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 .
The Applicant’s argument and amendment received on 07/21/2025 has been considered. It is noted that claims 1 and 8 have been amended. Claims 7 and 9 have been cancelled.
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.
Claims 1,2,5,6,8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barak (US 2019/0318582) in view of Trepp et al (US 2020/0126363).
Regarding claims 1,5,6, and 10-12: Barak discloses a system for wagering on a path of a player or object in a field of play during an action of a live event, comprising: a wagering network that hosts in-play wagering on live sporting events (see paragraphs [0094], [0112], showing the wagering process on a live event); at least one of a virtual reality or augmented reality device (see paragraphs [0034], [0089], [0100], showing game play using virtual or augmented reality devices for the wagering game); a live sporting event, wherein the live sporting event is displayed through the at least one virtual reality or augmented reality device (see paragraphs [0062], [0094], showing the game utilized augmented reality device); an available initial wager provided by the wagering network for an action in the live event, wherein display of the available initial wager is based on a point of view of the at least one virtual reality or augmented reality device and one or more elements in the live event (see paragraph [0082], [0088], showing gaming server using virtual reality for viewing, tracking, placing, and managing wagers); a selection of an initial wager through the at least one virtual reality or augmented reality device (see paragraph [0082], [0088], showing gaming server using virtual reality for viewing, tracking, placing, and managing wagers); and at least one additional wager is displayed following the selection of the initial wager, wherein the additional wager is related to the selected initial wager and one or more actions of one or more elements in the live event (see paragraph [0004], showing an additional wager opportunity is provided to the user in addition to the initial wager).
In an analogous invention, Trepp et al teaches one or more sensors at the live sporting event, wherein the one or more sensors collect sensor data, with game action generated based on the sensor data from the live event, (see paragraph [0095]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Barak’s wagering game as taught by Trepp’s game of chance for the purpose of improving the data gathering process of the game system. This yields the expected result of increasing the player’s satisfaction and enjoyment in the game play.
Regarding claim 2: Barak discloses wherein the one or more elements comprise one or more players participating in the live event, or one or more objects used to participate in the live event (see paragraph [0080], showing multiple users participating simultaneously).
Regarding claim 8: Barak discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one of a motion sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, an optical sensor, a microphone, a radio receiver, a thermal imager, a tracking device, an accelerometer, a radar device, a LIDAR device, and/or an ultrasound device (see paragraph [0020], showing placing location based wagers with tracking being used during the game).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barak (US 2019/0318582) in view of Trepp et al (US 2020/0126363) and Nelson et al (US 2021/0074126).
Regarding claim 3: Barak discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Barak does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one additional wager is a parlay related to the selected initial wager.
In an analogous invention, Nelson et al teaches wherein the at least one additional wager is a parlay related to the selected initial wager (see paragraphs [0025], [0141], showing initial wagers, additional wagers parlay wagers, over/under wagers).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Barak’s wagering game as taught by Trepp’s game of chance and Nelson’s wager type for the purpose of increasing the player’s chances and opportunity in the game play. This yields the expected result of increasing the player’s satisfaction and enjoyment in the game play.
Regarding claim 4: Barak discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Barak does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one additional wager is an over/under wager.
In an analogous invention, Nelson et al teaches wherein the at least one additional wager is an over/under wager (see paragraphs [0025], [0141], showing initial wagers, additional wagers parlay wagers, over/under wagers).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify Barak’s wagering game as taught by Nelson’s wager type for the purpose of increasing the player’s chances and opportunity in the game play. This yields the expected result of increasing the player’s satisfaction and enjoyment in the game play.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6,8, and 10-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADETOKUNBO OLUSEGUN TORIMIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-1345. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8am - 4pm).
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, Peter Vasat can be reached on (571)270-7625. 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.
/ADETOKUNBO O TORIMIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715