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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-26, 27-50, 65-67) in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all group of claim promote efficiency since there is a great amount of cross classification amongst the subclasses.
This is not found persuasive because claimed details the invention corresponding to Group II incorporates detailed elements not claimed in Group I. For instance, details pertaining to the betting algorithm that are related to locking odds, maintaining fairness, adjusting payouts, managing timing of bets, validity of bets, etc. The examiner notes that the broad elements captured on the surface by some dependent claims on Group I do not overlap with the required prior art that would be required to meet the details being claimed in the invention of Group II. Therefore, examining the invention of Group II would constitute a search burden on the examining process of the instant application.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 51-59 and 60-64 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention in Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/16/2025.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,831,960. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 27 constitute a broader version overlapping with the metes and bounds of the allowable subject matter already patented in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,831,960.
Claims 1 and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,537,997. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 27 constitute a broader version overlapping with the metes and bounds of the allowable subject matter already patented in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,537,997.
Claims 1 and 27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 53 of copending Application No. 18/669,817 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 27 constitute a broader version overlapping with the metes and bounds of the subject matter being claimed in claims 1 and 53 of copending Application No. 18/669,817.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-3 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (Pub No US 2020/0084514) in view of Drynan (Patent No US 11,049,176). Hereinafter, referenced as Taylor and Drynan, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Taylor discloses a shopping interface for purchasing items on media, comprising:
a user system including a user interface displaying items for purchase (Paragraph [0027]; displaying products for sale, including links to products on outside websites),
said user system including software stored on non-transitory computer readable media that recognizes and tags purchasable items in said media, wherein said user system displays items for purchase (Paragraph [0027]; if the user is watching “The View”, and they like the reading glasses that a co-host is wearing, a link can be generated for those glasses that the user can click on and buy the glasses).
However, it is noted that Taylor is silent to explicitly disclose displaying items for purchase that is accessible through a user texting a number or scanning a QR code with a mobile device, wherein said user interface is remote from the media being shown, and said user system including a one-click purchase function for securely storing payment and address information of said user on non-transitory computer readable media allowing for secure and efficient purchases.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Drynan discloses displaying items for purchase that is accessible through a user texting a number or scanning a QR code with a mobile device, wherein said user interface is remote from the media being shown (Col. 25 lines 49-67 figure 8; each product available for purchase is identified on the device presenting the digital content along with a QR code that can be read by a different electronic device of the viewer to initiate the purchase),
and said user system including a one-click purchase function for securely storing payment and address information of said user on non-transitory computer readable media allowing for secure and efficient purchases (Col. 32 lines 38-67; required financial payment information may be provided in advance during account setup by the viewer, e.g. single-action Buy Now function).
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 Taylor by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Drynan, for the predictable result of enhancing customer engagement and operational efficiency by allowing the viewer to utilize a separate device to purchase a product shown on the television video content.
Regarding claim 2, Taylor and Drynan disclose the shopping interface of claim 1; however, it is noted that Taylor is silent to explicitly disclose that said number or QR code generates a link to a website associated with said user interface.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Drynan discloses that said number or QR code generates a link to a website associated with said user interface (Col. 25 lines 49-67 figure 8; each product available for purchase is identified on the device presenting the digital content along with a QR code that can be read by a different electronic device of the viewer to initiate the purchase).
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 Taylor by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Drynan, for the predictable result of enhancing customer engagement and operational efficiency by allowing the viewer to utilize a separate device to purchase a product shown on the television video content.
Regarding claim 3, Taylor and Drynan disclose the shopping interface of claim 1; moreover, Taylor discloses that said items for purchase are gifted to an individual (Paragraph [0027]; gift product purchased).
Regarding claim 27, Taylor and Drynan disclose all the limitations of claim 27; therefore, claim 27 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 28, Taylor and Drynan disclose all the limitations of claim 28; therefore, claim 28 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 2.
Regarding claim 29, Taylor and Drynan disclose all the limitations of claim 29; therefore, claim 29 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 3.
Claims 4 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor and Drynan further in view of Kazi et al. (Pub No US 2017/0220579). Hereinafter, referenced as Kazi.
Regarding claim 4, Taylor and Drynan disclose the shopping interface of claim 1; moreover, Taylor discloses that said software is further defined as software that recognizes and tags items available to purchase in said media by analyzing images within said media (Paragraph [0027]; tagging products).
However, it is noted that Taylor and Drynan are silent to explicitly disclose pixel values and gradients to compare to images of items available for sale in order to correctly identify the items.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Kazi discloses pixel values and gradients to compare to images of items available for sale in order to correctly identify the items (Paragraph [0068]; analyzing image characteristics such as pixel values or gradients to determine shapes and then recognize persons or concepts that the image represents, e.g. the Eiffel Tower, restaurant, etc.; paragraph [0037]).
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 Taylor and Drynan by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Kazi, for the predictable result of implementing well-known pixel value and gradient analysis to recognize objects in a video (Kazi - paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 30, Taylor, Drynan and Kazi disclose all the limitations of claim 30; therefore, claim 30 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 4.
Claims 5, 14-23, 65, 66, 31, 38, 41-46 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor and Drynan further in view of Pequignot et al. (Pub No US 2014/0282638). Hereinafter, referenced as Pequignot.
Regarding claim 5, Taylor and Drynan disclose the shopping interface of claim 1; moreover, Taylor discloses that said user system further includes: a recording mechanism that records a desired portion of media upon activation by a first individual user who is not a content provider, the portion of media being less than a full media episode (Paragraph [0006]);
a friend request mechanism for sending and receiving friend requests between users to be approved to receive and share media and wherein the friend request mechanism suggests friends who have similar interests of the first individual user, and wherein the friends are searchable by information chosen from the group consisting of name, user name, gamer tag, telephone, address, and email (Paragraphs [0006] [0032]; friend request and suggestions);
a first user transmitter/receiver included in the user system that transmits the portion of media and a message generated by the first individual user regarding the portion of media to a second individual user who is not a content provider, the user system including the user interface having an input device and screen view that is generated by software stored on a memory device of the first user transmitter/receiver, the user system including a user profile generator interface and a store section for shopping for products (Claims 1 and 13);
a confirmation mechanism that confirms that the second individual user is authorized to view the portion of media and a notification mechanism that notifies the first individual user if the second individual user is not authorized to receive the portion of media and notifies the second individual user that the portion of media cannot be received due to programming configuration subscribed to by the second individual user (Paragraph [0006]);
and a second user transmitter/receiver included in a second user system that receives the portion of media upon authorization of the second individual user (Paragraph [0006]);
the second user system including a second user interface having an input device and screen view that is generated by software stored on a memory device of the second user transmitter/receiver, the second user system including a user profile generator interface and a store section for shopping for products, wherein said store section includes software that recognizes and tags items available to purchase in said media (Paragraph [0027]).
However, it is noted that Taylor and Drynan are silent to explicitly disclose listing products for sale.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Pequignot discloses listing products for sale (Paragraphs [0029] [0030]; listing products for sale).0
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 Taylor and Drynan by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Pequignot, for the predictable result of allowing users to also list their items for sale, increasing the marketability of the product.
Regarding claim 14, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose the shopping interface of claim 5; moreover, Taylor discloses that said user system and said second user system are integrated in a smartphone or tablet and are accessible by using an application stored on non-transitory computer readable media (Claim 10).
Regarding claim 15, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose the shopping interface of claim 5; moreover, Taylor discloses that said media is chosen from the group consisting of program information, programming shows, movies, concerts, sporting events, online games, preset blocks of media, and commercials (Paragraph [0019]; sports, movies, etc.).
Regarding claim 16, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose the shopping interface of claim 5; moreover, Taylor discloses that the second user transmitter/receiver includes a recording mechanism that records a desired portion of media upon activation by the second individual user and can transmit the portion of media to the first individual user (Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 17, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose the shopping interface of claim 5; moreover, Taylor discloses that the user interface transmits the portion of media to the second user transmitter/receiver based upon a profile established through a user interface of the second user transmitter/receiver (Paragraphs [0006] [0019]).
Regarding claim 18, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose the shopping interface of claim 5; moreover, Taylor discloses that the profile comprises select program or program type disseminated by a media content provider and personal information of the user of the first user transmitter/receiver (Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 19, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose the shopping interface of claim 5; however, it is noted that Taylor is silent to explicitly disclose that said user system is in electronic communication with a camera on a smartphone for identifying items for purchase on a separate screen or in a store window.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Drynan discloses that said user system is in electronic communication with a camera on a smartphone for identifying items for purchase on a separate screen or in a store window (Col. 25 lines 49-67 figure 8; each product available for purchase is identified on the device presenting the digital content along with a QR code that can be read by a different electronic device of the viewer to initiate the purchase).
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 Taylor by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Drynan, for the predictable result of enhancing customer engagement and operational efficiency by allowing the viewer to utilize a separate device to purchase a product shown on the television video content.
Regarding claim 20, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose the shopping interface of claim 5; moreover, Taylor discloses that the first user transmitter/receiver automatically records media disseminated by said media content provider based upon preferences entered into a user profile of the first user transmitter/receiver (Claim 8).
Regarding claim 21, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose the shopping interface of claim 5; moreover, Taylor discloses that the notification mechanism notifies the first individual user, the second individual user, or both, if the second user transmitter/receiver does not have sufficient memory to receive the portion of media (Claim 9).
Regarding claim 22, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose the shopping interface of claim 5; moreover, Taylor discloses that the message is chosen from the group consisting of text, voice, video, emojis, and images (Claim 11).
Regarding claim 23, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose the shopping interface of claim 5; moreover, Taylor discloses that the products are chosen from the group consisting of product directly advertised to the first individual user, products based on a user profile, products shown in a program, and combinations thereof (Claim 14).
Regarding claim 65, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose the shopping interface of claim 5; moreover, Taylor discloses a live interaction mechanism allowing the user to interact with a live media program (Claim 15).
Regarding claim 66, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose the shopping interface of claim 65; moreover, Taylor discloses that said live interaction mechanism allows the user to perform an interaction chosen from the group consisting of making a phone call, sending a text, and making a video call (Paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 31, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose all the limitations of claim 31; therefore, claim 31 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 5.
Regarding claim 38, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose all the limitations of claim 38; therefore, claim 38 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 14.
Regarding claims 41-43, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose all the limitations of claims 41-43; therefore, claims 41-43 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 5.
Regarding claim 44, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose the system of claim 44; moreover, Taylor discloses the step of notifying the first individual user of messages in an inbox and suggestions of programming when the user system is turned on (Paragraphs [0036] [0037] [0038]) and notifying the first individual user that a friend is watching a program (Paragraph [0032]; notify when friends are online or offline).
Regarding claim 45, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose all the limitations of claim 45; therefore, claim 45 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 23.
Regarding claim 46, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose all the limitations of claim 46; therefore, claim 46 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 5.
Regarding claim 67, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose all the limitations of claim 67; therefore, claim 67 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 66.
Claims 6, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor and Drynan and Pequignot further in view of Hosein et al. (Pub No US 2012/0227073). Hereinafter, referenced as Hosein.
Regarding claim 6, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose the shopping interface of claim 5; moreover, Taylor discloses that said user system further includes a search mechanism that allows the first individual user and second individual user to search (Paragraph [0029]).
However, it is noted that Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot are silent to explicitly disclose search by keywords for media and products used in media.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Hosein discloses search by keywords for media and products used in media (Paragraphs [0033] [0059] figures 1, 6 and 10; presenting online marketplace 104 information with products related to the presented television program; e.g. listings from online merchants 904. Paragraphs [0032] [0033] [0060] [0062] figure 1; wherein keywords are used to search for related content).
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 Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Hosein, for the predictable result of allowing viewers to interact and list merchandise related to the video content being presented.
Regarding claim 39, Taylor, Drynan, Pequignot and Hosein disclose all the limitations of claim 39; therefore, claim 39 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 6.
Regarding claim 40, Taylor, Drynan, Pequignot and Hosein disclose all the limitations of claim 40; therefore, claim 40 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 6.
Claims 7, 13 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor and Drynan and Pequignot further in view of Jaini et al. (Pub No US 2019/0018572). Hereinafter, referenced as Jaini.
Regarding claim 7, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose the shopping interface of claim 5; moreover, Taylor discloses that said user system further includes a video recording mechanism that allows the first individual user to record a video, and share the video with the second individual user (Paragraph [0035]; record narration for shared video portions, wherein the recorded message may be video [0038]).
However, it is noted that Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot are silent to explicitly disclose record a video of themselves and share the video with the second individual user.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Jaini discloses record a video of themselves and share the video with the second individual user (Paragraph [0062] [0063] [0082] figure 8; record user content 820 for a scene in a movie 810; wherein the recorded user content 820 may be a voice-over on top of existing media; paragraphs [0030] [0082]).
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 Taylor and Drynan and Pequignot by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Jaini, for the
predictable result of allowing the users to record the user's performance and share the
recorded performance with other users (Jaini – paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 13, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose the shopping interface of claim 5; moreover, Taylor discloses recording of media, adding a message to recorded media, and sending media and/or a message (Claim 1).
However, it is noted that Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot are silent to explicitly disclose that the user system and second user system are capable of receiving and executing voice commands chosen from the group consisting of rewinding media, fast forwarding media, recording media, adding a message to recorded media, and sending media and/or a message.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Jaini discloses that the user system and second user system are capable of receiving and executing voice commands chosen from the group consisting of rewinding media, fast forwarding media, recording media, adding a message to recorded media, and sending media and/or a message (Paragraphs [0059] [0063] [0091]; user request to record may be done implementing a
voice command request)/
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 Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot by
specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Jaini, for the
predictable result of implementing voice commands that free up the user’s hand
Regarding claim 37, Taylor, Drynan, Pequignot and Jaini disclose all the limitations of claim 37; therefore, claim 37 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 7.
Claims 12 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot further in view of Hill et al. (Pub No US 2015/0139615). Hereinafter, referenced as Hill.
Regarding claim 12, Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot disclose the shopping interface of claim 5; moreover, Taylor discloses recording of media (Claim 1).
However, it is noted that Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot are silent to explicitly disclose that said user interface further includes a quick share button that allows for instant recording of media for a length of time chosen from the group consisting of 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 15 seconds, 30 seconds, 1 minute, and 5 minutes.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Hill discloses that said user interface further includes a quick share button that allows for instant recording of media for a length of time chosen from the group consisting of 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 15 seconds, 30 seconds, 1 minute, and 5 minutes (Paragraph [0051] figure 2A; sharing recorded content utilizing a fast recording command, e.g. 1 minute).
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 Taylor, Drynan and Pequignot by
specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Hill, for the
predictable result of allowing the user to use shortcut control commands that streamline
the recording process, making it less time consuming and easier to navigate
Regarding claim 47, Taylor, Drynan, Pequignot and Hill disclose all the limitations of claim 47; therefore, claim 47 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 12.
Claims 8 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor and Drynan further in view of Fitzgerald et al. (Pub No US 2021/0200499). Hereinafter, referenced as Fitzgerald.
Regarding claim 8, Taylor and Drynan disclose the shopping interface of claim 1; moreover, Drynan discloses using a QR code to interact with the system (Claim 1).
However, it is noted that Taylor and Drynan are silent to explicitly disclose that said user system further includes an online betting module accessible by texting a number or QR code with a mobile device that allows the first individual user to place bets on events, and wherein a bet can be placed before or during the events, and including an age verification mechanism.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Fitzgerald discloses that said user system further includes an online betting module accessible by texting a number or QR code with a mobile device that allows the first individual user to place bets on events, and wherein a bet can be placed before or during the events (Paragraph [0080] figure 6; the user may scan a QR code on video display 16 from a smart phone in order to access the interactive user environment, wherein the user may be presented with options for placing bets on sporting event), and including an age verification mechanism (Paragraph [0080]; verify that the user is not a minor).
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 Taylor and Drynan by
specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Fitzgerald, for the
predictable result of using QR codes to access other types of interactive services that may allow the user to place bets, increasing the marketability of the product and increasing revenue from gambling.
Regarding claim 32, Taylor, Drynan and Fitzgerald disclose all the limitations of claim 32; therefore, claim 32 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 8.
Claims 9, 10 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor, Drynan and Fitzgerald further in view of Daly et al. (Pub No US 2016/0358406). Hereinafter, referenced as Daly.
Regarding claim 9, Taylor, Drynan and Fitzgerald disclose the shopping interface of claim 8; moreover, Fitzgerald discloses said betting module includes an algorithm stored on non-transitory computer readable media that allows the user to place a bet on an event in real-time (Paragraph [0080] figure 6; the user may scan a QR code on video display 16 from a smart phone in order to access the interactive user environment, wherein the user may be presented with options for placing bets on sporting event).
However, it is noted that Taylor, Drynan and Fitzgerald are silent to explicitly disclose freezing action in the media temporarily for the user while the bet is placed.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Daly discloses freezing action in the media temporarily for the user while the bet is placed (Paragraphs [0093] [0108]-[0109]; freeze play while user is placing bets).
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 Taylor, Drynan and Fitzgerald by
specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Daly, for the predictable result of giving the gambler additional time to consider their bets without
distractions from video content being presented.
Regarding claim 10, Taylor, Drynan and Fitzgerald disclose the shopping interface of claim 9; moreover, Fitzgerald discloses said betting module where the bet is placed (Paragraph [0080] figure 6; the user may scan a QR code on video display 16 from a smart phone in order to access the interactive user environment, wherein the user may be presented with options for placing bets on sporting event).
However, it is noted that Taylor, Drynan and Fitzgerald are silent to explicitly disclose that said betting module is operable by voice command of the user, said voice command initiates said algorithm to freeze action in the media while the bet is placed.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Daly discloses that said betting module is operable by voice command of the user, said voice command initiates said algorithm to freeze action in the media while the bet is placed (Paragraphs [0093] [0108]-[0109]; freeze play while user is placing bets. Wherein input command interface 544 may be keys or voice; paragraph [0129]).
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 Taylor, Drynan and Fitzgerald by
specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Daly, for the predictable result of giving the gambler additional time to consider their bets without
distractions from video content being presented.
Regarding claim 34, Taylor, Drynan, Fitzgerald and Daly disclose all the limitations of claim 34; therefore, claim 34 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 9.
Claims 24 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor and Drynan further in view of O’Brien et al. (Pub No US 2018/0121997). Hereinafter, referenced as O’Brien.
Regarding claim 24, Taylor and Drynan disclose the shopping interface of claim 1; moreover, Taylor discloses that said user interface allows said user to view said item (Paragraph [0027]).
However, it is noted that Taylor and Drynan are silent to explicitly disclose that said user interface allows said user to view said item in a 360 degree view.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor O’Brien discloses that said user
interface allows said user to view said item in a 360 degree view (Paragraph [0035]
figure 5; he user may be provided with rotation of the avatar 502, zoom-in/zoom-out of
the avatar 502, a panoramic 360 degree viewing of the virtual template for the
environment displayed within the virtual mirror 404).
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 Taylor and Drynan by specifically
providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by O’Brien, for the predictable result
of allowing the potential customer to visually the product from all angles before making
the decision to buy it.
Regarding claim 48, Taylor, Drynan and O’Brien disclose all the limitations of claim 48; therefore, claim 48 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 24.
Claims 25 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor and Drynan further in view of Walters et al. (Pub No US 2021/0150621). Hereinafter, referenced as Walters.
Regarding claim 25, Taylor and Drynan disclose the shopping interface of claim
1; however, it is noted that Taylor and Drynan are silent to explicitly disclose that said
user system includes push notifications for allowing approval to protect against
unapproved purchases.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Walters discloses that said user
system includes push notifications for allowing approval to protect against unapproved
purchases (Paragraph [0052]; pushing a notification to a portable device in order
receive approval for a pending purchase, allowing the user to allow or disallow the
pending purchase transaction).
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 Taylor and Drynan by specifically
providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Walters, for the predictable result
of allowing or disallowing the pending purchase transaction in case that they were not
authorized by the user.
Regarding claim 49, Taylor, Drynan and Walters disclose all the limitations of claim 49; therefore, claim 49 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 25.
Claims 26 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor and Drynan further in view of Bueno (Pub No US 2016/0125507). Hereinafter, referenced as Bueno.
Regarding claim 26, Taylor and Drynan disclose the shopping interface of claim
1; however, it is noted that Taylor and Drynan are silent to explicitly disclose that said
user system allows for geo tag purchases.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Bueno discloses that said user
system allows for geo tag purchases (Paragraphs [0052]-[0055] figure 3; a user may be
alerted, e.g. messaged, that they are near a store that sells an item, e.g., geo-tagged
item of interest).
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 Taylor and Drynan by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Bueno, for the predictable result of alerting a user that they are nearby an item of interest that may purchase at that moment (Bueno – paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 50, Taylor, Drynan and Bueno disclose all the limitations of claim 50; therefore, claim 50 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 26.
Claims 11 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor and Drynan in view of Hughes et al. (Pub No US 2010/0179867) further in view of Kazi. Hereinafter, referenced as Hughes.
Regarding claim 11, Taylor and Drynan disclose the shopping interface of claim
1; moreover, Taylor discloses allows the first individual user to order product from products advertised in a commercial, products advertised in an online ad, and products shown in a media program, wherein the first individual user can gift a product and delivery to another user (Paragraph [0027]; order products and gift them to other users, wherein the products may be shown in ads, online or shown in the video content), and wherein said online ordering module includes software that recognizes and tags products available to order in said media by analyzing images within said media (Paragraph [0027]),
and wherein said online product ordering module includes software that recognizes and tags product available to order in said media by analyzing images (Paragraph [0027[).
Moreover, Drynan discloses that said user system further includes an online product ordering module accessible by texting a number or QR code with a mobile device (Col. 26 lines 24-45).
However, it is noted that Taylor and Drynan are silent to explicitly disclose that the product may be food products, wherein the online food ordering module interacts with an existing food ordering and delivery platform.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Hughes discloses that the product may be food products, wherein the online food ordering module interacts with an existing food ordering and delivery platform (Paragraphs [0063] [0101] [0102] figures 10 and 11; access advertiser's Internet website and advertiser's product ordering database, e.g. food ordering).
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 Taylor and Drynan by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Hughes, for the predictable result of linking to an advertiser’s website to allow the viewer to place an order, delegating the interactive ordering scheme to the advertiser’s point of access.
However, it is noted that Taylor, Drynan and Hughes are silent to explicitly disclose analyzing images within said media for pixel values and gradients to compare to images of items available for sale in order to correctly identify the items.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Kazi discloses analyzing images within said media for pixel values and gradients to compare to images of items available for sale in order to correctly identify the items (Paragraphs [0037] [0038]; analyzing image characteristics such as pixel values or gradients to determine shapes and ten recognize persons or concepted, e.g. the Eiffel Tower, restaurants, etc. that the video image is presenting).
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 Taylor, Drynan and Hughes by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Kazi, for the predictable result of implementing well-known pixel value and gradient analysis to recognize objects in a video (Kazi — paragraph [0068)).
Regarding claim 35, Taylor, Drynan, Hughes and Kazi disclose all the limitations of claim 35; therefore, claim 35 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 11.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor, Drynan and Fitzgerald further in view of Kelly et al. (Patent No US 12,170,004). Hereinafter, referenced as Kelly.
Regarding claim 33, Taylor, Drynan and Fitzgerald disclose the method of claim 32; however, it is noted that Taylor, Drynan and Fitzgerald are silent to explicitly disclose the step of delaying a bet when the user is at a live event and viewing media that is on a delay.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Kelly discloses the step of delaying a bet when the user is at a live event and viewing media that is on a delay (Col. 2 lines 21-33 and lines 47-64; generating wager delay for in-attendance bettors to prevent that they can place a bet quickly after the home run is hit and before the event is communicated to the bookmaker for updating their odds such that the bettor is guaranteed to win the bet).
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 Taylor, Drynan and Fitzgerald by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Kelly, for the predictable result of preventing bettors in attendance from betting on events where the broadcast has not reached the audience not in attendance just yet.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor and Drynan further in view of Jacobs et al. (Pub No US 2021/0169234). Hereinafter, referenced as Jacobs.
Regarding claim 36, Taylor and Drynan disclose the method of claim 27; however, it is noted that Taylor and Drynan are silent to explicitly disclose the step of providing a unique text code or QR code to an establishment, wherein the establishment is able to integrate with the user interface to offer their own items unique to their location, advertise for themselves, and provide an ordering system for the user.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Jacobs discloses the step of providing a unique text code or QR code to an establishment, wherein the establishment is able to integrate with the user interface to offer their own items unique to their location, advertise for themselves, and provide an ordering system for the user (Paragraph [0269] figure 20).
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 Taylor and Drynan by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Jacobs, for the predictable result of allowing the user visiting a menu to link up with the venue’s network and allow them to interact with their ordering menu, future tickets, etc. (Jacobs – paragraph [0269]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm EST..
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
JUNIOR O. MENDOZA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424