049-0057, 0137-0138, 0141), and
responsive to a receipt, from the second remote game server operating with the client device, of second data determined by the second remote game server, causing, by the processor, a communication of the second data to the client device, wherein the second data is based, at least in part, on the first data received from the first remote game server (see Baker, 0054-0058).
Regarding claim 13, Baker discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein causing, by the processor, the communication of the second data to the client device results in a display, by a display device of the client device, of the play of the wagering game (see Baker, 0054-0058).
Regarding claim 14, Baker discloses the method of Claim 13, wherein the second data comprises an amount of any award associated with the wager (see Baker, 0054-0058).
Regarding claim 15, Baker discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein causing, by the processor, the communication of the second data to the client device results in a display, by a display device of the client device, of a balance of an account associated with a user of the client device maintained by a remote gaming platform operating with the second remote game server (see Baker, 0054-0058).
Regarding claim 16, Baker discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein the first data comprises a game outcome of the play of the wagering game determined by the first remote game server and the second data comprises a replication of the game outcome of the play of the wagering game determined by the second remote game server (see Baker, 0054-0058).
Regarding claim 17, Baker discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein the determination to place, in association with the client device, the wager on the play of the wagering game displayed by the streaming device occurs based on a determination, by a remote gaming platform operating with the second remote game server, that an account associated with a user of the client device has adequate funds for the wager to be placed (see Baker, 0054-0058).
Regarding claim 18, Baker discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein the first remote game server and the second remote game server are associated with a single jurisdiction (see Baker, 0141).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al as applied to independent Claims 1 and 12 above, in view of Amancheria et al. (US 2017/01611701 A1)
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Baker discloses the live streaming platform server of Claim 1 and the method of operating the live streaming platform server of Claim 1. Although, Baker discloses wherein the validation of the first data received from the first remote game server operating with the streaming device occurs in association with validating a remote gaming platform (see Baker, 0054-0058, wherein the validation for back bets are made by the remote gaming platform). However, Baker is silent with respect to validation by a security token generated by a remote gaming platform.
Amancheria teaches a security token for validating the identity of a user and for every bet or wager placed by the remote player to authenticate the credentials of an online gaming environment (see Amancheria, 0136). One would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Amancheria to maintain security and ease of use to yield the predictable result to fully engage in an online gaming environment security and safely (see Amancheria, 0136).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights