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 .
Applicant’s submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 06/18/2026. Presently, claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 06/18/2026. Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims limitations are not met. However, the rejection of claims 1-20 is maintained as presented below.
In regards to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101, applicant asserts the following: “a human mind cannot cause data to be communicated between distinct remote game servers, nor can a human mind cause second data associated with a second game outcome determined by a second remote game server to be communicated to a client device in association with a streamed play of the wagering game displayed by the client device. These are operations rooted in computer networking technology - specifically, the coordination and communication of data between multiple, distinct remote game servers and client devices participating in a live streaming environment.” (Page 8 of Remarks)
Regarding point (1), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments above, the data used here is in regards to determining the outcome of the game and comparing that outcome with a second outcome, which is a process that can be performed in the mind. Merely because applicant has introduced a client devices or computer networks to perform the function rather than the human mind does not now make the claim patent eligible. Such was the very basis for the Supreme Court's decision in Alice. As such, this argument can also not be found convincing here. (See 101 rejection below).
In regards to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101, applicant asserts the following: “the particular manner in which the system of representative independent Claim 1 operates provides a solution to the recognized problem of offering streaming services for client devices and streaming devices operating from multiple jurisdictions with different regulations in effect (e.g., different protocols for handling funds in association with the player account management systems associated with the remote game servers in a different jurisdictions).” (Page 8 of Remarks).
Regarding point (2), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments above, the explanation applicant is giving is much narrower than what the claim is actually claiming. What is happening here is a comparison of outcomes and comparing data is a well-known process for computers or networks. (See 101 Rejection below)
In regards to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, applicant asserts the following: “Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that it is improper for the Office to acknowledge that Baker does not "explicitly mention" "that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: during a first period of time prior to an occurrence of an audit and reconciliation triggering event:" and "responsive to an occurrence of the audit and reconciliation triggering event, determine if the first game outcome corresponds to the second game outcome" and then imply that it is "natural" to impart these limitations of the claimed system to Baker.” (Page 10 of Remarks).
Regarding point (3), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments above, ¶83-94 of the specification of the present invention gives details of what the audit and reconciliation actually do, which is a comparison between both outcomes “the audit relates to game outcomes published by the remote game server associated with the streaming device against the game outcomes distributed by the remote game servers associated with client devices to ensure that such game outcomes match and/or additional information associated with such game outcomes (e.g., transaction identification numbers, transaction amounts and/or relative timestamps) match”. The office action states that audit and reconciliation events are naturally triggered and they are necessary for online betting or wagering because this is the operational and regulatory backbone of the entire business, operators must constantly verify that the money moving through their system matches the bets being placed and/or settled. However, ¶56 of Baker shows that the viewer is placing a back-bet (placing a bet to a certain outcome) to a live streaming gaming session and if the player who is live streaming does not win based on the outcome of the game, then the viewer who placed the bet also loses. For the system to identify that the viewer also loses the bet there MUST be a comparison between the outcomes to check if they match or not. (See 102 Rejection below)
Regarding claims 10 and 12, since they recite similar features to claim 1, the rejection is maintained as present below.
Applicant’s representative argues that since the prior art does not disclose or suggest the suggested features of claim 1, 10, or 12 and so, dependent claims are patentable. However, in light of the remarks and standing rejection below, the examiner asserts the prior art of record teaches all the elements as claimed and these elements satisfy all structural, functional, operational, and spatial limitations currently in the claims. Therefore, the standing rejections are proper and maintained.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 10 and 12, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: during a first period of time prior to an occurrence of an audit and reconciliation triggering event: cause first data associated with a first game outcome determined by a first remote game server in association with a play of a wagering game displayed by a streaming device to be communicated to a second remote game server, and cause second data associated with a second game outcome determined by the second remote game server to be communicated to a client device in association with a streamed play of the wagering game displayed by the client device, and responsive to the occurrence of the audit and reconciliation triggering event, determine if the first game outcome corresponds to the second game outcome.
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim(s) 10 and 12) recites an abstract idea included in the groupings of MENTAL PROCESS, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., processor, memory, server, client device, streaming device, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
D. Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., “determine if the first game outcome corresponds to the second game outcome”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Mental Processes. These limitations are interpreted as at least Mental Processes insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to steps/concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, 11, 13-20:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Mental Processes. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Mental Processes to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-20 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “processor, memory, server, client device, streaming device”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, in order to be eligible the claims would require structure that is beyond generic. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of processor, memory, server, client device, streaming device, are well known conventional computing devices (or parts of conventional computing devices) used to electronically manage data as evidence by LEAHY et al. (US 20150309696 A1; hereinafter Leahy). Leahy discloses that a conventional computer is used to store, read, and modify data (¶25). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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 1-4, 8-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baker et al. (US 20210201622 A1; hereinafter Baker).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Baker discloses a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions (¶3) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: during a first period of time prior to an occurrence of an audit and reconciliation triggering event (although not explicitly mentioned, audit and reconciliation events are naturally triggered and they are necessary for online betting or wagering because this is the operational and regulatory backbone of the entire business, operators must constantly verify that the money moving through their system matches the bets being placed and/or settled): cause first data associated with a first game outcome determined by a first remote game server (live streaming platform server; ¶5) in association with a play of a wagering game displayed by a streaming device (data associated with a play of a wagering game; ¶5) to be communicated to a second remote game server (communicated data accessible by a remote device; ¶5), and cause second data associated with a second game outcome determined by the second remote game server (multiple servers are implemented in this gaming system in ¶63 and viewers get access to the live streaming platform in ¶55) to be communicated to a client device in association with a streamed play of the wagering game displayed by the client device (the occurrence of the audit and reconciliation compares outcomes and checks if they match, which is what naturally happens because in this system the viewer is able to make a back bet based on a bet made by the player in the live streaming platform in ¶56 and this check will need to happen in order to settle payments the player and/or the viewer; if outcomes match, the viewer and player will get paid, if they don’t match, they won’t get paid), and responsive to the occurrence of the audit and reconciliation triggering event, determine if the first data associated with the wager corresponds to the second data associated with the wager (comparison of data will naturally happen in this system because it is necessary to compare data of outcomes in order to settle payments to the player and/or viewer; ¶56).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Baker discloses wherein the audit and reconciliation triggering event occurs in association with an interval of time (checking and comparing if player and viewer won or lost must happen during an interval of time; ¶56).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Baker discloses wherein the audit and reconciliation triggering event occurs responsive to an input received from an input device (again, although not explicitly mentioned, betting requires an input from the player to wager and an input from the viewer, which will trigger the system to compare these outcomes by default; ¶56).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Baker discloses wherein the input device is associated with one of a first operator associated with the first remote game server, a second operator associated with the second remote game server, and an administrative user of a live streaming platform server (betting requires an input from the player to wager and an input from the viewer, which will trigger the system to compare these outcomes and make either one the operator; ¶56).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Baker discloses wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the occurrence of the audit and reconciliation triggering event, cause the processor to communicate a result of the determination to a live streaming platform server (content added to the stream includes an outcome of a play of the game; ¶41).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Baker discloses wherein at least one of the communication of the first data associated with the first game outcome (data associated with a play of a wagering game; ¶5) to the second remote game server (communicated data accessible by a remote device; ¶5) and the communication of the second data associated with the second game outcome to the client device occurs in association with a live streaming platform server (this is all occurring in association with the live streaming platform because the it allows a viewer to do a back bet based on the stream; ¶55-56).
Regarding claim 10, Baker discloses A system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions (¶3) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: during a first period of time prior to an occurrence of an audit and reconciliation triggering event: enable a wager to be placed at a client device in association with a play of a wagering game streamed from a streaming device (viewer places one or more wagers on one or more events occurring at the EGM, which are part of the stream; ¶55), and responsive to the wager being placed at the client device: cause first data associated with the wager to be stored in association with a live streaming platform server (live streaming server stores a plurality of instructions and data associated with a wagering gaming session; ¶4), and cause second data associated with the wager to be stored in association with a remote game server associated with the client device (live stream includes data that is associated with one or more bets, such as the amount won by remote viewers; ¶59), and responsive to the occurrence of the audit and reconciliation triggering event, determine if the first data associated with the wager corresponds to the second data associated with the wager (the occurrence of the audit and reconciliation compares outcomes and checks if they match, which is what naturally happens because the viewer is able to make a back bet based on a bet by the player in the live streaming platform in ¶56 and this check needs to happen in order to pay the player and/or the viewer).
Regarding claim 11, Baker discloses wherein the audit and reconciliation triggering event occurs based on at least one of an interval of time and an input received from an input device (checking and comparing if player and viewer won or lost must happen during an interval of time in ¶56 and/or betting requires an input from the player to wager and an input from the viewer, which will trigger the system to compare these outcomes by default in ¶56).
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.
Claims 5-6 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Asher et al. (US 20190236908 A1; hereinafter Asher).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Baker discloses wherein the first game outcome corresponds to the second game outcome if the first game outcome matches the second game outcome (the occurrence of the audit and reconciliation compares outcomes and checks if they match, which is what happens because the viewer is able to make a back bet based on a bet by the player in the live streaming platform in ¶56 and this check needs to happen in order to pay the player and/or the viewer).
Baker does not explicitly disclose implementing a transaction identifier in order to compare outcomes. However, Asher focuses on a way to clear bets by auditing them, which relates to Baker because they both need to compare outcomes in order to settle bets. Asher teaches that a transaction identifier is used for an audit log, which is used to settle accounts (Audit log is able to use transaction identifiers ¶29 and settles accounts between wagering facilities using the captured audit information in ¶22).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baker to implement the teachings of Asher for the benefit of having a unique identifier for each wagering transaction. This allows the transaction to be audited and fully monitored so that there is definitive proof of settlement and/or fraud.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Baker discloses wherein the first game outcome corresponds to the second game outcome if the first game outcome matches the second game outcome (the occurrence of the audit and reconciliation compares outcomes and checks if they match, which is what happens because the viewer is able to make a back bet based on a bet by the player in the live streaming platform in ¶56 and this check needs to happen in order to pay the player and/or the viewer).
Baker does not explicitly disclose implementing a timestamp in order to compare outcomes. However, Asher teaches that a timestamp is used for an audit log, which is used to settle accounts (Audit log is able to use transaction identifiers ¶29 and settles accounts between wagering facilities using the captured audit information in ¶22).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baker to implement the teachings of Asher for the benefit of checking when the transaction or wager was made. This allows the transaction to be audited properly in order to check if the wager was made before the results of the outcome came out, which avoids time-based fraud.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Pimienta et al. (US 20200020065 A1; hereinafter Pimienta).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Baker discloses wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor responsive to the determination that the first game outcome fails to correspond to the second game outcome (the system already checks if outcomes don’t match, which would be a failure, because the viewer is able to make a back bet based on a bet by the player in the live streaming platform in ¶56 and this check needs to happen to make sure outcomes match because if they don’t the player and/or viewer will not get paid).
However, Baker does not disclose causing the processor to generate a notification associated with an inconsistency between the first game outcome and the second game outcome. However, Pimienta focuses on a system that facilitates transactions where wagering is included, which relates to Baker because both have transactions when a bet or wager is made. Pimienta teaches causing the processor to generate a notification associated with an inconsistency between the first game outcome and the second game outcome (the system here provides notifications when comparing if the predicted outcome of a game doesn't match the outcome of the wager; ¶58).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baker to implement the teachings of Pimienta for the benefit of properly announcing the settlement of the bet. A notification will bring attention to the player or viewer right away and let them know the results of the outcome.
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 JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8am-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, 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.
/JOSE ANGELES/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights