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
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
4. Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to an apparatus {system}, or method meeting the requirements for Step 1.
5. Step 2A Prong 1
In independent Claim 1 (and similarly for Claims 10 and 12), recite abstract rules for wagering which is a certain method of organizing human activity. See Savvy Dog Sys. v. Pa. Coin, LLC, 2023-1073 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2024)).
6. Step 2A Prong II
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Applicant’s Specification does not disclose that the claimed elements of the platform server, streaming device, and client device are directed to a technological solution to a technological problem. There does not appear to be receiving data of wagering play which is extra-solution activity. Thus, Claim 1, and similarly Claims 10 and 12, lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
7. Step 2B
The data of the wagering game is extra-solution activity as identified above and under this step is data gathering which has been held to be well-known and conventional activity (See
receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). Thus, Claim 1, and similarly Claims 10 and 12, are ineligible.
8. Dependent Claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20
Claims 2-4, 11, 13-15 are directed to abstract aspects of following the rules of a game. Claims 5 and 16 recite extra-solution tools to serve as the streaming device. Claims 6 and 17 recite extra-solution tools as to the locations of the claimed elements. Claims 7 and 18 recites additional abstract rules to end the streaming. Claims 8-9 and 9-20 recite extra-solution aspects of the underlying data. Thus, none of the claims supply a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1-2, 6-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a1)(a2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0136137 to Munoz.
In Reference to Claims 1, 10, and 12
Munoz discloses a live streaming platform server (method to stream between devices (Abstr., Fig. 2), comprising:
a processor (Fig. 11A 1102 ([0183-0190]); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions (Fig. 11A 1104, 1106 ([0187]) that, when executed by the processor responsive to an action undertaken by a user of a device (Fig. 11A 1110 to include client devices over a network as in Fig. 11B client 1126 [[0190]) and responsive to a receipt of data of a selection (Fig. 3A 305-310 user elects to handoff content play from a first device to a second device), by a live host (Fig. 2 Media Manager where “the media manager may monitor and/or control the handoff between the user devices” [0018]), of the device to operate as a streaming device (client devices present streaming media [0023]), cause the processor to:
receive, from the device selected to operate as the streaming device (Fig. 3A 320), data associated with a play of a wagering game displayed by the device (Fig. 3A 305, see also gaming content [0018]),
receive audio/video data associated with the live host (gaming content [0018], see Claim 6 one or more of video, audio content), and
communicate, to a client device 1126 and at least partially based on the play of the wagering game and at least partially based on the audio/video data associated with the live host, a portion of a live stream occurring in association with the device selected to operate as the streaming device (Fig. 3A handoff complete 325), and
with reference to additional elements in Claim 10: a plurality of gaming machines (Fig. 2 shows a plurality of client devices where “[e]ach device may be a different or the same type of computing device. For example, the first user device may be a laptop and the second user device may be a television (e.g., with internet access). The third and fourth user device may be a cell phone and the fifth user device may include a tablet computer. The user devices may be communicably couplable to the Media Manager.” [0023]) where a gaming machine is eligible where “a handoff function may be available between devices within a predetermined boundary (e.g., designated as at home), within a predetermined distance from each other (e.g., 50 feet), and/or any other appropriate designation. The Media Manager may identify one or more user devices that are proximate and allow a handoff feature to be available. The device and/or the Media Manager App may use graphical user interface generated by the Media Manager (e.g., presented on the user device) and/or device to indicate a handoff feature is available” [0028]).
In Reference to Claims 2, 11, and 13
Munoz discloses a user input designating the device as eligible to operate as the streaming device (Fig. 3A 310 notification [0028]).
In Reference to Claims 6 and 17
Munoz discloses the media manager (live host) is remote from the user of the device selected to operate as the streaming device where the media manager is accessible via a webpage which suggests the media manager is a remote device ([0033]).
In Reference to Claims 7 and 18
Munoz discloses a termination event for termination of allowing control of play where “[f]or example, the handoff procedure for a user device going from a passive stage (e.g., not playing content) to an active stage (e.g., playing content) may include transmitting a message to a Content Provider (e.g., directly and/or via the Media Manager) to transmit content (e.g., identifying which content is to be provided and/or a stoppage point in the content being played on the first user device); increase in audio volume and/or image brightness; and/or transfer of control of the content play (e.g., in gaming, media play, etc.)” [0030]).
In Reference to Claims 8 and 19
Munoz discloses a handoff between first and second devices subject to a selection based on an attribute of the device wherein “state of the device” parameters (also referred to as the device state parameters) includes information that may be used by the Media Manager to determine a suitable handoff protocol. The device state parameters include available information about the system capabilities, system load, attached devices, location information, as well as system clock information.” ([0160]).
In Reference to Claims 9 and 20
Munoz discloses a handoff between first and second devices subject to a default duration where “[a] default algorithm may have a default duration attached. The default duration may be overwritten with the handoff handler parameters or the default settings may be changed for a particular device or for a particular user account.” (0167]). The particular user account is an attribute of the user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
12. 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.
13. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
14. Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0265094 to Tone.
Munoz discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose an electronic gaming machine. One of skill in the art would be aware of Tone.
Tone discloses that among the types of client devices to stream gaming content (Titl.) includes electronic gaming machines such as slot machines [0003].
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to amplify the understanding of gaming client devices of Munoz to include electronic gaming machines such as slot machines to achieve the predictable result of streaming to a more robust range of gaming devices. The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. In spite of what has been expressed for the rejection of the Claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101, Claims 3-4 and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
16. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the art of record does not teach or suggest that redeeming currency or entering a drawing create an opportunity to server as a streaming device.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
19. 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.
20. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights