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 .
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 a content consumption history associated with a user;
determining one or more available content items associated with one or more wagering opportunities;
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
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
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.)
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.
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.
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 § 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 – 5, 7 - 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huke et al (US 2021/0217269).
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)
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 3, 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 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 determining one or more bookmaking odds. (Huke discloses the determination odds for wagering opportunities) (Huke 0019, 0022, 0023, 0028, 0031, 0059, 0061)
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) 10 is/are anticipated by Huke based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 3, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 11 is/are anticipated by Huke 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 anticipated by Huke based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 5, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 14 is/are anticipated by Huke based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 6, 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 anticipated by Huke based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 8, which are similar in claim scope.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke et al (US 2021/0217269) 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 determining one or more jurisdictional rules related to gambling.
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.
Claim(s) 17 - 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huke et al (US 2021/0217269) 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)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues essentially on Remarks pages 6 – 8 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 present claims, however, are not directed to rules or instructions for resolving financial obligations between parties. Therefore, the claims are not directed to a managing personal behavior or relationships, are not directed to a method of organizing human activity and are therefore patent eligible. Thus, for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to In re Smith and In re Marco, Applicant submits the present claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity.” (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, wherein a user makes a wager selection as is evidenced by claims 2, 15 and 18 wherein a user specifically makes a wager (i.e. a financial obligation being exchanged)
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, argues that the claims provide an improvement to a technical field. Specifically the Applicant states “Applicant respectfully submits that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reciting a specific technical improvement in content delivery systems. The claims describe a concrete technical solution for analyzing content consumption history and delivering personalized wagering opportunities through media devices, which improves the functioning of content distribution networks. Accordingly, the rejection under Step 2A Prong 2 should be withdrawn.” (Remarks page 14).
The Examiner respectfully disagree and notes that barring the fact that the claims utilize media devices or user devices, the Applicant fails to specify 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. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
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.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 in view of Huke, the Applicant argues:
“Because Huke does not disclose "determining one or more available content items associated with one or more wagering opportunities" as a separate step from determining the content consumption history, and does not disclose "determining, based on the content consumption history and the one or more available content items, a quantity of wagering opportunities" as recited by claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits that Huke fails to anticipate claim 1. Dependent claims 2-5, 7, and 8 depend from claim 1 and are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs attention to paragraph 0059 of Huke. Huke discloses specifically the following:
“[0059] This is a system for a real time action of interest notification system. This system includes of at least two live games, for example a sporting event such as a football game, basketball game, baseball game, hockey game, tennis match, golf tournament, etc., in element 102. A live action input module that receives data about each individual action in the game, for example which players were involved or in action during a sporting event. In some embodiments, an action may be a specific play or specific event in a sporting event. In some embodiments, an action may be a throw, shot, pass, swing, kick, hit, performed by a participant in a sporting event. In some embodiments, an action may be a strategic decision made by a participant in the sporting event such as a player, coach, management, etc. In some embodiments, an action may be a penalty, foul, or type of infraction occurring in a sporting event. In some embodiments, an action may include the participants of the sporting event. In some embodiments, an action may include beginning events of sporting event, for example opening tips, coin flips, opening pitch, national anthem singers, etc. In some embodiments, a sporting event may be football, hockey, basketball, baseball, golf, tennis, soccer, cricket, rugby, MMA, boxing, swimming, skiing, snowboarding, horse racing, car racing, boat racing, cycling, wrestling, Olympic sport, and the like. Further, a cloud or communication network which may be a wired and/or a wireless network. The communication network, if wireless, may be implemented using communication techniques such as Visible Light Communication (VLC), Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX), Long Term Evolution (LTE), Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN), Infrared (IR) communication, Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), Radio waves, and other communication techniques known in the art. The communication network may allow ubiquitous access to shared pools of configurable system resources and higher-level services that can be rapidly provisioned with minimal management effort, often over the Internet and utilizing sharing of resources to achieve coherence and economies of scale, like a public utility, while third-party clouds enable organizations to focus on their core businesses instead of expending resources on computer infrastructure and maintenance. An API for delivering data from the live game to the betting network can further be provided in element 108. An API for delivering data between the betting network and the user device can be provided in element 110. A user device for connecting to the cloud or Internet and running the game app can be provided in element 112. A game app that displays the odds for the next action of the live game, allows the user to place a bet, and displays the user's credits, in element 114. A bet GUI that displays the possible betting options and odds for each betting option, the odds determine the ratio of credits bet to credits returned if the bet was correct can be provided in element 116. A bet input module that allows the user to choose to bet credits on one or more options can be provided in element 118. A credits GUI that displays the user's current amount of credits in the credit database, where winning bets will increase the user's amount of credits while losing bets will decrease the user's amount of credits, credits may be tied to a real money value or to a point system can be provided in element 120. A betting network which provides an artificial intelligence-based software module that monitors the user's history of viewing and making wagers through the game app in order to identify actions that are highly correlated with actions the user has previously played or shown an interest in viewing or wagering on can be provided in element 122. A betting module that allows the user to view available live actions to wager on, select those actions that interest them and wager credits or funds available to them can be provided in element 124. 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.
As can be clearly seen, Huke discloses: 1) a determination of a user’s past wagering habits or tendencies, 2) a determination of live actions that are available to be wagered upon, 3) a comparison of the characteristics of the actions in relation to the user’s tendencies or past wagers they have made and finally 4) the notification of the action being available to be wagered upon.
Regarding Applicant’s allegation of “As discussed above, Huke does not teach, "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." Therefore, it follows that Huke necessarily cannot teach, "causing the quantity of wagering opportunities to be output to a media device associated with the user." (Remarks page 21). The Examiner disagrees and states that Huke clearly discloses the notification that is presented to the user of available wagering opportunities that match their interest and/or past wagering habits (Huke 0059).
Applicant further states: “The Office Action may cite Huke 's disclosure of parlays; however, Huke merely describes what a parlay is in general terms. For example, Huke discloses that "[a] parlay is a single bet that links together two or more individual wagers for a high payout." See Huke, 4. This is simply a definition of a parlay, not a disclosure of the claimed step of "building.. .a parlay."
Claim 9 requires a specific sequence of operations: determining available content items based on content consumption history, determining wagering opportunities associated with those content items, and then building a parlay based on those wagering opportunities. Huke 's general description of what a parlay is does not teach or suggest the claimed step of actively building a parlay based on wagering opportunities that were themselves determined from available content items identified through content consumption history analysis. Describing a concept is not the same as disclosing a method step that performs the claimed function in the claimed manner.” (Remarks page 22). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and states that the Huke does not merely describe a concept of a parlay in general terms. Rather, Huke specifically discloses ““Parlay”, “round robin”, “teaser” can be integrated into the embodiments in a variety of manners. (Huke 0028). Clearly one of the embodiments of Huke is found in paragraph 0059 that clearly discloses a betting module that presents to the user a plurality of live actions to wager upon and utilizing the explicit disclosure of paragraph 0028 that states one type of wager a user may make is as parlay which is a buildable wager comprising multiple legs or wagers, Huke does indeed anticipate the user being able to build a parlay based upon options that are presented to them which are based upon their wagering habits.
Regarding the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103, the Examiner notes that the Applicant makes no discernable argument that is specific to the limitations of claim 6. Thus, the Examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
2/17/2026
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715