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 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 judicial exception and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1 – Statutory category?
Independent claims 1 & 10 recite “a system” and independent claim 12 recites “a method”. These claims are nominally directed to a machine and a process, which are statutory categories of invention and satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One – Abstract idea?
When considered as a whole, the independent claims are directed to the following core concept:
Claims 1 & 12: determining whether a progressive award triggering event occurred in association with a live stream that includes at least part of a play of a wagering game, and when such an event occurs, determining different portions of a progressive award maintained for a plurality of client devices and making those portions available to different users of different of those client devices.
Claim 10: maintaining a progressive award associated with a plurality of client devices, modifying the progressive award in response to contribution events, and, when a progressive award triggering event occurs in association with the live stream of the wagering game, determining for each eligible client device a client-device portion of the progressive award and making each portion available to the corresponding client device.
In all three independent claims, the focus is on:
maintain and/or funding a pooled progressive award;
determining when that award is triggered;
allocation portions of the pool among participants when a trigger occurs in the context of a live-streamed wagering game
This is a scheme for managing and distributing pooled value among participants in a wagering/live-stream environment, which is a method of organizing human activity and a fundamental economic or reward practice. The live streaming platform server, streaming device, and client devices provide the environment and tools in which this scheme operates. The claims do not recite an improvement to streaming technology or computing hardware itself.
The dependent claims add further conditions and rules on how the progressive award is funded and allocated, such as equal or unequal portions (e.g. claims 2, 3, 9, 13, 14, 20), adjusting portions based on user attributes, status, activity etc. (e.g. claims 4-6, 15-17), having the server perform determinations (e.g. claims 7, 18), and determining/making available additional portions of the progressive (e.g. claims 8, 11, & 19).
These dependent claims refine the reward/funding rules but remain within the same abstract idea of managing how a pooled progressive award is funded and divided among participants and devices based on wagers, attributes, etc. They do not change the overall focus of the invention.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Integration into a practical application?
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include:
a processor and memory device storing instructions;
a streaming device in communication with a live streaming platform server; and
a plurality of client devices displaying the live stream based on data from the live streaming platform server.
These components are recited at a high level of generality and are used only for their conventional purposes, such as executing code, transmitting streaming data, displaying content, and sending/receiving data. The claims do not recite (i) any improvement to live streaming technology (e.g. new coding, buffering, latency, transport mechanisms, etc.), (ii) any improvement to the functioning of the processor, memory, client devices, or servers, and (iii) any particular data structure or technical mechanics for progressive award determinations, calculations, and the like beyond generic “determine”, “modify”, “cause to be made available” operations. The dependent claims similarly lack any technical constraints or improvements.
Using a generic server/client and streaming infrastructure to implement a reward-allocation policy does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, rather, it merely applies the abstract idea in a particular environment.
Step 2B – Inventive concept? (i.e. “significantly more?”)
The hardware elements (processor, memory device, streaming device, live streaming platform, client devices, etc.) are generic computing and networking components performing conventional functions. Taken individually and as an ordered combination, the claim elements: (i) user conventional computing and streaming components as tools, and (ii) implement a particular set of rules for funding, triggering, and dividing a progressive award among users and devices in a live-stream wagering context.
This is analogous to other subject matter found ineligible where generic client/server or streaming systems carry out business, advertising, or content-distribution schemes. There is no additional element or combination of elements that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application or that amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself.
For at least these reasons, the Examiner must respectfully position that claims 1-20 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0302734; hereinafter “Baker”) in view of Higgins et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0184777; hereinafter “Higgins”).
Claims 1 & 12: Baker’s disclose a gaming system (figure 2) with EGMs, a live streaming platform server, and remote viewer device. Baker discloses a streaming device or EGM in communication with a live streaming platform, a live stream of at least a portion of a play of a wagering game at the EGM, and a plurality of remote viewer client devices displaying the live stream based on data received from the live streaming platform (figures 1A-2 and paragraphs 0014-0059). Baker also discloses that remote viewer client devices can wager upon games being performed at the streaming device, thus acting as back betting players (paragraph 0055). Higgins teaches a progressive distribution scheme in which a progressive prize pool is maintained and associated with back-betting players, such that when a progressive trigger occurs as associated with play at EGM, Higgins discloses determining and distributing awards from the maintained prize pool to remote back betting players, such that the amounts are determined and made available to the players (paragraph 0047).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have it obvious to combine Baker’s live streaming and back-betting infrastructure with Higgins’ back-betting progressive pool scheme so that back-betters watching a live-streamed EGM can receive portions of a progressive award when a progressive trigger occurs in the streamed game. This combination simply applies Higgins’ progressive distribution logic to the live-streaming context taught by Baker, requiring mere routine skill in the art.
The combined system (and equally a method as performed by the system) thus would utilize computing elements such as a processor and memory to:
determine whether a progressive award triggering event occurred in association with a live stream (i.e. Higgins’ progressive trigger observed in Baker’s streaming context);
maintain a progressive award associated with multiple client devices or back-betting players (i.e. Higgins’ second prize pool associated with user computation devices; see abstract); and
determine portions of that progressive award for each client device and make those portions available to the respective users (i.e. Higgins’ distribution of back-bet prize pool amounts to different back-betting players).
The specific naming of “first portion” and “second portion” for “first client device” and “second, different client device” is straightforward design and implementation aspects reflecting standard allocation of progressive prize pools among multiple back-betting players, where Higgins already contemplates distributing awards to multiple back-betting players.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Baker and Higgins to provide the live streaming architecture of Baker a progressive award distribution scheme as taught by Higgins that would be advantageous to the remote viewers wagering upon live streamed games. Baker also explicitly discusses that certain implementations of their game system would incorporate progressive awards (paragraph 0127), where Higgins is one such implementation thereof.
Claim 10: All of the above applies, where the Baker and Higgins combination would similarly make obvious the system of a processor and memory that functions to: maintain a progressive award in association with at least a plurality of client devices in communication with a live streaming platform (i.e. as discussed above with the Baker and Higgins teachings), responsive to an occurrence of a progressive award contribution event, modify the progressive award (i.e. Higgins explicitly discloses maintain a progressive pool for the client devices, such that contribution events cause the pool to increase, see paragraphs 0045, 0151-0152), and responsive to a progressive award triggering event associated with a wagering game occurring at the streaming device during the live stream, determine for each eligible client device of the client devices, a client device portion and making such available to those client devices (i.e. as discussed above, the Baker/Higgins combination provides for distribution of the appropriate progressive award to eligible client devices). Accordingly, the Baker/Higgins combination similarly makes obvious claim 10 for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claims 1 & 12.
Claims 2, 3, 13, & 14: These claims add rules tying the first/second portions and progressive funding to wager amounts and percentages, such as equal funding despite different wagers or funding progressive awards with different percentages of different wager amounts from client (viewer) devices. Higgins already teaches assigning values to prize pools based on wagers and back-bet contributions, including allocating portions of back-bet wagers to multiple progressive pools and updating electronic records (paragraphs 0045-0046). Higgins also discloses “the back-bet progressive prize may be split equally or commensurately between the multiple back-betting players, depending on each winning player's wager” (paragraph 0047). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious in the Baker/Higgins combination to implement particular wager percentage allocations, equal or unequal distribution rules, and the like as commonplace design considerations, especially given Higgins explicit teachings detailed above.
Claims 4-6 & 15-17: These claims add that when wager amounts are equal, the first and second portions can differ based on user attributes, status, or activity (or lack thereof). Baker teaches player tracking, status levels, tournament participation, achievements, and activity-based rewards for players and viewers (e.g. paragraphs 0134). Higgins teaches player accounts and back-betting sessions, where payouts can be differentiated based on back-bet levels, number of back-betters, and where prize pool distributions may vary by criteria such as wager level (paragraphs 0045-0047). Given that both references recognize using player attributes, statuses, activity and the like, and such is commonplace or well established in the art, it would have been obvious to further refine progressive prize pool distributions in the Baker/Higgins combined system based on player status, levels, activity and the like, such as even when wagers are equal, a higher status player may obtain a larger portion of the progressive. This is a predictable user of known player-segmentation techniques in an otherwise straightforward prize allocation scheme.
Claims 7 & 18: These claims specify that the live streaming platform server itself determines whether the progressive event occurred and/or the first and second portions. Baker already teaches that the live streaming platform server receives data from the EGM, determines the live stream, and can manage remote viewer interaction and wagering, including transferring funds and updating accounts (figures 1A-2 and paragraphs 0014-0059). Higgins teaches managing prize pools and making determinations about distributions. It would have been routine and obvious to implement this type of determination logic on the streaming platform server or a centra server in the Baker/Higgins combined system rather than on any specific EGM, client device or elsewhere in the system arrangement, especially in a cloud-based streaming architecture.
Claims 8, 11, & 19: These claims add a third portion of the progressive to be determined in response to the triggering event and cause the third portion to be made available to the user of the streaming device. Higgins explicitly discloses that distributions from the back-bet prize pool may also be split between back-betting players and the primary gambling player at the EGM, and that primary players can receive a share of the back-bet funded prizes (paragraphs 0045-0048, 0081). Baker too similarly discloses that players at the EGM live streaming their game can get some portions of fees or allocations (paragraph 0053). It would have been obvious to provide an additional progressive portion within the Baker/Higgins combined system to the primary player or the user of the streaming device in response to the progressive triggering event. This appears to be a straightforward extension of Higgins sharing of back-bet funded prizes to primary players.
Claims 9 & 20: These claims recite funding the progressive award with a portion of a wager placed at the streaming device on play of the wagering game, as opposed to a separate prize pool funded by the back-betters. Higgins teaches that a first prize pool (primary progressive) is funded by wagers at the EGMs and the second prize pool (back-bet progressive) is funded by back-bet wagers placed via user devices (abstract), with portions of back-bets optionally funding both pools. Baker teaches wagers placed at the EGM and remote viewer wagers that interact with the EGM and the platform, but is silent on details of any progressive pools. Given the Higgins teachings and common knowledge in the art, it would have been an obvious matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the progressive scheme of the Baker/Higgins combined system to utilize both primary player wagers and back-betting player wagers to fund the same progressive pool as a matter of choice, design, game mathematics and the like that those of ordinary skill in the art would need to consider.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILAP SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30-6PM.
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, KANG HU can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/MILAP SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights