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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception. The claims will be analyzed with respect to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test at MPEP§2106.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 1 (see MPEP§2106.03)
The claims recite one of the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 1 (see MPEP§2106.04(a-c))
The claims recite abstract ideas in the following categories;
Methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) see specifically ii. rules for conducting a wagering game, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); (MPEP§2106.04(a)(2)II).
The abstract ideas have been noted in the claims below.
Regarding claim 1, enable, in association with a client device, a wager to be placed on an outcome of a live community game associated with a streaming device (game rules regarding wager receipt and the qualification of those able to place the wager), and following a placement of the wager and responsive to a receipt of first data associated with the live community game: determine, based on the received first data associated with the live community game, second data associated with a result of the wager, and communicate the second data to the client device (game rules regarding the resolution and payment of a wager).
Regarding claims 2-20, recite additional game rules regarding the nature, limits and effectuation of a game.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 2 (see MPEP§2106.04(d))
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are generic computer hardware; insignificant extra solution activity such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data; and the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. These additional elements individually and in combination provide for limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements (1) add “insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) and (2) generally link “the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I).
These additional elements individually and in combination are not limitations that provide for “improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) apply or use the “judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) implement the “judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) effect “a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) or apply or use “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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I). As such the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2B (see MPEP§2106.05)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional generic computer hardware and insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP§2106.05). The claimed additional elements with citations indicating their well-understood, routine and conventional nature are provided below.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2019/0147700 by Malek.
Regarding claim 1, Malek discloses a live streaming platform server comprising: a processor (para. 58-62 – see cited devices); 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 wager to be placed on an outcome of a live community game associated with a streaming device (para. 435-475 – see wagers to be places on the outcome of a community game that is streamed to client devices), and following a placement of the wager and responsive to a receipt of first data associated with the live community game: determine, based on the received first data associated with the live community game, second data associated with a result of the wager, and communicate the second data to the client device (para. 435-475 – see the effectuation of wagers and gameplay of the wagers made by the clients on the community game).
Regarding claim 2, Malek discloses the live streaming platform server of Claim 1, wherein the first data associated with the live community game is received from the streaming device (para. 435-475 – see the information received by the client devices).
Regarding claim 3, Malek discloses the live streaming platform server of Claim 1, wherein the first data associated with the live community game is received from a device associated with a live host (para. 435-475 – see the live host and resolution).
Regarding claim 4, Malek discloses the live streaming platform server of Claim 1, wherein in association with a first portion of the live community game, a first device operates as the streaming device and in association with a second portion of the live community game, a second, different device operates as the streaming device (para. 435-475 – see split effectuation of the wager when the game is not performed by the streaming host).
Regarding claim 5, Malek discloses the live streaming platform server of Claim 1, wherein the outcome of the play of the live community game comprises an outcome associated with an individual participant of a portion of the live community game (para. 435-475 – see wagers on players/contestants).
Regarding claim 6, Malek discloses the live streaming platform server of Claim 1, wherein the wager matches a wager placed by a participant in the play of the live community game (para. 435-475 – see wagers placed for a player/contestant).
Regarding claim 7, Malek discloses the live streaming platform server of Claim 1, wherein the first data further comprises audio/video data of a live host (para. 435-475 – see video streaming and host).
Regarding claim 8, Malek discloses the live streaming platform server of Claim 1, wherein the streaming device comprises an electronic gaming machine (para. 58-62 – see gaming machines).
Regarding claim 9, Malek discloses the live streaming platform server of Claim 8, wherein the electronic gaming machine is located in a gaming establishment and a live host of the live community game is located remote from the gaming establishment (para. 435-475 – see the location remote from the game effectuation).
Regarding claims 10-20, these claims are rejected as noted above regarding claims 1-11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER J IANNUZZI whose telephone number is (571)272-5793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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.
/PETER J IANNUZZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights