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 are 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 that are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
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:
enable, in association with a client device, a first wager to be placed on a play of a game displayed by a streaming device, wherein the first wager to be placed comprises an amount of fiat currency and a second wager placed via the streaming device comprises an amount of virtual currency, and -certain method of organizing human activity;
following a placement of the first wager and responsive to a receipt, from a remote game server associated with a remote gaming platform, of first data associated with the play of the game displayed by the streaming device: -certain method of organizing human activity;
determine, based on the received first data associated with the play of the game displayed by the streaming device, second data associated with a result of the first wager, and communicate the second data to the client device. -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
The limitations, as underlined above, are found to recite a series of rules and/or instructions for managing a first wager associated with the play of a game which is analogous to a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., a fundamental economic activity). Additionally, at least some of the limitations recite a mental process because they recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion. For at least these reasons, the claims are found to recite 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:”, “in association with a client device,” “by a streaming device,” “from a remote game server associated with a remote gaming platform,” and “displayed by the streaming device,” are found to recite steps and/or instructions that invoke 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)). For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2a-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent claim 1, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element such as: “[a] live streaming platform server comprising: a processor and a memory device”, “a client device”, and “a remote gaming server” amount to a invoking highly-generalized computer components as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). As indicated by the Specification, the servers are merely discussed as one or more server(s) of a gaming establishment which indicate that the claims refer to commercially available devices and the client devices are highly-generalized personal gaming devices including a mobile device or a personal computer (see Specification, 0030, 0039, 0103-0105, wherein the server is any suitable computing device). It follows that the additional elements, when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea but merely recite a highly-generalized computing system to be invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
With respect to independent Claims 10 and 12, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as independent Claim 1, wherein the analysis above is incorporated herein. The differences between the claims include modifications such as: “link a live streaming platform account”, “based on the linkage, data published by a remote gaming platform” of independent Claim 10 and that independent Claim 12 is directed to the method of operating a live streaming platform in the manner as recited by independent Claim 1. However, these differences do not change the analysis as discussed above. For at least these reasons, independent Claims 10 and 12 are directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
With respect to dependent Claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20, the additional limitations have been reviewed and were found to recite at least one of: additional limitations that recite a grouping of abstract ideas (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)). For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Independent Claims 1 and 12, recite the limitations “wherein the first wager to be placed comprises an amount of fiat currency and a second wager placed via a second wager placed via the streaming device comprises an amount of virtual currency” renders the claim unclear because it is unclear whether “a second wager placed” is separate and distinct wager of virtual currency for a play of a game or the first wager includes an amount of fiat currency and the second wager for a single play of the game. For purposes of examination, the first wager is interpreted as being a first wager comprising a portion from fiat currency and a second portion comprising virtual currency.
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baker et al. (US 2020/0302734 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Baker discloses 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 (see Baker, Fig. 2, 0002-0004):
link a live streaming platform account associated with a user of a streaming device with a remote gaming platform account associated with the user of the streaming device (see Baker, Fig. 2, 0002-0004, 0050-0055),
determine, based on the linkage, data published by a remote gaming platform that is associated with a virtual currency wagered on play of a game displayed by the streaming device (see Baker, Fig. 2, 0054-0055), and
enable, in association with a client device, a fiat currency wager to be placed on the virtual currency wagered on play of the game displayed by the streaming device (see Baker, 0054-0055, wherein the back bet is a fiat currency wager placed on the plat of the game made by the player of the EGM and the player of the EGM places a first wager using a currency wager; 0091, wherein the currency may be any of credits or currency or non-monetary credits).
Regarding claim 11, Baker discloses the live streaming platform server of Claim 10, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, responsive to a placement of the fiat currency wager in association with the client device and a receipt, from a remote game server associated with the remote gaming platform (see Baker, 0054-0055, of data associated with the virtual currency wagered on play of the game displayed by the streaming device, cause the processor to determine any fiat currency award associated with the client device (see Baker, 0054-0055, 0058, 0091, 0136).
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 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (US 2020/0302734 A1) in view of Singer et al. (US 2017/0024952 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baker discloses 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 (see Baker, Fig. 2, 0002-0004):
enable, in association with a client device, a first wager to be placed on a play of a game displayed by a streaming device (see Baker, Fig. 2, 0002-0004, 0050-0055), and
following a placement of the first wager and responsive to a receipt, from a remote game server associated with a remote gaming platform, of first data associated with the play of the game displayed by the streaming device (see Baker, Fig. 2, 0002-0004, 0054-0055, wherein the remote viewer interaction event is associated with a remote gaming platform that requests to view, interact, or wager on the play of the game displayed by the streaming device):
determine, based on the received first data associated with the play of the game displayed by the streaming device, second data associated with a result of the first wager, and communicate the second data to the client device (see Baker, 0002-0004, 0054-0055, wherein the back bet received by a remote gaming platform includes second data that is determined based upon the result of the play of the game by the player on the streaming device). Although Baker discloses funding an EGM for a wager via a bill acceptor and dispensing paper currency from an EGM for a placed wager and discloses that any wagers, any values, and any awards may be described in monetary credits or fiat currency they may also be for non-monetary credits, promotional credits, of player tracking points or credits (see Baker, 0089, 0091, 0094), it does not explicitly teach wherein the first wager to be placed comprises an amount of fiat currency and a second wager placed via the streaming device comprises an amount of virtual currency.
Singer teaches a gaming system which provides alternative wagering opportunities to be presented to the player for one or more plays of the wagering game (see Singer, abstract). Specifically, Singer teaches a first wager that comprises monetary credits and a portion of the wager from virtual currency (e.g., - converting player points to virtual currency). Stated differently, Singer teaches wherein a second wager placed in a play of a game may be funded by an amount of virtual currency. One would have been motivated to use known techniques of Singer with the platform system of Baker to yield the predictable result to enhance player experience and increase player wagering opportunities (see Singer, 0038-0039). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application wherein the first wager to be placed comprises an amount of fiat currency and a second wager placed via the streaming device comprises an amount of virtual currency.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Baker and Singer teach the live streaming platform server of Claim 1, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor prior to receiving the first data, cause the processor to associate an account maintained by the live streaming platform server in association with the user of the streaming device with an account maintained by the remote gaming platform in association with the user of the streaming device (see Baker, 0018, wherein the live streaming platform account is associated with a player; 0048 – wherein the remote viewer’s player tracking account may be associated with their remote viewer account in associated with the user of the streaming device of the live streaming platform).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Baker and Singer teach the live streaming platform server of Claim 2, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor prior to communicating the second data to the client device, cause the processor to validate the second wager based on the association and a location of the streaming device (see Baker, 0052, wherein the location of the of the player or remote viewer meet regulatory requirements pertaining to age and location; Fig. 2, 0055-0056, 0139, following the remote viewer establishing and adequately funding a live streaming wagering account; Singer –0145, 0149-0150, wherein the validation of the second wager comprises converting the player tracking points to the virtual currency).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Baker and Singer teach the live streaming platform server of Claim 1, wherein the memory device stores a plurality of further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to communicate the second data to the remote gaming platform to update a balance of an account associated with a user of the client device (see Baker, Fig. 5B, 0046, 0086; and Singer – 0152, wherein the credit balance is updated to reflect any awards for the play of the wagering game).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Baker and Singer teach the live streaming platform server of Claim 4, 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 updated balance of the account associated with the user of the client device (see Baker – Fig. 5B, 0046, 0086, 0136, wherein the display provides a randomly determined outcome and the corresponding award; Singer – 0152).
Regarding claims 6, the combination of Baker and Singer teach the live streaming platform server of Claim 1, wherein the streaming device is determined to be location in a first jurisdiction that prohibits fiat currency wagering (see Baker, 0141).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Baker and Singer teach the live streaming platform server of Claim 6, wherein the client device is determined to be located in a second, different jurisdiction that permits fiat currency wagering (see Baker, 0141).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Baker and Singer teach 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 game (see Baker, 0054-0055, 0058, 0086, 0136).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Baker and Singer teach the live streaming platform server of Claim 1, wherein the first data comprises a game outcome of the play of the game determined by the remote game server and the second data comprises an amount of any fiat currency award associated with the first wager (see Baker, 0054-0055, 0058, 0091, 0136).
Regarding claim 12, Baker discloses a method of operating a live streaming platform server, the method comprising (see Baker, Fig. 2, 0002-0004):
enabling, by a processor and in association with a client device, a first wager to be placed on a play of a game displayed by a streaming device (see Baker, Fig. 2, 0002-0004, 0050-0055), and
following a placement of the first wager and responsive to a receipt, from a remote game server associated with a remote gaming platform, of first data associated with the play of the game displayed by the streaming device (see Baker, Fig. 2, 0002-0004, 0054-0055:
determining, by the processor and based on the received first data associated with the play of the game displayed by the streaming device, second data associated with a result of the first wager, and communicating the second data to the client device (see Baker, Fig. 2, 0002-0004, 0054-0055). Although Baker discloses funding an EGM for a wager via a bill acceptor and dispensing paper currency from an EGM for a placed wager and discloses that any wagers, any values, and any awards may be described in monetary credits or fiat currency they may also be for non-monetary credits, promotional credits, of player tracking points or credits (see Baker, 0089, 0091, 0094), it does not explicitly teach wherein the first wager to be placed comprises an amount of fiat currency and a second wager placed via the streaming device comprises an amount of virtual currency.
Singer teaches a gaming system which provides alternative wagering opportunities to be presented to the player for one or more plays of the wagering game (see Singer, abstract). Specifically, Singer teaches a first wager that comprises monetary credits and a portion of the wager from virtual currency (e.g., - converting player points to virtual currency). Stated differently, Singer teaches wherein a second wager placed in a play of a game may be funded by an amount of virtual currency. One would have been motivated to use known techniques of Singer with the platform system of Baker to yield the predictable result to enhance player experience and increase player wagering opportunities (see Singer, 0038-0039). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application wherein the first wager to be placed comprises an amount of fiat currency and a second wager placed via the streaming device comprises an amount of virtual currency.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Baker and Singer teach the method of Claim 12, further comprising, prior to receiving the first data, associating, by the processor, an account maintained by the live streaming platform server in association with the user of the streaming device with an account maintained by the remote gaming platform in association with the user of the streaming device (see Baker, 0018; 0048).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Baker and Singer teach the method of Claim 13, further comprising, prior to communicating the second data to the client device, validating, by the processor, the second wager based on the association and a location of the streaming device (see Baker, Fig. 2, 0052, 0055-0056, 0139; Singer –0145, 0149-0150).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Baker and Singer teach the method of Claim 12, further comprising communicating the second data to the remote gaming platform to update a balance of an account associated with a user of the client device (see Baker, Fig. 5B, 0046, 0086; Singer – 0152).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Baker and Singer teach the method of Claim 15, 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 updated balance of the account associated with the user of the client device (see Baker – Fig. 5B, 0046, 0086, 0136; Singer – 0152).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Baker and Singer teach the method of Claim 12, wherein the streaming device is determined to be located in a first jurisdiction that prohibits fiat currency wagering (see Baker, 0141).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Baker and Singer teach the method of Claim 17, wherein the client device is determined to be located in a second, different jurisdiction that permits fiat currency wagering (see Baker, 0141).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Baker and Singer teach the method of Claim 12, 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 game (see Baker, 0054-0055, 0058, 0086, 0136).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Baker and Singer teach the method of Claim 12, wherein the first data comprises a game outcome of the play of the game determined by the remote game server and the second data comprises an amount of any fiat currency award associated with the first wager (see Baker, 0054-0055, 0058, 0091, 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