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 § 112
Claims 9 and 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.
Concerning claims 9 and 20,
The limitation “second, different device comprises the client device” is considered indefinite. It is unclear how a single device can comprise of another device. It would require for the first device to be at least two devices. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to be that the second device is a client device. For the aforementioned reason, claims 9 and 20 do not establish clear metes and bounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 12-14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2022/0116436 A1 to Hartnett et al. (hereinafter Hartnett ) in view of US Publication 2018/0295175 A1 to Smith et al. (hereinafter Smith).
Concerning claim 1,
Hartnett discloses a live streaming platform server comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions (0361-0362) that, when executed by the processor following an occurrence of a community game triggering event (0042, 0230, 0282, 0284, wherein a participation trigger is considered a participation selection event and the setup/creation of the participation trigger is considered a community game triggering event), cause the processor to:
responsive to an occurrence of a community game participant selection event associated with a first user of a first device, enable the first user of the first device to participate in a community game streamed to a client device as part of a live stream (0226, 0230, Figure 14-15, wherein participants device are considered to be first/second devices and viewer devices viewing the public live stream are considered to be a client device), and
responsive to a second, different user of a second, different device having a designated relationship with the first user and dependent of any occurrence of any community game participant selection event associated with the second, different user, associate the second, different user with the community game (0226, 0230, Figure 14-15).
Hartnett does not clearly disclose responsive to a second, different user of a second, different device having a designated relationship with the first user and independent of any occurrence of any community game participant selection event associated with the second, different user, associate the second, different user with the community game.
Smith teaches responsive to a second, different user of a second, different device having a designated relationship with the first user and independent of any occurrence of any community game participant selection event associated with the second, different user, associate the second, different user with the community game (0027).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the social streaming apparatus of Hartnett with the invitation mechanics of the live streaming apparatus of Smith as both concern video streaming with multiple participants. Altering the combined live stream of Hartnett to incorporate the invitation mechanism as taught in Smith would allow for greater ease and efficacy in inviting players and make the apparatus more robust.
Concerning claim 2,
Hartnett discloses the association of the second, different user with the community game comprises enabling the second, different user to participate in the community game (0226, 0230, Figure 14-15).
Concerning claim 3,
the association of the second, different user with the community game comprises enabling captured audio/video data of the second, different user to be part of the live stream (0060, 0226, 0230, Figure 14-15).
Concerning claim 6,
Smith teaches the designated relationship comprises the first user and the second, different user being part of a same group of users (0027, 0041).
Concerning claim 7,
Smith teaches the designated relationship comprises the first user inviting the second, different user to be associated with the community game (0027, 0030-0034).
Concerning claim 8,
Smith teaches the designated relationship comprises the second, different user requesting the first user to enable the second, different user to be associated with the community game (0027, 0043, 0072).
Concerning claim 9,
Smitch teaches the second, different device comprises the client device (0036).
Concerning claim 10, see the rejection claim 1.
Concerning claim 12-14 and 17-20, see the rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-9 respectively.
Claim(s) 4-5, 11, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2022/0116436 A1 to Hartnett et al. in view of US Publication 2018/0295175 A1 to Smith et al. and further in view of US Publication 2020/0302734 A1 to Baker et al. (hereinafter Baker).
Concerning claim 4,
Hartnett discloses wherein the association of the second, different user with the community game comprises enabling the second, different user to engage in play in association with the community game. (0046, 0285), but does not clearly disclose the community game involving wagering and/or gambling.
Baker teaches a game involving wagering and/or gambling done in a live stream in association with a community game (0033).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the social streaming apparatus of Hartnett with the gambling based live streaming apparatus of Baker as both concern video streaming with gaming characteristics. Altering the combined live stream of Hartnett to incorporate the gambling and wagering mechanics as taught in Smith would allow for a wider variety of games to be available, increasing user retention and enjoyment.
Concerning claim 5,
Baker teaches the wager is placed in relation to the first user (0033, as broadly claimed, placing a bet in a game like poker would be in relation to other players participating).
Concerning claim 11,
Baker teaches the participation of the second, different user comprises enabling the second, different user to receive an award in association with the community game (0032-0033).
Concerning claim 15-16, see the rejection of claim 4-5 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights