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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 12, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0099759) in view of Thompson et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0076741) and Polson (Pub. No.: US 2023/0124722).
Regarding claim 1, Armstrong discloses a method comprising: determining one or more supplemental features associated with content (Figs. 21A and B, paras. [0330]-[0339]; Armstrong’s “media content objects” can be seen as supplemental features); determining, based on a time delta between an occurrence of an event in the content and output of the event at a user device (Fig. 19, para. [0318]), a latency associated with transmission of the content to the user device (para. [0219]); and based on the latency, blocking access to the one or more supplemental features (paras. [0219] and [0341]).
It could be argued that Armstrong does not explicitly disclose blocking access based on the latency exceeding a threshold. However, in analogous art, Thompson discloses that “the query or prompt may further allow the user to place a bet on the outcome of the future event. In that case, the prompt or query may further include estimated odds of the future outcome occurring. Bets may be placed in points (which may or may not have monetary value), credits, or currency (including currency of a country, digital currency such as bitcoin, or the like). The query or prompt may have a time limit. In that case, the query or prompt may include a clock or counter. If the user desires to submit a response or place a bet, he or she must do so before the clock or counter expires. The query or prompt may be removed and/or the control usable to place the bet or otherwise respond may be greyed out upon expiration of the clock or counter to prevent the user from responding once the clock or counter expires. This ensures that the response and/or bet will be received before the occurrence of the future event (para. [0379]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Armstrong to allow for blocking access to the one or more supplemental features based on the latency exceeding a threshold. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a specific time period to be set at which the supplemental features could be removed, which would give the system administrators more precise control over the mechanics of the system.
It could be argued that the combination of Armstrong and Thompson does not explicitly disclose wherein the latency is a network latency. However, in analogous art, Polson discloses that “an advanced-level UME interaction interface 400b can facilitate co-called “live” and/or “in-play” wager offers. With both types of wager offers, odds, and/or other wager parameters, tend to change during a competition, and subscribers 101 can place wagers during the competition. For example, “in-play” wager parameters tend to change less frequently (e.g., between each inning, quarter, half, etc.), while “live” wager parameters tend to change more quickly (e.g., between each play, each change of possession, etc.). In some cases, such in-play or live wager offers can include moneyline wager offers, point spread wager offers, and/or other wager offers described herein, except with highly dynamic wager parameters. Some implementations of the advanced-level UME interaction interface 400b group such wager offers together, while others separate live and in-play wager offers. In some implementations, the advanced-level UME interaction interface 400b indicates a rate of change associated with such wager offers, such as by listing an average time between updates to wager parameters (e.g., “Odds updated every 20 seconds”), a time limit for placing the wager (e.g., “This offer expires in 11 seconds”), etc. As described herein, updating the betting interface with wager parameters and recording subscriber wager offers can involve communications between various systems controlled by various entities over various networks. In some implementations, the resulting system latencies may exceed the rate of change in some live wager parameters, such that such live wager offers may not be supported. Some embodiments generally monitor such system-level latencies (e.g., by the network modeler 356) and determine (e.g., dynamically) whether to enable or disable access to certain live (e.g., or even in-play) wager offers, accordingly (para. [0078]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Armstrong and Thompson to allow for the latency in question to be a network latency. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for entities offering wagers to be able to ensure that customers were not able to take advantage of network delay in order to place improper wagers; i.e. bet on an outcome that had already been decided, or had become more likely.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Armstrong, Thompson and Polson discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more supplemental features comprise one or more of: one or more wagering opportunities, one or more game show participation opportunities, one or more audience polling opportunities, one or more social media features, or one or more live chat opportunities (Armstrong, para. [0341]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Armstrong, Thompson and Polson discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein determining the network latency (Polson, para. [0078]) comprises identifying and monitoring time tags (Armstrong, Fig. 19, para. [0318]) and signatures (Armstrong, para. [0352]) associated with the content and live events (Armstrong, para. [0318]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Armstrong, Thompson and Polson discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein blocking access to the one or more supplemental features comprises not outputting the one or more supplemental features (Armstrong, para. [0341]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Armstrong, Thompson and Polson discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the time delta between the occurrence of the event in the content and output of the event at the user device is determined based on one or more of: time tags inserted into the content, optical character recognition, or a clock time (Armstrong, Fig. 19, para. [0318]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Armstrong, Thompson and Polson discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising determining one or more time thresholds associated with the one or more supplemental features (Thompson, para. [0379]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Armstrong, Thompson and Polson discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising: determining a change in the network latency; determining the network latency no longer exceeds threshold; and outputting the one or more supplemental features (Polson, para. [0078]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.).
Regarding claim 8, Armstrong discloses a method comprising: processing content bound for a user device, wherein the content comprises one or more time tags (Fig. 19, para. [0318]); determining one or more supplemental features associated with the content (Figs. 21A and B, paras. [0330]-[0339]; Armstrong’s “media content objects” can be seen as supplemental features), determining, based on the one or more time tags, a time delta associated with the content (Fig. 19, para. [0318]); and blocking access to a supplemental feature of the one or more supplemental features (paras. [0219] and [0341]).
It could be argued that Armstrong does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more supplemental features are associated with one or more time thresholds; nor determining the time delta exceeds a time threshold of the one or more time thresholds; and thus does not disclose blocking access to a supplemental feature based on the time delta exceeding the time threshold. However, in analogous art, Thompson discloses that “the query or prompt may further allow the user to place a bet on the outcome of the future event. In that case, the prompt or query may further include estimated odds of the future outcome occurring. Bets may be placed in points (which may or may not have monetary value), credits, or currency (including currency of a country, digital currency such as bitcoin, or the like). The query or prompt may have a time limit. In that case, the query or prompt may include a clock or counter. If the user desires to submit a response or place a bet, he or she must do so before the clock or counter expires. The query or prompt may be removed and/or the control usable to place the bet or otherwise respond may be greyed out upon expiration of the clock or counter to prevent the user from responding once the clock or counter expires. This ensures that the response and/or bet will be received before the occurrence of the future event (para. [0379]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Armstrong to allow for the one or more supplemental features to be associated with one or more time thresholds, determining the time delta exceeds a time threshold of the one or more time thresholds, and blocking access to a supplemental feature based on the time delta exceeding the time threshold. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a specific time period to be set at which the supplemental features could be removed, which would give the system administrators more precise control over the mechanics of the system.
It could be argued that the combination of Armstrong and Thompson does not explicitly disclose wherein the time delta is a network latency time delta. However, in analogous art, Polson discloses that “an advanced-level UME interaction interface 400b can facilitate co-called “live” and/or “in-play” wager offers. With both types of wager offers, odds, and/or other wager parameters, tend to change during a competition, and subscribers 101 can place wagers during the competition. For example, “in-play” wager parameters tend to change less frequently (e.g., between each inning, quarter, half, etc.), while “live” wager parameters tend to change more quickly (e.g., between each play, each change of possession, etc.). In some cases, such in-play or live wager offers can include moneyline wager offers, point spread wager offers, and/or other wager offers described herein, except with highly dynamic wager parameters. Some implementations of the advanced-level UME interaction interface 400b group such wager offers together, while others separate live and in-play wager offers. In some implementations, the advanced-level UME interaction interface 400b indicates a rate of change associated with such wager offers, such as by listing an average time between updates to wager parameters (e.g., “Odds updated every 20 seconds”), a time limit for placing the wager (e.g., “This offer expires in 11 seconds”), etc. As described herein, updating the betting interface with wager parameters and recording subscriber wager offers can involve communications between various systems controlled by various entities over various networks. In some implementations, the resulting system latencies may exceed the rate of change in some live wager parameters, such that such live wager offers may not be supported. Some embodiments generally monitor such system-level latencies (e.g., by the network modeler 356) and determine (e.g., dynamically) whether to enable or disable access to certain live (e.g., or even in-play) wager offers, accordingly (para. [0078]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Armstrong and Thompson to allow for the time delta in question to be a network latency time delta. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for entities offering wagers to be able to ensure that customers were not able to take advantage of network delay in order to place improper wagers; i.e. bet on an outcome that had already been decided, or had become more likely.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Armstrong, Thompson and Polson discloses the method of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the content comprises one or more of: a sporting event, a game show, a live audience broadcast, or a social media broadcast (Armstrong, para. [0237]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Armstrong, Thompson and Polson discloses the method of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the one or more supplemental features comprise one or more of: one or more wagering opportunities, one or more game show participation opportunities, one or more audience participation opportunities, or one or more social media features, or one or more live chat opportunities (Armstrong, para. [0341]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Armstrong, Thompson and Polson discloses the method of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the one or more time thresholds indicate an amount of time required to resolve a wagering opportunity (Thompson, para. [0379]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Armstrong, Thompson and Polson discloses the method of claim 8, and further discloses wherein determining the network latency time delta comprises determining a difference in time between one or more time tags associated with the content (Armstrong, Fig. 19, para. [0318]; Polson, para. [0078]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Armstrong, Thompson and Polson discloses the method of claim 8, and further discloses further comprising receiving one or more user inputs associated with the one or more supplemental features (Armstrong, para. [0284]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Armstrong, Thompson and Polson discloses the method of claim 8, and further discloses further comprising: determining a change in the network latency time delta; and based on determining the change in the network latency time delta, granting access to the supplemental feature of the one or more supplemental features (Armstrong, Fig. 19, para. [0318]; Polson, para. [0078]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.).
Regarding claim 15, Armstrong discloses a method comprising: determining a plurality of supplemental features (Figs. 21A and B, paras. [0330]-[0339]; Armstrong’s “media content objects” can be seen as supplemental features) and a time delta associated with content (Fig. 19, para. [0318]); determining a situation associated with a first quantity of supplemental features of the plurality of supplemental features is greater than or equal to the time delta; determining a situation associated with a second quantity of supplemental features of the plurality of supplemental features is less than the time delta (paras. [0219] and [0341]); outputting the first quantity of supplemental features associated with the first quantity of delta times; and blocking access to the second quantity of supplemental features associated with the second quantity of delta times (paras. [0219] and [0341]).
It could be argued that Armstrong does not explicitly disclose determining, a plurality of time thresholds associated with the plurality of supplemental features; and thus does not disclose determining a first quantity of time thresholds of the plurality of time thresholds associated with a first quantity of supplemental features of the plurality of supplemental features is greater than or equal to the time delta; determining a second quantity of time thresholds of the plurality of time thresholds associated with a second quantity of supplemental features of the plurality of supplemental features is less than the time delta; and thus does not disclose outputting the first quantity of supplemental features associated with the first quantity of time thresholds; and blocking access to the second quantity of supplemental features associated with the second quantity of time thresholds. However, in analogous art, Thompson discloses that “the query or prompt may further allow the user to place a bet on the outcome of the future event. In that case, the prompt or query may further include estimated odds of the future outcome occurring. Bets may be placed in points (which may or may not have monetary value), credits, or currency (including currency of a country, digital currency such as bitcoin, or the like). The query or prompt may have a time limit. In that case, the query or prompt may include a clock or counter. If the user desires to submit a response or place a bet, he or she must do so before the clock or counter expires. The query or prompt may be removed and/or the control usable to place the bet or otherwise respond may be greyed out upon expiration of the clock or counter to prevent the user from responding once the clock or counter expires. This ensures that the response and/or bet will be received before the occurrence of the future event (para. [0379]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Armstrong to allow for determining, a plurality of time thresholds associated with the plurality of supplemental features; and determining a first quantity of time thresholds of the plurality of time thresholds associated with a first quantity of supplemental features of the plurality of supplemental features is greater than or equal to the time delta; determining a second quantity of time thresholds of the plurality of time thresholds associated with a second quantity of supplemental features of the plurality of supplemental features is less than the time delta; and outputting the first quantity of supplemental features associated with the first quantity of time thresholds; and blocking access to the second quantity of supplemental features associated with the second quantity of time thresholds. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a specific time period to be set at which the supplemental features could be removed, which would give the system administrators more precise control over the mechanics of the system.
It could be argued that the combination of Armstrong and Thompson does not explicitly disclose wherein the time delta is a network latency time delta. However, in analogous art, Polson discloses that “an advanced-level UME interaction interface 400b can facilitate co-called “live” and/or “in-play” wager offers. With both types of wager offers, odds, and/or other wager parameters, tend to change during a competition, and subscribers 101 can place wagers during the competition. For example, “in-play” wager parameters tend to change less frequently (e.g., between each inning, quarter, half, etc.), while “live” wager parameters tend to change more quickly (e.g., between each play, each change of possession, etc.). In some cases, such in-play or live wager offers can include moneyline wager offers, point spread wager offers, and/or other wager offers described herein, except with highly dynamic wager parameters. Some implementations of the advanced-level UME interaction interface 400b group such wager offers together, while others separate live and in-play wager offers. In some implementations, the advanced-level UME interaction interface 400b indicates a rate of change associated with such wager offers, such as by listing an average time between updates to wager parameters (e.g., “Odds updated every 20 seconds”), a time limit for placing the wager (e.g., “This offer expires in 11 seconds”), etc. As described herein, updating the betting interface with wager parameters and recording subscriber wager offers can involve communications between various systems controlled by various entities over various networks. In some implementations, the resulting system latencies may exceed the rate of change in some live wager parameters, such that such live wager offers may not be supported. Some embodiments generally monitor such system-level latencies (e.g., by the network modeler 356) and determine (e.g., dynamically) whether to enable or disable access to certain live (e.g., or even in-play) wager offers, accordingly (para. [0078]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Armstrong and Thompson to allow for the time delta in question to be a network latency time delta. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for entities offering wagers to be able to ensure that customers were not able to take advantage of network delay in order to place improper wagers; i.e. bet on an outcome that had already been decided, or had become more likely.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Armstrong, Thompson and Polson discloses the method of claim 15, and further discloses wherein the network latency (Polson, para. [0078]) time delta comprises a real-world delay between an occurrence of an event and a rendering of the event (Armstrong, Fig. 19, para. [0318]), and wherein the plurality of time thresholds indicate amounts of time required to resolve the plurality of supplemental features (Thompson, para. [0379]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 15.).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Armstrong, Thompson and Polson discloses the method of claim 15, and further discloses wherein the content comprises a sporting event, and wherein the plurality of supplemental features comprises one or more in-game bets (Armstrong, para. [0237]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Armstrong and Thompson discloses the method of claim 15, and further discloses wherein the content comprises a game-show, and wherein the plurality of supplemental features comprise one or more audience participation opportunities (Armstrong, para. [0237]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Armstrong and Thompson discloses the method of claim 15, and further discloses further comprising receiving one or more user inputs associated with the plurality of supplemental features (Armstrong, para. [0284]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0099759) in view of Thompson et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0076741), Polson (Pub. No.: US 2023/0124722) and Robinson et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0265769).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Armstrong, Thompson and Polson discloses the method of claim 15, but it could be argued that the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the plurality of time thresholds associated with the plurality of supplemental features comprises determining one or more levels of granularity of one or more in-game events associated with the plurality of supplemental features. However, in analogous art, Robinson discloses that “[a]s indicated by the double-headed arrow 210 in FIG. 2, the waiting time between the active periods, which in a conventional setting, would be the entire bets open period, is reduced to only a portion of the bets open period. Moreover, the waiting time between the active periods has been reduced without compromising the length of the bets open period and therefore without increasing the risk of players not being able to participate in an upcoming game round due to a too short bets open time window in combination with latency issues. Thus, by means of the herein disclosed technology, it is possible to provide a high-pace and immersive live online casino game experience while adhering to any requirements regarding the length of the bets open time period for providing an adequate time for players to select, submit and authenticate their bets. For example, the bets open period may be 10 seconds in total, while the waiting time 210 may be reduced to 2-4 seconds (para. [0049]; see also Fig. 2).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Armstrong, Thompson and Polson to allow for determining the plurality of time thresholds associated with the plurality of supplemental features to comprise determining one or more levels of granularity of one or more in-game events associated with the plurality of supplemental features. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for users to have a necessary amount of time to place bets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 12, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are moot based on the new grounds of rejection in view of Polson.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua D Taylor whose telephone number is (571)270-3755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 6 pm.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/Joshua D Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 February 20, 2026