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
This Office Action is in response to APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS/REMARKS entered on May 26, 2026 for patent application 18/508,792 filed on November 14, 2023.
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 May 26, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-8:
i. Applicant submits the combination of references does not teach or
suggest, "determining, based on a time delta between an occurrence of
an event in the content and output of the event at a user device, a
network latency associated with transmission of the content to the user
device."
Claim 1 recites, in part, "determining, based on a time delta between an occurrence of an event in the content and output of the event at a user device, a network latency associated with transmission of the content to the user device." Claim 8 recites a similar limitation. The Office Action relies on a combination of Armstrong, Thompson, and Polson to teach this limitation. Office Action, p. 3.
The Office Action acknowledges that the combination of Armstrong and Thompson does not explicitly disclose "wherein the latency is a network latency" and relies on Polson to fill this gap. See Office Action, page 3. However, Applicant respectfully submits that Polson fails to teach "determining, based on a time delta between an occurrence of an event in the content and output of the event at a user device, a network latency associated with transmission of the content to the user device" as recited in claim 1. (emphasis added).
Polson's paragraph [0078] discusses monitoring "system-level latencies" in the context of "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." Polson, paragraph [0078]. This disclosure pertains to latencies in the betting system infrastructure, specifically, the time required to update odds and record wagers, not to "a network latency associated with transmissions of the content to the user device," as claimed.
Polson teaches that "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" and that "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." Polson, paragraph [0078]. This monitoring of system- level latencies relates to the rate at which wager parameters can be updated, not to determining a time delta between an occurrence of an event in content and output of that event at a user device.
In contrast, claim 1 requires determining network latency "based on a time delta between an occurrence of an event in the content and output of the event at a user device." As such, Applicant submits the combination does not teach or suggest, "determining, based on a time delta between an occurrence of an event in the content and output of the event at a user device, a network latency associated with transmission of the content to the user device," as claimed. Therefore, Applicant submits the Office Action has not presented a prima facie case of obviousness and respectfully requests the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be withdrawn.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s conclusions. The “system latency” of Polson is appropriate to teach the “network latency” of the claim language, because “system latency,” as explained in the art, includes discussion of “communications between various systems… over various networks [emphasis added by Examiner],” which must obviously include the “network latency” of the network being used.
Further, the claim language uses “associated with” language, as in “a network latency associated with transmission of the content,” which is a broader manner of claiming such a feature; broader than, for example “a network latency defined by a transmission time of the content,” or something similar, assuming Applicant has support for such a feature. That is to say, by using the “associated with” language, any latency having anything to do with the network can be seen as being “associated with” transmission of the content. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9:
ii. Applicant submits the combination of references does not teach or
suggest, "based on the network latency exceeding a threshold, blocking
access to the one or more supplemental features."
Claim 1 recites, in part, "based on the network latency exceeding a threshold, blocking
access to the one or more supplemental features." Claim 8 recites a similar limitation. The Office Action relies on a combination of Armstrong, Thompson, and Polson to teach this limitation. Office Action, p. 3. Applicant submits the combination does not teach this limitation. In neither case is access to a supplemental feature actively blocked, much less "based on the network latency exceeding a threshold," as claimed.
As discussed above, the latencies described in Polson and relied on by the Office Action are not a "network latency associated with transmission of the content to the user device," that is determined "based on a time delta between an occurrence of an event in the content and output of the event at a user device." Thus, the combination relied on by the Office Action necessarily cannot teach, "based on the network latency exceeding a threshold, blocking access to the one or more supplemental features." The methods claims are fundamentally different from Polson's wager update latency monitoring.
Armstrong similarly fails to teach this limitation. Armstrong's paragraph [0318] discusses calculating latency as "the difference between B minutes 1906 and A minutes 1904, also known as the difference between the time at the end-user viewing device time 1903 and time server time 1902." Armstrong, paragraph [0318]. However, this latency calculation in Armstrong is used for synchronizing content presentation across devices, not for determining whether to block access to supplemental features based on the latency exceeding a threshold. Armstrong teaches that "the temporal synchronization allows for a concurrent experience at the end-user viewing device, in which all viewers (also known as end-users) concurrently experience the broadcast transmission overlaid with media content objects" and that "users don't have advantages or disadvantages based on latency 1907 or local offset 1908 and view the broadcast transmission and interact with content at the same time." Armstrong, paragraph [0318]. Armstrong's approach is to compensate for latency through synchronization, not to block access to features when latency exceeds a threshold as required by claim 1.
Thompson's paragraph [0379] teaches that "the query or prompt may have a time limit" and that "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." Thompson, paragraph [0379]. However, Thompson's time limit is a fixed countdown timer for user response, not a threshold based on determined network latency as required by the claims.
Accordingly, none of the cited references, individually or in combination, teach
"determining, based on a time delta between an occurrence of an event in the content and output of the event at a user device, a network latency associated with transmission of the content to the user device" and "based on the network latency exceeding a threshold, blocking access to the one or more supplemental features" as recited in claim 1. For similar reasons, Applicant submits the combination of references does not render claim 8 obvious. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for claims 1 and 8, as well as their dependent claims.
Examiner’s response:
When looked at as a whole, meaning the relevant portions of the prior art, Examiner’s contention is that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would see that Armstrong is concerned with time delays in broadcast content being “exploited by nefarious users for cheating and fraud,” and thus betting or gambling features may be removed. This overarching concept is merely tweaked with the additional teachings of Thompson and Polson to modify Armstrong such that it is specifically a network latency exceeding a threshold that triggers such a removal. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-11:
B. Claim 15
i. Applicant submits the combination of references does not teach or
suggest, "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 network latency time delta."
Claim 15, recites, in part, "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 network latency time delta." The Office Action relies on Armstrong as teaching this limitation. Office Action, p. 7. Applicant submits Armstrong does not teach this limitation.
As an initial matter, the Office Action misquotes the claim language, alleging Armstrong teaches "determining a situation associated with a first quantity of supplemental features is greater than or equal to the network latency time delta." Office Action, p. 7. (Emphasis added). This mischaracterization fails to address the actual claim language and undermines the Office Action's analysis. The claim requires "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 network latency time delta." By not analyzing the actual claim language, the Office Action fails to satisfy the requirement that the Office Action "[state] the reasons for such rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution." 35 U.S.C. § 132.
Regardless, as discussed above with respect to a "network latency exceeding a
threshold," Applicant maintains that Armstrong fails to teach, "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 network latency time delta," at least because Armstrong does not do anything based on a network latency time delta, much less, "[determine] 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 network latency time delta," as claimed.
In fact, the Office Action acknowledges:
[i]t 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.
Office Action, pp. 7-8. The Office Action relies, instead, on the description in Thompson of placing limits on bets related to future events. Again, limiting bets on events that have not taken place does not teach network latency per se.
Therefore, Applicant submits the Office Action has not presented a prima facie case of obviousness and respectfully requests the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be withdrawn.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner does not “misquote the claim language.” Rather, Examiner is providing Applicant with a summary of what each reference teaches, using the claim language as a framework. Such a framework does not “[fail] to address the actual claim language and [undermine] the Office Action's analysis,” as Applicant states, but rather provides Applicant, and the record, with a detailed description of which reference teaches which elements of the claim language. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant goes on to state that “limiting bets on events that have not taken place does not teach network latency per se.” Examiner agrees with this statement, but does not see the relevance as regards the discussion of the combination of references.
First, ANY bet or wager is going to be based on events that have not yet taken place. This is the nature of gambling.
Second, Examiner is not stating that it is the limiting of the bets that is teaching network latency. In fact, Thompson is brought in to teach the concept of a latency exceeding a threshold, and Examiner never alleges that Thompson discloses network latency. Examiner used Polson to teach this feature. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12:
ii. Applicant submits the combination of references does not teach or
suggest, "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 network latency time delta."
Claim 15, recites, in part, "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 network latency time delta." The Office Action relies on Armstrong as teaching this limitation. Office Action, p. 7. Applicant submits Armstrong does not teach this limitation.
As above, the Office Action also misquotes the claim language of this limitation alleging Armstrong teaches, "determining a situation associated with a second quantity of supplemental features of the plurality of supplemental features is less than the network latency time delta." Office Action, p. 7. (Emphasis added). Applicant maintains this mischaracterization of the claims fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 132.
Further, as discussed above with respect to "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 network latency time delta," Applicant submits Armstrong does not teach, "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," at least because Armstrong does not do anything based on a network latency time delta, much less, "[determine] 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," as claimed.
Therefore, Applicant submits the Office Action has not presented a prima facie case of obviousness and respectfully requests the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be withdrawn.
Examiner’s response:
Again, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant states that “Armstrong does not teach, "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," at least because Armstrong does not do anything based on a network latency time delta.”
Examiner agrees, but again, the previous Office Action never claimed as much, because Armstrong is not relied upon for teaching the network latency elements of the claim language.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 12-13:
iii. The motivation to combine the references is not supported
Applicant respectfully submits that the motivation to combine the references is not
supported. The Supreme Court of the United States noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be made explicit. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR, 550 U.S. at 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
The claimed invention as a whole must be compared to the prior art references. Claim limitations are not puzzle pieces to be matched to atomized prior art reference suggestions, and thus examined out of context. Only if the prior art aligns with the claimed invention in principles of operation may a combination of prior art references render a claim obvious. Although factual findings made by Office personnel are the necessary underpinnings to establish obviousness, once the findings of fact are articulated, Office personnel must provide an explanation to support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 35 U.S.C. § 132 requires that the applicant be notified of the reasons for the rejection of the claim so that he or she can decide how best to proceed. Clearly setting forth findings of fact and the rationale(s) to support a rejection in an Office Action is required. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. As noted above, the Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be made explicit.
Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action has not established a proper
motivation to combine Armstrong, Thompson, and Polson, and that the combination in any event fails to teach the claimed limitations. As the Federal Circuit has stated, "rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained with mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Examiner’s response:
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, combining Armstrong with Thompson 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, and Polson 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 Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-14:
Armstrong is directed to "systems, methods, and apparatuses for implementing a
broadcast integration platform with real-time interactive content synchronization." Armstrong, paragraph [0003]. Armstrong's method involves synchronizing interactive content with a broadcast transmission by "instructing the user device to compute a local offset for the broadcast transmission by determining a latency delay between the current position for the broadcast transmission according to the broadcast offset and the local current position for the broadcast transmission according to the display of the broadcast transmission at the user device" and then temporally aligning media content objects with the broadcast transmission using that local offset. Armstrong, paragraph [0036]. Armstrong's approach is to ensure that "all participants receive the same content at exactly the same time, regardless of the distribution channel, be that satellite, OTA network broadcasts, cable broadcasts, or Internet broadcasts to smart phones, PCs, and tablets, etc." Armstrong, paragraph [0246]. Armstrong's solution to latency is thus synchronization, not blocking access to features.
Thompson is directed to providing "a complete fantasy sports experience" where users are presented with streams of video clips or segments associated with their fantasy sports teams. Thompson, paragraphs [0051]-[0052]. Thompson's focus is on content personalization and fantasy sports engagement, not on managing network latency to control access to supplemental features. Thompson 's time limit feature relates to ensuring "that the response and/or bet will be received before the occurrence of the future event" through a countdown timer. Thompson, paragraph [0379]. This is a fixed user-facing timer for response submission, not a threshold based on determined network latency as recited in claim 1.
Polson is directed to "dynamic simplification of user interaction interfaces for uncertain measurable events based on experience level," where the system assigns a wager experience score to subscribers based on experience level with UME interactions and uses the built data space and the wager experience score to generate an experience-tailored set of wager offers for the subscriber. Polson, paragraphs [0001] and [0003]. Polson's primary focus is adapting the user interface based on user experience level, not on determining network latency based on a time delta between event occurrence and output at a user device.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to combine Armstrong's
broadcast synchronization platform with Thompson 's fantasy sports content delivery system and Polson's experience-adaptive wagering interface. Armstrong teaches compensating for latency through synchronization to ensure concurrent viewing experiences, while claim 1 requires blocking access to supplemental features when network latency exceeds a threshold. These are fundamentally different approaches to addressing latency. Armstrong already addresses the concern of users exploiting timing differences, teaching that "user interactions are only permitted during a defined period of time, for instance, before an answer is given on the broadcast, and then locked out, prohibiting user submissions after the answer has been given." Armstrong, paragraph [0254]. Armstrong's solution is synchronization, not blocking features based on latency thresholds.
The Office Action's rationale that combining these references "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" relies on impermissible hindsight reconstruction. See Office Action, page 5. As noted, Armstrong already solves this problem through synchronization, and a person of ordinary skill in the art looking at Armstrong would have no reason to abandon Armstrong's synchronization approach in favor of blocking access to features based on latency thresholds.
Examiner’s response:
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Again, when looked at as a whole, meaning the relevant portions of the prior art, Examiner’s contention is that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would see that Armstrong is concerned with time delays in broadcast content being “exploited by nefarious users for cheating and fraud,” and thus betting or gambling features may be removed. This overarching concept is merely tweaked with the additional teachings of Thompson and Polson to modify Armstrong such that it is specifically a network latency exceeding a threshold that triggers such a removal. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-15:
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that a motivation to combine existed, none of the cited references teaches or suggests "determining, based on a time delta between an occurrence of an event in the content and output of the event at a user device, a network latency associated with transmission of the content to the user device" and "based on the network latency exceeding a threshold, blocking access to the one or more supplemental features" as recited in claim 1. Armstrong's paragraph [0219] merely identifies a problem, namely that "any timing delay exhibited for content which is tied to an interactive user experience, such as trivia questions about the content or sports-betting associated with the content, can become problematic and detrimental to the user experience." Armstrong, paragraph [0219]. This passage does not teach determining a network latency based on a time delta between event occurrence and output at a user device, nor does it teach blocking access to supplemental features based on that latency exceeding a threshold. Armstrong's paragraph [0318] discusses calculating latency as "the difference between B minutes 1906 and A minutes 1904, also known as the difference between the time at the end-user viewing device time 1903 and time server time 1902," but this latency calculation is used for synchronization purposes, specifically, so that "users don't have advantages or disadvantages based on latency 1907 or local offset 1908 and view the broadcast transmission and interact with content at the same time." Armstrong, paragraph [0318]. Armstrong's approach is to compensate for latency through synchronization, not to block access to features when latency exceeds a threshold as required by claim 1.
Polson 's discussion of system latencies in paragraph [0078] relates to "updating the betting interface with wager parameters and recording subscriber wager offers [which] can involve communications between various systems controlled by various entities over various networks." Polson, paragraph [0078]. This pertains to latencies in the betting system infrastructure for updating odds and recording wagers, not to measuring the temporal difference between when a live event actually occurs and when that event is rendered at a user device as required by claim 1. Polson teaches that "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." Polson, paragraph [0078]. This monitoring of system-level latencies relates to the rate at which wager parameters can be updated, not to determining a time delta between an occurrence of an event in content and output of that event at a user device.
In sum, the Office Action does not set forth a rationale for the proposed combination that supports a prima facie case of obviousness. As such, the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Since the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be withdrawn.
Examiner’s response:
Again, Applicant appears to be attacking individual references for not disclosing the entirety of the claimed invention. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 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 August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights