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 remote game server comprising:
a processor; and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine first data associated with a play of a wagering game displayed by a streaming device in communication with a live streaming platform server, - certain method of organizing human activity (“cmoha”) and/or mental process;
communicate the first data to the streaming device, and
communicate the first data to another remote game server operating with a client device in communication with the live streaming platform server, wherein the communication of the first data to the other remote game server occurs independent of the live streaming platform server.
The portions, as underlined above, are found to be directed to hedging and/or mitigating risk associated with a play of a wagering game (e.g., first data associated with a play of a wagering game;) including 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)). Moreover, determining first data associated with a play of a wagering game is an observation, judgment, evaluation and/or opinion that is capable of being performed in the human mind. 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 remote game 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 in communication with a live streaming platform server,” “communicate the first data to the streaming device,” and “communicate the first data to another remote game server operating with a client device in communication with the live streaming platform server, wherein the communication of the first data to the other remote game server occurs independent of the live streaming platform server.” 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 the first data, displayed by a streaming device in communication with a live streaming platform, and communicate the first data to another remote game server); and/or a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (e.g., a remote game server comprising a processor and memory; a streaming device, another remote game server, a client device, and a live streaming platform server) (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 remote gaming server comprising a processor and a memory” “ a streaming device”, “another remote game server”, “a client device” and “a live streaming platform server”. Each of these limitations, as indicated by the Specification are disclosed as commercially available and well-known general 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 analogous to 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 remote game 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 1-20 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 remote game server comprising (see Baker, Fig. 2, 0015-0016, 0065): 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):
determine first data associated with a play of a wagering game displayed by a streaming device in communication with a live streaming platform server (see Baker, 0049, wherein the first data of the EGM client device is a wager placed on a sporting device and is displayed (e.g., broadcast) by the live stream which is in communication with the live streaming platform server,
communicate the first data to the streaming device (see Baker, 0049-0053, 0065-0067, 0136, wherein the one or more servers communicate the content associated with a wager of a play of a wagering game to the streaming device) and
communicate the first data to another remote game server operating with a client device in communication with the live streaming platform server, wherein the communication of the first data to the other remote game server occurs independent of the live streaming platform server (see Baker, 0050-0058, wherein the first data of the wager is broadcast to one or more remote viewers to wager upon the content of the live stream which is independent the live streaming platform).
Regarding claim 2, Baker discloses the remote game server of Claim 1, wherein the determination of the first data occurs responsive to a receipt, from a remote gaming platform associated with the streaming device, of data that an account associated with a user of the streaming device has adequate funds for a placement of a wager on the play of the wagering game (see Baker, 0050-0058).
Regarding claim 3, Baker discloses the remote game server of Claim 1, wherein the communication of the first data to the other remote game server results a determination, based on the first data, of second data and a communication of the determined second data to the client device (see Baker, 0054-0058, wherein the second data is a back bet placed by a remote viewer and is determined based upon the first data placed by the player).
Regarding claim 4, Baker discloses the remote game server of Claim 3, wherein the second data is communicated to the live streaming platform server (see Baker, 0054-0058, 0086, wherein the remote viewers associated with the back bets of the second data is communicated to the live stream associated with a gaming session at an EGM).
Regarding claim 5, Baker discloses the remote game server of Claim 3, wherein the communication of the first data to the other remote game server results in a display, by a display device of the client device, of the play of the wagering game responsive to a receipt, from a remote gaming platform associated with the client device, of data that an account associated with a user of the client device has adequate funds for a placement of a wager on the play of the wagering game (see Baker, 0050-0058, wherein the remote viewer actively interacts with the live stream following the remote viewer establish and adequately funding a live streaming wagering account).
Regarding claim 6, Baker discloses the remote game server of Claim 5, wherein data associated with the placement of the wager on the play of the wagering game originated from the live streaming platform server (see Baker, 0051-0058, wherein the placement of the wager associated with the back bet is provided by access from the live streaming platform server via the live streaming).
Regarding 7, Baker discloses the remote game server of Claim 1, wherein the first data comprises a game outcome of the play of the wagering game (see Baker, 0037-0043, 0051-0058, wherein the first data of the play of the wager game provides game outcome a wagerer amount and any awards)).
Regarding claim 8, Baker discloses the remote game server of Claim 7, wherein the first data comprises a wager placed on the play of the wagering game (see Baker, 0070, 0086, 0097, wherein the bet display displays an amount wagered for one or more plays of one or more games).
Regarding claim 9, Baker discloses the remote game server of Claim 1, wherein the first data is associated with at least one of an identifier employed to authenticate the first data and a signature employed to authenticate the first data (see Baker, 0070, wherein the remote host identify the player by validating a player tracking identification number associated with the player, egm, mac address which is analogous to an identifier and a signature employed to authenticate the wager).
Regarding claim 10, Baker discloses a remote game server comprising (see Baker, Fig. 2, 0015-0016, 0065):
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 game being played in association with a streaming device (see Baker, 0051-0058):
determine game outcome information associated with the game being played (see Baker, 0051-0058), and communicate the game outcome information to another remote game server operating with a client device, wherein the communication occurs independent of a live streaming platform server associated with each of the streaming device and the client device (see Baker, 0051-0058), and the communication enables the other 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, 0051-0058).
Regarding claim 11, Baker discloses the remote game server of Claim 10, wherein the game outcome information is associated with at least one of an identifier employed to authenticate the game outcome information and a signature employed to authenticate the game outcome information (see Baker, 0070, 0074, 0084, 0150, 0165-0166, wherein security circuits authenticate code and data with authentication algorithms and authentication keys to verify that they are authentic).
Regarding 12, Baker discloses a method of operating a remote game server, the method comprising (see Baker, Fig. 2, 0015-0016, 0065):
determining, by a processor, first data associated with a play of a wagering game displayed by a streaming device in communication with a live streaming platform server (see Baker, 0049), causing, by the processor, a communication of the first data to the streaming device (see Baker, 0049-0053, 0065-0067, 0136), and
causing, by the processor, a communication of the first data to another remote game server operating with a client device in communication with the live streaming platform server, wherein the communication of the first data to the other remote game server occurs independent of the live streaming platform server (see Baker, 0051-0058).
Regarding claim 13, Baker discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein the determination of the first data occurs responsive to a receipt, from a remote gaming platform associated with the streaming device, of data that an account associated with a user of the streaming device has adequate funds for a placement of a wager on the play of the wagering game (see Baker, 0050-0058).
Regarding claim 14, Baker discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein the communication of the first data to the other remote game server results a determination, based on the first data, of second data and a communication of the determined second data to the client device (see Baker, 0054-0058).
Regarding claim 15, Baker discloses the method of Claim 14, wherein the second data is communicated to the live streaming platform server (see Baker, 0054-0058, 0086).
Regarding claim 16, Baker discloses the method of Claim 14, wherein the communication of the first data to the other remote game server results in a display, by a display device of the client device, of the play of the wagering game responsive to a receipt, from a remote gaming platform associated with the client device, of data that an account associated with a user of the client device has adequate funds for a placement of a wager on the play of the wagering game (see Baker, 0050-0058).
Regarding claim 17, Baker discloses the method of Claim 16, wherein data associated with the placement of the wager on the play of the wagering game originated from the live streaming platform server (see Baker, 0051-0058).
Regarding claim 18, Baker discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein the first data comprises a game outcome of the play of the wagering game (see Baker, 0051-0058).
Regarding claim 19, Baker discloses the method of Claim 18, wherein the first data comprises a wager placed on the play of the wagering game (see Baker, 0070, 0086, 0097).
Regarding claim 20, Baker discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein the first data is associated with at least one of an identifier employed to authenticate the first data and a signature employed to authenticate the first data (see Baker, 0070).
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