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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e), was filed in this application after final rejection. since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 04/07/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1,2,5,8-9,11,12-14,17,20 have been amended.
Claims 6,18 have been canceled.
Claims 1-5, 7-17, 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 04/07/2026 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1-5, 7-17, 19-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “ the claimed the live streaming platform servers and methods of operating live streaming platform servers provide a solution to the recognized problem of offering streaming services for client devices and streaming devices associated with remote game servers 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), as shown in Figures 1A and 1B. That is, the live streaming platform server of representative independent Claim 1 operates to provide a solution to the particular problems encountered with existing systems in facilitating interactions between a streaming device associated with a first remote game server (in a jurisdiction associated with a set of regulations relating to real money gaming) and two client devices respectively associated with a second and third remote game server where the second and third remote game servers are operating in different jurisdictions (i.e., potentially associated with different sets of regulations relating to real money gaming than each other and/or the first remote game server). In solving these technical problems, the live streaming platform server of representative independent Claim 1 determines different benefits based on an attribute associated with each remote game server of a respective client device to make such benefits available to a streaming device (associated with a remote game server potentially operating in a different jurisdiction than that of either or both of the remote game servers of the respective client devices). In other words, by providing different benefits derived from client devices associated with remote game servers in different jurisdictions to a streaming device associated with a third, potentially different remote game server, the claimed live streaming platform servers and methods represent a technical improvement over prior systems that limited interactions to those between streaming devices and client devices within the same jurisdiction (i.e., associated with remote game servers in the same jurisdiction). For at least these reasons (and the reasons submitted with the Response to Office Action of October 15, 2025), Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 1 to 5, 7 to 17, 19 and 20 are not directed to an abstract idea under the Mayo/Alice test and are therefore patent-eligible (page 2/6)”.
Examiner disagrees. offering streaming services associated with remote game 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 in a different jurisdictions, OR determines different benefits based on an attribute associated with each remote game of a respective client to make such benefits available to a streaming (associated with a remote game potentially operating in a different jurisdiction than that of either or both of the remote game of the respective client ) and /or providing different benefits derived from client associated with remote game in different jurisdictions to a streaming device associated with a third, potentially different remote game is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
Accordingly, the purported improvements are rooted solely in the abstract idea itself that is merely applied using a general purpose computer (server and client device). As such, any purported improvement in what the applicant calls a technical field is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. In order for an improvement to a technology or technological filed to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection, the purported improvement must be rooted in the "additional elements" which in this case they are not. The claimed additional elements are merely a general purpose computer upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-5, 7-17, 19-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
With regard to claims 1-5, 7-17, 19-20 rejection under 35 USC § 102, applicant’s arguments are considered. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-5, 7-17, 19-20 under 35 USC § 102 is withdrawn.
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 1-5, 7-17, 19-20 are directed to a system and a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1-5, 7-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea:
receive, from a first client associated with a first remote game operating in a first jurisdiction, data associated with an amount of a first wager placed on a play of a wagering game displayed by the streaming and associated with a second remote game,
receive, from a second client associated with a third remote game operating in a second, different jurisdiction, data associated with an amount of a second wager placed on the play of the wagering game displayed by the streaming, wherein the first remote game and the second remote game are different remote game , and responsive to an occurrence of a benefit realization event:
determine, based on a first attribute associated with the first remote game , a first benefit attributable to derived from the first client ;
communicate, to the first remote game, data that results in the determined first benefit being made available to a user of the streaming,
determine, based on a second, different attribute associated with the third remote game, a second, different benefit attributable to derived from the second client, and
communicate, to the third remote game, data that results in the second, different benefit being made available to the user of the streaming;
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a computer with one or more hardware processors coupled to a memory that stores a plurality of instructions and executed by the processor ( server, client device)
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receive, from a first client device associated with a first remote game server operating in a first jurisdiction, data associated with an amount of a first wager placed on a play of a wagering game displayed by the streaming and associated with a second remote game,
receive, from a second client device associated with a third remote game server operating in a second, different jurisdiction, data associated with an amount of a second wager placed on the play of the wagering game displayed by the streaming, wherein the first remote game and the second remote game are different remote game , and responsive to an occurrence of a benefit realization event:
communicate, to the first remote game server, data that results in the determined first benefit being made available to a user of the streaming device,
communicate, to the third remote game server, data that results in the second, different benefit being made available to the user of the streaming device;
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) 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).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer with one or more hardware processors coupled to a memory that stores a plurality of instructions and executed by the processor ( server, client device)
to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. 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 the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computers, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraphs 106-111, 113-115 of the applicant’s specification) and the affinity v Direct TV decision which states that a database/ memory is a generic computer component); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receive, from a first client device associated with a first remote game server operating in a first jurisdiction, data associated with an amount of a first wager placed on a play of a wagering game displayed by the streaming and associated with a second remote game,
receive, from a second client device associated with a third remote game server operating in a second, different jurisdiction, data associated with an amount of a second wager placed on the play of the wagering game displayed by the streaming, wherein the first remote game and the second remote game are different remote game , and responsive to an occurrence of a benefit realization event:
communicate, to the first remote game server, data that results in the determined first benefit being made available to a user of the streaming device,
communicate, to the third remote game server, data that results in the second, different benefit being made available to the user of the streaming device;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 9 and 13.
The dependent claims 2-5,7-8,10-12,14-17,19-20 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting by adding the additional steps of: wherein the first benefit is based on a first relationship between a user of the streaming device and an operator associated with the first remote game server (claims 2, 14); wherein the first relationship comprises a first percentage of the amount of the first wager placed on the play of the wagering game displayed by the streaming device associated with the user of the streaming device (claims 3, 15); wherein the first relationship comprises a first rate associated with conducting a streaming session from the streaming device (claims 4, 16); wherein the second different benefit is based on a second, different relationship between the user of the streaming device and an operator associated with the third remote game server (claims 5, 17); generate a benefits report associated with the user of the streaming device (claims 7, 19); wherein at least one of the first benefit being made available to the user of the streaming device and the second different benefit being made available to the user of the streaming device comprises crediting an account associated with the user of the streaming device (claims 8, 20); based on an amount of the tip, a reduction of an account associated with a user of the client device, and cause, based on an amount of the tip, an increase of an account associated with the user of the streaming device (claim 10); responsive to a receipt, from the streaming device, of data associated with a request to gift a user of the client device and responsive to the first remote game server and the second remote game server comprising the same remote game server, approve the request to gift the user of the client device (claim 11); responsive to a receipt, from the streaming device, of data associated with a request to gift a user of the client device and responsive to the first remote game server and the second remote game server comprising different remote game servers, deny the request to gift the user of the client device (claim 12); and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-5, 7-17, 19-20 are not patent eligible.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-17, 19-20 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections identified above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The most relevant prior the examiner has found is:
Baker et al, US Pub No: 2020/0302734 A1, teaches Systems and methods that utilize an electronic gaming machine to stream one or more events occurring in association with the electronic gaming machine to zero, one or more interested parties whom are remote from the electronic gaming machine.
Nelson et al; US Pub No: 2020/0357246 A1, teaches systems and methods that provide real-time head-to-head sports wagering between players of gaming devices. Using a gaming device, a player initiates a wagering invitation message including an invitation to wager on an event associated with a competitive sporting contest. The invitation to wager defines an outcome associated with the event and an amount for the wager. The other player, from their own gaming device, and upon receiving information about the invitation to wager, can accept, decline, or propose a modification to the invitation to wager. The players can exchange communications between an interface of their gaming devices about potential wagers, existing wagers, or past wagers. Aspects of the present disclosure provide an enhanced social experience in head-to-head competitive sports wagering from a gaming device.
Nelson et al, US Pub No: 2021/0110632 A1, teaches systems and methods that selectively alter a presentation of a live sporting event rendered to a display device. The presentation of a live sporting event rendered to a portion of the display device is changed from a live video stream, received from a video source, to a non-video alternative presentation of the live sporting event using play-by-play information received from a wagering host server. When a signal of the video source is lost or degraded, the non-video alternative presentation replaces the live video stream with play-by-play information in real time about the live sporting event. The play-by-play information is text about the live sporting event, a two-dimensional graphical representation of the live sporting event, or a three-dimensional graphical representation of the live sporting event
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Nelson et al, US Pub No: 2021/0110632 A1, teaches systems and methods that selectively alter a presentation of a live sporting event rendered to a display device. The presentation of a live sporting event rendered to a portion of the display device is changed from a live video stream, received from a video source, to a non-video alternative presentation of the live sporting event using play-by-play information received from a wagering host server. When a signal of the video source is lost or degraded, the non-video alternative presentation replaces the live video stream with play-by-play information in real time about the live sporting event. The play-by-play information is text about the live sporting event, a two-dimensional graphical representation of the live sporting event, or a three-dimensional graphical representation of the live sporting event
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights