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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of Amendments
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 21 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 22 are pending.
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 22 are drawn to a method.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1 - 8 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. A method comprising:
Determining, based on received signaling data, a content consumption history associated with a user;
determining, based on the content consumption history, one or more available content items associated with one or more wagering opportunities;
determining, based on the content consumption history, the signaling data, and the one or more available content items, a quantity of wagering opportunities of the one or more wagering opportunities; and
causing the quantity of wagering opportunities to be output to a media device associated with the user.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent fundamental economic principles or practices, and managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards the analyzing of a user’s content consumption history and determining wagering opportunities to be presented to the user based upon content consumption history and can content items. This represents a fundamental economic practice, namely, exchanging consideration based on odds and outcomes The latter also falls under the grouping of managing interactions between people, i.e., enabling wagers based upon rules and/or the rules for presenting possible wagers to a user.) This also falls under Mental processes concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) wherein a human can observer a what a user is watching or consuming such as signaling data (i.e. video content), observe their content consumption history, analyze it and make s judgment such as to present applicable wagering opportunities they may be interested in to them utilizing manual means such as pen and paper.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): media devices and applications, servers and SCTE.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed media devices and applications. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Rye et al (US 20210209893) establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0121] In the heavily regulated field of wager-based gaming, electronic gaming machines or electronic gaming devices (“EGDs”) and their associated peripheral devices are required to be compliant with current wager-based gaming regulatory standards such as, for example, the well-known GLI standards, which have already been approved in various gaming jurisdictions. One example of a GLI standard is the GLI-11 standard version 3.0, Published Sep. 21, 2016 by Gaming Laboratories International, LLC, the entirety of which is herein incorporated by reference for all purposes.
[0231] In one implementation, processor 2310 and master gaming controller 2312 can be included in a logic device 2313 enclosed in a logic device housing. The processor 2310 may include any conventional processor or logic device configured to execute software allowing various configuration and reconfiguration tasks such as, for example: a) communicating with a remote source via communication interface 2306, such as a server that stores authentication information or games; b) converting signals read by an interface to a format corresponding to that used by software or memory in the gaming system; c) accessing memory to configure or reconfigure game parameters in the memory according to indicia read from the device; d) communicating with interfaces, various peripheral devices and/or I/O devices; e) operating peripheral devices such as, for example, card readers, paper ticket readers, etc.; f) operating various I/O devices such as, for example, displays 2335, input devices 2330; etc. For instance, the processor 2310 may send messages including game play information to the displays 2335 to inform players of cards dealt, wagering information, and/or other desired information.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Ebert et al (US 2022/0353178) establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0045] FIG. 2 shows Video Signals in various formats using different transport protocols, e.g., TS, WebRTC, RTMP and SRT, being routed as Streams to Ingest Servers over the Internet. As shown, teams of contributors contribute WebRTC and SRT Signals and a single contributor who is not part of the team contributes an RTMP Signals. A published or owner of a program can contribute Signals using TS protocol. The ingested Signals if accepted by a logically abstracted Input are abstracted as Streams before being sent to an abstracted Output defined as a logical entity. The Output can be mapped to a recorder device or to a multi-view device, which shows video images in what is known as tiles. In one routing example using MPEG-DASH over TS, the LVC identifies various audiovisual object types using a universal unique identifier system known as EIDR, which identifies assets, owners/publishers, titles, edits, and collections, series, seasons, episodes, and clips. The LVC supports Electronic Programming Guides (EPGs) and Interactive Programming Guides (IPGs). In this example, TS Streams that are routed to Ingest Servers include audio/video data and In-band (IB) metadata associated with movies, newscasts, TV and sport programs etc. There are several industry standards well known in the art such as ANSI SCTE 351, ANSI SCTE 1042, SMPTE 2010 and SMPTE 2038 that relate to in-band metadata signaling.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’s specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0095] The computer 1001 may operate in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more remote computing devices 1014A,B,C. A remote computing device may be a personal computer, computing station (e.g., workstation), portable computer (e.g., laptop, mobile phone, tablet device), smart device (e.g., smartphone, smart watch, activity tracker, smart apparel, smart accessory), security and/or monitoring device, a server, a router, a network computer, a peer device, edge device, and so on. Logical connections between the computer 1001 and a remote computing device 1014A,B,C may be made via a network 1015, such as a local area network (LAN) and/or a general wide area network (WAN). Such network connections may be through the network adapter 1008. The network adapter 1008 may be implemented in both wired and wireless environments. Such networking environments are conventional and commonplace in dwellings, offices, enterprise-wide computer networks, intranets, and the Internet.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 – 9, 11 – 13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke et al (US 2021/0217269) in view of Pleiman (US 2022/0417603).
As per claim 1,
Determining… a content consumption history associated with a user; (Huke discloses the determination of a user’s history of viewing and making wagers (i.e. content consumption)) (Huke 0059)
Determining… one or more available content items associated with one or more wagering opportunities; (Huke discloses the determination of live actions available to be wagered upon “A betting module that allows the user to view available live actions to wager on, select those actions that interest them”) (Huke 0059)
determining, based on the content consumption history, … and the one or more available content items, a quantity of wagering opportunities of the one or more wagering opportunities; and (Huke discloses “A notification module that monitors live actions available to be wagered on, then compares characteristics of those available live actions to actions the user has shown a tendency to view or wager upon in the past, such as a third down and between 7 and 10 yards to go for a first down involving the New York Giants on the road, and deliver a notification through the game app that such an action is available to be wagered upon”) (Huke 0059)
causing the quantity of wagering opportunities to be output to a media device associated with the user. (Huke discloses “A notification module that monitors live actions available to be wagered on, then compares characteristics of those available live actions to actions the user has shown a tendency to view or wager upon in the past, such as a third down and between 7 and 10 yards to go for a first down involving the New York Giants on the road, and deliver a notification through the game app that such an action is available to be wagered upon. In some embodiments, a user may select potential wager options of interest that they can be notified about when the wager option is available. In some embodiments, the notification may be a push notification, text message, e-mail, banner notification, voice message, or the like, in the event the user in not currently in the game app or is not logged into the game app can be provided in element 126. A user history database that houses the characteristics of all actions the user has either viewed or wagered on can be provided in element 128. A user credit database that houses the credits or funds the user has available to wager in element 130”) (Huke 0059)
In a similar field of endeavor, Pleiman teaches a system that presents to a view of a television content served by a television service provider, wagering opportunities that are based upon signaling data (Pleiman 0017, 0033) such as what the viewer is watching and their historical viewing (Pleiman 0014, 0039, 0041, 0042, 0046)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Huke in view of Pleiman to use a known technique of modifying similar systems in the same way by means of offering wager opportunities to a use based upon the current signaling data that they are viewing such as television data content and what they have previously consumed or watched. This would be beneficial as a user would have dynamic wagering opportunities presented to them in real time that are based on what they are currently interested in watching.
As per claim 2, Huke discloses: further comprising receiving, via the media device, one or more wagers associated with the one or more wagering opportunities. (Huke discloses the players making wagers “ If the user has sufficient credits or funds available to them, record the wager in the user history database at step 222. Adjust the user's account balance in the user credit database based on the outcome of the live action and the wager parameters at step 224.”) (Huke 0061)
As per claim 4, further comprising combining the one or more wagering opportunities into a parlay. (Huke discloses the use of parlays to make wagers) (Huke 0028)
As per claim 5, wherein determining the quantity of wagering opportunities comprises querying one or more feature servers. (Huke discloses the polling (i.e. requesting) of live action that is associated with user history that is associated with the user’s login) (Huke 0061, claim 1).)
As per claim 7,
determining one or more user identifiers associated with the user; and (Huke discloses a user needs to login, thus the user is associated with a login identifier) (Huke 0061)
determining one or more content requests associated with the one or more user identifiers. (Huke discloses the polling (i.e. requesting) of live action that is associated with user history that is associated with the user’s login) (Huke 0061).
As per claim 8,
causing the media device to activate an application; and (Huke discloses the activation of a game app to display a banner notification of the action that they can potentially wager upon; “if a notification is received, that action is displayed as a banner notification across the top of the game app's present user interface screen at step 206. Receive the user's selected available live action to potentially wager on at step 208.”) (Huke 0061)
causing the media device to output an interface associated with the application. (Huke disclose the displaying of the notification for the user upon a media device) (Huke 0061)
As per claim 9, Huke discloses:
determining a user account associated with a user device; (Huke discloses a user needs to login, thus the user is associated with a login identifier) (Huke 0061)
determining a content consumption history associated with the user account; (Huke discloses the polling (i.e. requesting) of live action that is associated with user history that is associated with the user’s login) (Huke 0061).
determining, based on the content consumption history, one or more available content items; (Huke discloses “A notification module that monitors live actions available to be wagered on, then compares characteristics of those available live actions to actions the user has shown a tendency to view or wager upon in the past, such as a third down and between 7 and 10 yards to go for a first down involving the New York Giants on the road, and deliver a notification through the game app that such an action is available to be wagered upon”) (Huke 0059)
determining one or more wagering opportunities associated with the one or more available content items; and (Huke discloses “A notification module that monitors live actions available to be wagered on, then compares characteristics of those available live actions to actions the user has shown a tendency to view or wager upon in the past, such as a third down and between 7 and 10 yards to go for a first down involving the New York Giants on the road, and deliver a notification through the game app that such an action is available to be wagered upon. In some embodiments, a user may select potential wager options of interest that they can be notified about when the wager option is available. In some embodiments, the notification may be a push notification, text message, e-mail, banner notification, voice message, or the like, in the event the user in not currently in the game app or is not logged into the game app can be provided in element 126. A user history database that houses the characteristics of all actions the user has either viewed or wagered on can be provided in element 128. A user credit database that houses the credits or funds the user has available to wager in element 130”) (Huke 0059)
building, based on the one or more wagering opportunities, associated with the one or more available content items a parlay. (Huke discloses that wager opportunities can be used as building blocks or components of a parlay, wherein the parlays may be used in the various embodiments described) (Huke 0028)
Dependent claim(s) 11 is/are obvious over Huke and Pleiman based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 4, which are similar in claim scope.
As per claim 12, wherein the one or more available content items comprise one or more events scheduled for broadcast. (Huke discloses a player viewing an action wherein an action comprises a play or event occurring in a sporting event (Huke 0015), wherein in order to view the action the action or sporting event would be broadcasted to the player by some means) (Huke 0061).
Dependent claim(s) 13 is/are obvious over Huke and Pleiman based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 5, which are similar in claim scope.
As per claim 15, outputting the one or more wagering opportunities via the user device; and receiving, based on the one or more wagering opportunities, one or more wagers. (Huke discloses the presenting of potential wagering opportunities and the receiving of at least one wager by the player via the user device) (Huke 0061)
Dependent claim(s) 16 is/are obvious over Huke and Pleiman based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 8, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke et al (US 2021/0217269) in view of Pleiman (US 2022/0417603) in view of Shore et al (US 2023/0394930)
As per claim 6, Huke fails to disclose:
wherein determining the quantity of wagering opportunities comprises one or more of determining one or more jurisdictional rules related to gambling or determining one or more bookmaking odds. (Huke 0019, 0022, 0023, 0028, 0031, 0059, 0061)
However, in a similar field of endeavor wherein player are given opportunities to wager upon game events Shore discloses the determination of the jurisdiction that a player is located in and this in turn limits the number of bets they are allowed to make. Shore specifically teaches “Based on that location, the system knows (1) whether use of the system is legal/allowed in that jurisdiction; (2) if legal/allowed, what limits exist in that location on the types/amounts of bets as prescribed by laws and regulations; and (3) based on those prescribed limits, the options presented to the user are conformed to the laws and regulations that apply.”) (Shore 0013)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Huke in view of Shore to utilize a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by limiting (i.e. determining) the amount of wagers a player can make based upon the jurisdiction they are located in. This would enable a game provider to ensure they are able to operate within the legal laws of an area where gaming is regulated and also provide a way to possibly limit the number of wins or losses a player may have within a period of time.
Dependent claim(s) 14 is/are anticipated by Huke, Pleiman and Shore based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 6, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke et al (US 2021/0217269) in view of Pleiman (US 2022/0417603) in view of Loheide et al (US 2018/0343489)
As per claim 3, wherein the… and wherein the content consumption history comprises one or more of: one or more athletic events, one or more competitions, one or more game shows, one or more political events, or one or more entertainment events. (Huke discloses the content being NFL game that the user can wager upon) (Huke 0063)
Huke fails to disclose: “wherein the signaling data comprises Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE) signaling…”
However in a similar field of endeavor, Loheide teaches the use of SCTE-35 markers to determine when to provide overlays of content items upon content the user is viewing (Loheide 0044).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Huke and Pleiman in view of Loheide to utilize signaling data that comprises SCTE markers in the data to determine when to present overlay content relevant to the user viewing. This would be beneficial as it would reliably offer a means to synchronize overlay content at the appropriate time based upon the content that they are currently viewing.
Dependent claim(s) 10 is/are obvious over Huke, Pleiman and Loheide based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 3, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 17 – 18 and 20 – 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke et al (US 2021/0217269) in view of Pleiman (US 2022/0417603) in view of Huke et al (US 2022/0139160) (hereinafter “Huke ‘160”).
As per claim 17, Huke discloses:
receiving, by a media device, primary content; (Huke disclose the receiving of live action by a player device) (Huke 0063)
determining the primary content comprises an event that is eligible for one or more wagering opportunities; (Huke discloses comparing the live action that comprises NFL down events to a user’s history of wagering/viewing etc. to determine if the content is eligible to be used as a notification for the user of a potential wagering opportunity) (Huke 0063)
sending, based on the event, …. one or more wagering opportunities; (Huke discloses the application of filters upon the data stored in the user history database to determine if wagering opportunities match or are correlated to the users historical wagering data and sending the user a notification of the wagering opportunity) (Huke 0063)
receiving, …. a parlay comprising the one or more wagering opportunities; and outputting the parlay via the media device. (Huke discloses the outputting of a wager opportunity being sent to a user device wherein the wager may be a parlay the user wagers upon) (Huke 0028, 0059, 0063)
Huke fails to specifically disclose the system explicitly requesting data and sending data in response to requests.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, wherein player data is used to is used for the purpose of allowing a user to make wagers upon sporting events, Huke ‘160 discloses “ a send data module 134, which may begin with the send data module 134 continuously polling for a request for the user data from the data collection module 114. …The send data module 134 may extract the user data from the user database 126. For example, the send data module 134 may extract a user ID, a device identifier, a paired device identifier, wagering history, or wallet information for the user. Also, the data may include user interests, user personal details such as age, mobile number, etc., previously played sporting events, highest wager, favorite sporting event, or current user balance and standings. The send data module 134 may send the user data to the data collection module 114. For example, the send data module 134 may send the extracted data such as a user ID, a device identifier, a paired device identifier, wagering history, or wallet information for the user. Also, the data may include user interests, user personal details such as age, mobile number, etc., previously played sporting events, highest wager, favorite sporting event, or current user balance and standings. (Huke ‘160 0077, 0079)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Huke in view of Huke ‘160 to use a known technique to modify similar device in the same way to utilize a known technique to use send data between devices based upon or in response to requests for the data. The data exchange technique of Huke ‘160 is a well-known predictable means for communicating data between devices. Using this known communication technique to enable data exchange because it would achieve the expected result of allowing devices to communicate as such techniques were routinely used in the art to facilitate device to device communication.
As per claim 18, further comprising receiving one or more wagers associated with the parlay. (Huke discloses the use of wagers that are associated with parlays) (Huke 0028)
As per claim 19, further comprising determining a content consumption history associated with the media device, wherein the content consumption history comprises one or more of: one or more athletic events, one or more competitions, one or more game shows, one or more political events, or one or more entertainment events. (Huke discloses the content being NFL game that the user can wager upon) (Huke 0063)
As per claim 20, further comprising combining the one or more wagering opportunities into a parlay. (Huke discloses the use of parlays to make wagers) (Huke 0028)
As per claim 21, further comprising determining one or more of: one or more bookmaking odds or jurisdictional rules related to gambling. (Huke discloses the determination odds for wagering opportunities) (Huke 0019, 0022, 0023, 0028, 0031, 0059, 0061)
As per claim 22, causing the media device to activate an application; and (Huke discloses the activation of a game app to display a banner notification of the action that they can potentially wager upon; “if a notification is received, that action is displayed as a banner notification across the top of the game app's present user interface screen at step 206. Receive the user's selected available live action to potentially wager on at step 208.”) (Huke 0061)
causing the media device to output an interface associated with the application. (Huke disclose the displaying of the notification for the user upon a media device) (Huke 0061)
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke et al (US 2021/0217269) in view of Pleiman (US 2022/0417603) in view of Huke et al (US 2022/0139160) (hereinafter “Huke ‘160”) in view of Loheide et al (US 2018/0343489)
As per claim 19, further comprising determining a content consumption history associated with the media device, …wherein the content consumption history comprises one or more of: one or more athletic events, one or more competitions, one or more game shows, one or more political events, or one or more entertainment events. (Huke discloses the content being NFL game that the user can wager upon) (Huke 0063)
Huke fails to disclose: “wherein the signaling data comprises Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE) signaling…”
However in a similar field of endeavor, Loheide teaches the use of SCTE-35 markers to determine when to provide overlays of content items upon content the user is viewing (Loheide 0044).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Huke and Pleiman in view of Loheide to utilize signaling data that comprises SCTE markers in the data to determine when to present overlay content relevant to the user viewing. This would be beneficial as it would reliably offer a means to synchronize overlay content at the appropriate time based upon the content that they are currently viewing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-22 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. Please see above rejection in view of Pleiman and Loheide.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues essentially on Remarks pages 7 – 9 that “a. The claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity at least because they do not recite a fundamental economic principle or manage relationships between people “. The Applicant goes on to state” These limitations do not recite a fundamental economic principle nor do they manage interactions between people.” (Remarks page 7). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims are directed towards the determination of wagering opportunities to be presented to a user based upon a content consumption history. This can indeed be considered a fundamental economic practice (i.e. wager opportunity creation) and managing interactions of people or a singular person by means of rules for determining which wagering opportunities to present for a person for selection.
Applicant further states:
“The Office Action characterizes the claims as directed to "fundamental economic
principles or practices" and "managing interactions between people," asserting they represent "wager opportunity creation" and "rules for determining which wagering opportunities to present for a person for selection." Office Action, p. 16. However, claim 1 does not recite any economic transaction, exchange of consideration, or financial activity. The claim does not recite placing a wager, resolving a wager, exchanging money, or any other financial obligation. The claim recites determining and outputting wagering opportunities based on content consumption history.(Remarks page 8)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and note that the claims are clearly directed towards at least rules for presenting possible wagers to a user which can be characterized as a financial activity, wherein a user further makes a wager selection (Financial obligation) as is evidenced by claims 2, 15 and 18 wherein a user specifically makes a wager (i.e. a financial obligation being exchanged)
Applicant further argues “b. The claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity at least because they do not recite rules for conducting a wagering game” in comparison to In re Smith. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the rejection does not state that the claims are directed towards rules for conducting a wagering game”, but rather states that the claims are directed towards managing interactions between people, (i.e., enabling wagers based upon rules and/or the rules for presenting possible wagers to a user). Thus, the arguments directed to such are rendered not applicable.
Applicant further states “Applicant submits the present claims are not directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” (remarks page 12). Examiner respectfully disagrees and states that the claims are indeed related to the managing of personal behavior or interactions between a person by means of monitoring the persons viewing habits and history and presenting them with wagering opportunities.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A (Applicant’s argument (i)), Examiner notes that the Applicant argues the same points that were addressed in the previous office action to which the Examiner directs attention to the Examiners response in the previous office action as the Applicant merely disagrees and does not provide persuasive reasoning as to what “specific technical improvement is actually made with regards to “content delivery systems” or how the functioning of a content distribution network is actually improved or in what way it is improved.”
Applicant cites various Board decisions and alleges “Here, the Office Action committed the same error: it dismissed the additional elements as mere "media devices and applications" without giving weight to the claimed signaling-data-driven content-management architecture and without consulting the specification, which describes the claimed improvement to content distribution networks. As in Ex parte Martineau, the Prong Two rejection should be withdrawn.
Applicant further states “The claims recite a specific technical implementation where content consumption history is analyzed to determine and output personalized wagering opportunities through a media device. This improves the functioning of content distribution networks by enabling real-time, context- aware supplemental feature delivery. The claims do not merely recite generic computing elements performing abstract functions, but rather describe a particular technical approach to content management and delivery.” (Remarks page 16). The Applicant on pages 17 – 18 lists various claim language limitations and makes general allegations that these provide “specific technical operations”, “technical determinations”, “technical solutions” etc. but fails to provide any persuasive reasoning as to what is actually improved in the functioning of the computer. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the Applicants alleged improvement equates to a human utilizing manual means to observe what a user is consuming and making a judgment to provide further tailored customized wagering opportunities to the user. The Examiner once again questions what the actual improvement to the functioning of the computer actually comprises that would lead one to conclude that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application barring the fact that it is implemented on conventional and generic devices such as media devices or on a conventional network.
(Regarding Applicant’s arguments to “C. The present claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception (Step 2B), the Examiner notes that the Applicant presents essentially identical arguments that were previously addressed in the previous Final Office Action. The Examiner directs Applicants attention to the below copied Examiner’s response)
Regarding Berkheimer the Applicant states “The Office Action has not provided evidence that the specific ordered combination of limitations recited in the claims represents well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. The Rye reference cited by the Office Action describes generic gaming machine components but does not establish that the claimed methods for content consumption analysis and wagering opportunity delivery are conventional.” The Examiner disagrees and notes that the Examiner has identified appropriately the “additional elements” of the claims such as the media devices and applications of the claims. The Rye reference provides evidence that these generic device like electronic game device and applications are well known and conventional. Further the Examiner notes that even the Applicant’s own specification discloses that these devices are conventional and that any type of well-known device may be utilized. See below
[0015] The system 100 may comprise a content source 102, an encoder 104, a secondary content source 106, a supplemental feature source 108, a media device 120, and/or any of the other devices in FIG. 1, combinations thereof, and the like. Each of the content source 102, the encoder 104, the secondary content source 106, the supplemental feature source 108, and/or the media device 120 can be one or more computing devices, and some or all of the functions performed by these components may at times be performed by a single computing device.
[0045] The user device 230 may receive the content and the one or more markers. For example, the user device 230 may comprise a set-top-box (STB), a mobile device (e.g., a smartphone), a smart TV, a computer, a laptop, combinations thereof, and the like.
[0074] FIG. 8 shows a flowchart of a method 800 for content management. The method 800 may be carried out on any one or more of the devices described in FIGS. 1A-1B, FIG. 2, FIG. 3,and/or FIG. 10. At 810, a user account may be determined. The user account may be associated with a user device. The user device may comprise, for example, a television, a computer, a phone, a voice activated device, or any other type of device. For example, the user device may comprise the media device 120 and/or the mobile device 124. The user account associated with the user device may be determined by virtue of the user device being activated. The user account may be determined based on one or more credentials (e.g., one or more identifiers) associated with the user device and/or the user account.
[0089] FIG. 10 shows a system 1000 for content management. The media device 120, the display device 121, the communication terminal 122, the mobile device 124, the advertisement server 106, the content source 102, the encoder 102, and/or the network component 129 of FIG. 1 may be a computer 1001 as shown in FIG. 10. The user device 202, the network device 204, the content device 206, and/or the computing device 208 of FIG. 2 may be a computer 801 as shown in FIG. 10. The computer 1001 may comprise one or more processors 1003, a system memory 1012, and a bus 1013 that couples various system components including the one or more processors 1003 to the system memory 1012. In the case of multiple processors 1003, the computer 1001 may utilize parallel computing. The bus 1013 is one or more of several possible types of bus structures, including a memory bus or memory controller, a peripheral bus, an accelerated graphics port, or local bus using any of a variety of bus architectures.
[0090] The computer 1001 may operate on and/or comprise a variety of computer readable media (e.g., non-transitory). The readable media may be any available media that is accessible by the computer 1001 and may comprise both volatile and non-volatile media, removable and non-removable media. The system memory 1012 has computer readable media in the form of volatile memory, such as random access memory (RAM), and/or non-volatile memory, such as read only memory (ROM). The system memory 1012 may store data such as the feature data 1007 and/or program modules such as the operating system 1005 and the feature software 1006 that are accessible to and/or are operated on by the one or more processors 1003. The machine learning module may comprise one or more of the feature data 1007 and/or the feature software 1006.
The Examiner notes that as can be clearly seen by the recitation of Rye and even the Applicants own specification, “This specific technical architecture for content- triggered wagering opportunity delivery” as the Applicant claims is indeed shown to be conventional and generic. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. 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, 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.
/RAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
8/21/2026
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights