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 communication filed 11/22/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination, the rejection cited as stated below.
Double Patenting
2. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
3. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-12, 14-15 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of US Patent 11622156 (hereafter “Patent’156”).
As to Claim 1, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of the independent claim 1 of the instant application are claimed in claim 11 of the Patent’156, i.e., claim 11 of the Patent‘156 is more specific. Thus the invention of claim 11 of the Patent’156 is in effect a "species" of the "generic" invention of claim 1 of the instant application. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Specifically, Patent’156 discloses a system, comprising:
one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory (see Claim 11’s Parent Claim 10, “one or more processors coupled to memory”), the one or more processors configured to:
maintain a session identifying a host player profile as a host of the session and a viewer player profile as a viewer of the session, the viewer player profile associated with a viewer client device (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein, wherein the limitation is interpreted as “maintain a session associated with a host player profile associated with a host of the session and a viewer player profile associated with a viewer of the session”. See Claim 11’s Parent Claim 10, “establish a session in response to a request from a host client device associated with a host player profile, the request identifying the host player profile as a host of the session, the session identifying a time period during which events are shared with viewers of the session; configure the host player profile to share records of events performed via the host player profile during the time period indicated in the session; receive, from a plurality of viewer client devices, a plurality of requests to join the session, each request associated with a respective viewer player profile; responsive to the plurality of viewer client devices joining the session, transmit a plurality of content items for presentation at the plurality of viewer client devices in session feed of the session”);
transmit, during the session, a plurality of content items respectively corresponding to a plurality of events previously performed via the host player profile, the plurality of content items each identifying a respective amount of time remaining for a corresponding event of the plurality of events (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein that the “events previously performed” is interpreted as “events previously partially performed”. See Claim 11’s Parent Claim 10, “responsive to the plurality of viewer client devices joining the session, transmit a plurality of content items for presentation at the plurality of viewer client devices in session feed of the session, each of the plurality of content items identifying a respective event previously performed via the host player profile during the session, each content item of the plurality of content items identifying a respective status of the respective event and a respective amount of time remaining for the respective event”); and
responsive to receiving, from the viewer client device, a second request corresponding to a first content item of the plurality of content items within the respective amount of time, generate, in the viewer player profile, a record corresponding to the corresponding event (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein that the recited “a second request” is interpreted as any request. See Claim 11’s Parent Claim 10, “in response to an interaction with the content item within the amount of time remaining for the event, providing, by the one or more processors to the viewer client device, instructions to cause the viewer client device to present a second user interface including a subset of the plurality of event parameters and at least one field that receives a wager amount as an input via the viewer client device; and generate, in the viewer player profile, a record corresponding to the event”).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 2, Patent’156 discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: provide, to the viewer client device, instructions to cause the viewer client device to present a user interface including a set of event parameters corresponding to the first content item (see Claim 11’s parent claim 10, “in response to an interaction with the content item within the amount of time remaining for the event, providing, by the one or more processors to the viewer client device, instructions to cause the viewer client device to present a second user interface including a subset of the plurality of event parameters and at least one field that receives a wager amount as an input via the viewer client device”).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 4, Patent’156 discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to terminate the session responsive to detecting that a time period of the session has expired (Claim 11, “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to terminate the session responsive to detecting that the time period of the session has expired”).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 5, Patent’156 discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: establish the session in response to receiving a request from a host client device of the host player profile (See Claim 11’s Parent Claim 10, “establish a session in response to a request from a host client device associated with a host player profile”).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 10, Patent’156 discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive, from the viewer client device, a request to permit automatic population of
records corresponding to events performed via the host player profile during the session (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein regarding “event performed”. See Claim 11’s Parent Claim 10, “receive, from a viewer client device of the plurality of viewer client devices, a request to permit automatic population of records corresponding to events performed via the host player profile during the session”).
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 10.
4. Claims 3, 6-9, 13, and 16-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of US Patent 11622156 (hereafter “Patent’156”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ORTIZ et al (US 20160300440).
As to claim 3, Patent’156 discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 2, but does not expressly disclose wherein the set of event parameters comprise odds values. ORTIZ discloses a set of event parameters comprise odds values (ORTIZ, Fig. 3, 310, “San Francisco WILL WIN THE GAME Pays 15/1”, wherein “Pays 15/1” is odds values, see [0038], “The list of available wagers 230 includes the odds 240 of each wager” wherein “odds 240” in Fig. 2 points to the “Pays 15/1” component of the wager “San Francisco WILL WIN THE GAME Pays 15/1”. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific type of odds values therefore Examiner interprets as any type).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’156 with ORTIZ. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to provide winning chance information to the user (ORTIZ, [0038]).
Claim 13 is similarly rejected.
As to claim 6, Patent’156 in view of ORTIZ discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: update a configuration of the host player profile to enable sharing of records of events performed via the host player profile during the session (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein regarding “events performed”. ORTIZ, see citation and Examination’s explanation in the 102 rejection to this claim).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 7, Patent’156 in view of ORTIZ discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive an indication of an event performed via the host player profile during the session; and update the session to include the indication of the event (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein regarding “event performed”. ORTIZ, see citation and Examination’s explanation in the 102 rejection to this claim).
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Patent’156 in view of ORTIZ discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: update a session feed of the session comprising the plurality of content items to include an additional content item corresponding to the event (ORTIZ, see citation and Examination’s explanation in the 102 rejection to this claim).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 9, Patent’156 in view of ORTIZ discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit the session feed comprising the plurality of content items to an additional client device associated with an additional player profile responsive to the additional player profile being identified in the session as a viewer (ORTIZ, see citation and Examination’s explanation in the 102 rejection to this claim).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 9.
---------------------
5. Claims 1-2, 4, 11-12, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of US Patent 12155900 (hereafter “Patent’900).
As to Claim 1, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of the independent claim 1 of the instant application are claimed in claim 12 of the Patent’900, i.e., claim 12 of the Patent‘900 is more specific. Thus the invention of claim 12 of the Patent’900 is in effect a "species" of the "generic" invention of claim 1 of the instant application. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Specifically, Patent’900 discloses a system, comprising:
one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory (see Claim 12’s Parent Claim 11, “one or more processors coupled to memory”), the one or more processors configured to:
maintain a session identifying a host player profile as a host of the session and a viewer player profile as a viewer of the session, the viewer player profile associated with a viewer client device (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein, wherein the limitation is interpreted as “maintain a session associated with a host player profile associated with a host of the session and a viewer player profile associated with a viewer of the session”. See Claim 12’s Parent Claim 11, “receive a request to join a session from a viewer client device associated with a viewer player profile, the session identifying a host player profile as a host of the session, the session identifying a plurality of events previously performed via the host player profile during the session; responsive to the viewer client device accessing the session…”);
transmit, during the session, a plurality of content items respectively corresponding to a plurality of events previously performed via the host player profile, the plurality of content items each identifying a respective amount of time remaining for a corresponding event of the plurality of events (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein that the “events previously performed” is interpreted as “events previously partially performed”. See Claim 12’s Parent Claim 11, “the session identifying a plurality of events previously performed via the host player profile during the session; responsive to the viewer client device accessing the session; responsive to the viewer client device accessing the session, transmit a plurality of content items for presentation at the viewer client device, each content item of the plurality of content items corresponding to a respective event of the plurality of events and identifying a respective amount of time remaining for the respective event”); and
responsive to receiving, from the viewer client device, a second request corresponding to a first content item of the plurality of content items within the respective amount of time, generate, in the viewer player profile, a record corresponding to the corresponding event (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein that the recited “a second request” is interpreted as any request. See Claim 12’s Parent Claim 11, “responsive to receiving, from the viewer client device, a second request corresponding to a first content item of the plurality of content items within the respective amount of time remaining identified by the first content item, provide, to the viewer client device, instructions to cause the viewer client device to present a user interface including a set of event parameters corresponding to the first content item; generate, in the viewer player profile, a record corresponding to the respective event corresponding to the first content item responsive to an interaction with the user interface”).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 2, Patent’900 discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: provide, to the viewer client device, instructions to cause the viewer client device to present a user interface including a set of event parameters corresponding to the first content item (see Claim 12’s parent claim 11, “responsive to receiving, from the viewer client device, a second request corresponding to a first content item of the plurality of content items within the respective amount of time remaining identified by the first content item, provide, to the viewer client device, instructions to cause the viewer client device to present a user interface including a set of event parameters corresponding to the first content item”).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 4, Patent’900 discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to terminate the session responsive to detecting that a time period of the session has expired (Claim 12, “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to terminate the session responsive to detecting that a time period of the session has expired”).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 4.
6. Claims 3, 5-10, 13, and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of US Patent 12155900 (hereafter “Patent’900), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ORTIZ et al (US 20160300440).
As to claim 3, Patent’900 discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 2, but does not expressly disclose wherein the set of event parameters comprise odds values. ORTIZ discloses a set of event parameters comprise odds values (ORTIZ, Fig. 3, 310, “San Francisco WILL WIN THE GAME Pays 15/1”, wherein “Pays 15/1” is odds values, see [0038], “The list of available wagers 230 includes the odds 240 of each wager” wherein “odds 240” in Fig. 2 points to the “Pays 15/1” component of the wager “San Francisco WILL WIN THE GAME Pays 15/1”. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific type of odds values therefore Examiner interprets as any type).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’900 with ORTIZ. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to provide winning chance information to the user (ORTIZ, [0038]).
Claim 13 is similarly rejected.
As to claim 5, Patent’900 in view of ORTIZ discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: establish the session in response to receiving a request from a host client device of the host player profile (ORTIZ, see citation and Examination’s explanation in the 102 rejection to this claim).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 6, Patent’900 in view of ORTIZ discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: update a configuration of the host player profile to enable sharing of records of events performed via the host player profile during the session (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein regarding “events performed”. ORTIZ, see citation and Examination’s explanation in the 102 rejection to this claim).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 7, Patent’900 in view of ORTIZ discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive an indication of an event performed via the host player profile during the session; and update the session to include the indication of the event (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein regarding “event performed”. ORTIZ, see citation and Examination’s explanation in the 102 rejection to this claim).
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Patent’900 in view of ORTIZ discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: update a session feed of the session comprising the plurality of content items to include an additional content item corresponding to the event (ORTIZ, see citation and Examination’s explanation in the 102 rejection to this claim).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 9, Patent’900 in view of ORTIZ discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit the session feed comprising the plurality of content items to an additional client device associated with an additional player profile responsive to the additional player profile being identified in the session as a viewer (ORTIZ, see citation and Examination’s explanation in the 102 rejection to this claim).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 9.
As to claim 10, Patent’900 in view of ORTIZ discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from the viewer client device, a request to permit automatic population of records corresponding to events performed via the host player profile during the session (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein regarding “event performed”. ORTIZ, see citation and Examination’s explanation in the 102 rejection to this claim).
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
a) Claim 1 recites:
“maintain a session identifying a host player profile as a host of the session and a viewer player profile as a viewer of the session, the viewer player profile associated with a viewer client device;
transmit, during the session, a plurality of content items respectively corresponding to a plurality of events previously performed via the host player profile, the plurality of content items each identifying a respective amount of time remaining for a corresponding event of the plurality of events.”
First of all, it is unclear how a host profile can be a host of the session, since a host usually refers to an entity, while a profile is usually a data structure. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner presumes that the claimed limitation reads “a host player profile associated with a host of the session.” The recited “a viewer player profile as a viewer of the session” is similarly rejected and interpreted for the sake of the examination as “a viewer player profile associated with a viewer of the session”.
Secondly, the scope of the claimed “session” cannot be definitely determined in light of the specification. The claim recites “a session identifying a host player profile”. Since a profile is usually a data structure, the recited “a session identifying a host play profile” therefore could be reasonably interpreted as a data structure identifying a host player profile. However, the subsequent limitation recites “during the session” which would not apply to a data structure. As a result, the scope of the recited “session” cannot be definitely determined due to the conflict. The conflict also exists in the specification, e.g., para [0089] discloses “A session 265 can be a data structure that identifies a number of player profiles 260 that are participating to the session 265. The session 265 can be, for example, a shared viewing and interaction experience for content, and can include a record of corresponding actions performed by a host player profile 260 of the session”. It is unclear to an ordinary skilled in the art as to how the same “session” can be a “data structure” and also be “a shared viewing and interaction experience”. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner interprets the claimed “session” as “a shared viewing and interaction experience” and presumes that limitation 1 reads ”maintain a session associated with a host player profile associated with a host of the session and a viewer player profile associated with a viewer of the session, the viewer player profile associated with a viewer client device”.
b) Claim 1 recites “transmit, during the session, a plurality of content items respectively corresponding to a plurality of events previously performed via the host player profile, the plurality of content items each identifying a respective amount of time remaining for a corresponding event of the plurality of events”. It is unclear how a previously already performed event still has time remaining. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner interprets that the recited “a plurality of events previously performed” as “a plurality of events previously partially performed” and accordingly interprets any corresponding event of the plurality of events to be previously partially performed.
c) Claims 2-20 are similarly rejected. Any “session”, “a plurality of events performed”, “event(s) performed”, or “event(s)”, if recited in claims 2-20, are consistently interpreted as stated above, i.e., as “a shared viewing and interaction experience” and “event(s) partially performed” respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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 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.
11. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
12. Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by ORTIZ et al (US 20160300440).
As to claim 1, ORTIZ discloses a system, comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 1, “CPU”) coupled to non-transitory memory (Fig. 1, “RAM”, “ROM”), the one or more processors configured to:
maintain a session identifying a host player profile as a host of the session and a viewer player profile as a viewer of the session, the viewer player profile associated with a viewer client device (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein, wherein the limitation is interpreted as “maintain a session associated with a host player profile associated with a host of the session and a viewer player profile associated with a viewer of the session”. See ORITZ, [0035], “A player may post potential wagers, e.g., wagers proposed by the player, and/or select from among wagers posted by other players… a natural person may post a potential wager via embodiments in accordance with the present invention, seeking another player to accept such wager.” Here, the player who proposes/creates a potential wager seeking another player to accept such wager is equivalent to a host player, and the player who select from among wagers posted by another player is equivalent to a viewer player. Once a particular wager proposed/created by the host player shows up on the viewer player’s display as selectable for viewing (e.g., see Fig. 2, a list of available wagers on the viewer player’s display screen), a session is formed, which is in association with the particular wager formation event (i.e., the process of proposing/creating and accepting a wager). Also see Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, wherein the viewer player’s option of viewing and potentially accepting a wager can be specifically invited by the host player.
See Fig. 2, a list of available wagers are shown, and Fig. 3, component 320 “Accept” and 330 “Create”; and [0041], “a plurality of widows 320, 330 related to the subject wager. Window 320 allows a user to accept a wager proposed by another. Window 330 allows a user to create a wager according to the terms of the subject wager, e.g., that San Francisco will win the game at the stated odds… windows 320 and 330 comprise a display 340 of a user's name, ID and/or ‘handle’"; [0042], “Window 320 comprises a countdown timer 327 indicating how much time remains to accept the particular wager. For example, countdown timer display 327 may indicate how much time remains until the beginning of a contest”. Such a session between the wager creator/proposer (host player) and the potential wager accepter (viewer player) via the same type of application user interface for viewing, creating and/or accepting the wager and especially for enabling the particular wager created by the host player to be viewable and acceptable by the viewer player, reads on “shared viewing and interaction experience for content” (see Fig. 3, Fig. 4).
The respective user account associated with the host player and the viewer player is equivalent to a host player profile and a viewer player profile respectively. The user accounts are implied by “Pays if you win” for both a wager creator (see Fig. 4) and a wager accepter (see Fig. 3), and also expressly disclosed in [0051], “the bet may be subject to a variety of limits, including, game or "house" limits, user credit limits and/or user account balances”) See also [0043], “Window 320 also comprises a "cost of bet" indication 324 and a "Pays if you win" indication 326. The subject wager may be for a specified amount, e.g., $50. "Pays if you win" indication 326 displays a computation of the potential payout if the user wins the wager, based on the odds of the wager. Window 320 further comprises an "accept" button 321. Touching or otherwise indicting "accept" button 321 will accept the subject wager”.
Here, a user account of the host player (i.e., the “another” user who created/proposed this wager) is equivalent to a host player profile, associated with the host of the session, and a user account of the currently viewing user is equivalent to a viewer player profile associated with a viewer of the session, which is further associated with a viewer client device such as the device as shown in Fig. 3);
transmit, during the session, a plurality of content items respectively corresponding to a plurality of events previously performed via the host player profile (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein that the “events previously performed” is interpreted as “events previously partially performed”. see citation in rejection to the preceding limitation, e.g., Fig. 2; Fig. 3 and [0041]-[0043]. Fig. 2 shows a list of available wagers associated with a plurality of wager formation events (i.e., the process of creating and accepting a wager is considered a wager formation event), when selected by the viewer player, additional content items are displayed for each particular wager on the list, see Fig. 3. In Fig. 3, Window 320 shows additional content items associated with a particular wager created by the “another” user (i.e., host player), wherein the displayed content items in the “Accept” window corresponds to said wager formation event previously partially performed by the “another” user (i.e., created by the host player) via the host player account, see, e.g., [0044], “Window 330 presents a user an opportunity to create a wager according to the subject conditions, e.g., a proposition and odds. Similarly to window 320, window 330 comprises a countdown timer 337. Similarly to window 320, window 330 comprises a "cost of bet" indication 334 and a "pays if you win" indication 336. In contrast to window 320, however, since the bet is in the process of being created, these amounts are unknown. Window 330 further comprises a "create" button 331. Touching or otherwise indicting "create" button 331 will begin a process of creating a wager, which will subsequently appear in lists of available wagers, for example, list of available wagers 230 of FIG. 2.”
Regarding a plurality of content items respectively corresponding to a plurality of wager formation events performed via the host player account, see Fig. 2 and [0039], “a single user may propose the same wager multiple times, for example, to overcome limits on the number of parties to a specific wager. For example, if a system limits a specific instance of a wager to a maximum of four parties, e.g., four people wager against the initiator of the wager, the initiator may propose the wager multiple times, in order to bet against multiple groups of the maximum number of participants”; [0041], “Graphical user interface 300 may comprise more than the illustrated two windows. For example, there may be more than one "accept" window and/or more than one "create" window.” In other words, a host player can create multiple wagers to appear in the list of available wagers in Fig. 2 and hence a viewer player sees multiple “accept” windows for said wagers in Fig. 3),
the plurality of content items each identifying a respective amount of time remaining for a corresponding event of the plurality of events (see Fig. 3, each “Accept” window 320 contains a “Countdown” timer 327”, which is also present in the “Create” widow 340. See also [0042], “Window 320 comprises a countdown timer 327 indicating how much time remains to accept the particular wager” wherein time remains to accept the particular wager is time remaining for the particular wager formation event); and
responsive to receiving, from the viewer client device, a second request corresponding to a first content item of the plurality of content items within the respective amount of time, generate, in the viewer player profile, a record corresponding to the corresponding event (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein that the recited “a second request” is interpreted as any request. See citation in rejection to limitation 1, e.g., Fig. 3; [0041]-[0043], wherein the viewer player’s request to accept the wager by clicking on the “Accept” button is a request corresponding to the displayed particular wager content item, received from the viewer client device, within the countdown time before the wager expires, and wherein generating a record in the viewer player’s account to reflect such an acceptance associated with the particular wager (hence the particular wager formation event) is implied in order to “Pays if You Win”).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 2, ORTIZ discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: provide, to the viewer client device, instructions to cause the viewer client device to present a user interface including a set of event parameters corresponding to the first content item (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, wherein selecting one of the available wagers in Fig. 2 brings out another user interface including a set of event parameters corresponding to the particular wager content item for the corresponding wager formation event, wherein the wager formation event parameters include “Cost of Bet”, “Countdown”, “Pay if you Win”, etc… See also [0040], “When selection icon 250 is in a first visual condition, e.g., a hollow ring, such a condition indicates that a particular wager is available. Touching or otherwise selecting a particular selection icon 250 while in the first visual condition initiates acceptance or proposal of a particular wager”; [0041], “FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary graphical user interface (GUI) 300 for accepting and/or creating a wager”).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, ORTIZ discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the set of event parameters comprise odds values (Fig. 3, 310, “San Francisco WILL WIN THE GAME Pays 15/1”, wherein “Pays 15/1” is odds values, see [0038], “The list of available wagers 230 includes the odds 240 of each wager” wherein “odds 240” in Fig. 2 points to the “Pays 15/1” component of the wager “San Francisco WILL WIN THE GAME Pays 15/1”. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific type of odds values therefore Examiner interprets as any type).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 5, ORTIZ discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: establish the session in response to receiving a request from a host client device of the host player profile (Fig. 4; [0044], wherein a particular wager formation event starts in response to receiving the host player’s request of creating the wager, whereupon a corresponding session is established due to the created wager becoming available to viewer players, e.g., see [0044], “Window 330 presents a user an opportunity to create a wager according to the subject conditions, e.g., a proposition and odds. Similarly to window 320, window 330 comprises a countdown timer 337. Similarly to window 320, window 330 comprises a "cost of bet" indication 334 and a "pays if you win" indication 336. In contrast to window 320, however, since the bet is in the process of being created, these amounts are unknown. Window 330 further comprises a "create" button 331. Touching or otherwise indicting "create" button 331 will begin a process of creating a wager, which will subsequently appear in lists of available wagers, for example, list of available wagers 230 of FIG. 2.” See also Fig. 4; [0046], “Public/private button set 430 allow a user, e.g., via touch input, to select whether a wager is to be public or private. For example, a public wager is viewable and bet-able by all users of a gaming system”).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 6, ORTIZ discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: update a configuration of the host player profile to enable sharing of records of events performed via the host player profile during the session (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein regarding “events performed”. See Fig. 4; [0046], “Public/private button set 430 allow a user, e.g., via touch input, to select whether a wager is to be public or private. For example, a public wager is viewable and bet-able by all users of a gaming system”, indicating that the “Public or Private” portion of the host player’s user account regarding the created wager forming event is configured as Public so that records of such wager forming event is enabled to be shared with all users of the gaming system, see Fig. 3 for shared “accept” record. See citation in rejection to claim 1 regarding multiple wager forming events performed by a same host player, e.g., see Fig. 2 and [0039], “a single user may propose the same wager multiple times”; [0041], “Graphical user interface 300 may comprise more than the illustrated two windows. For example, there may be more than one "accept" window and/or more than one "create" window.” It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific type or format of a configuration).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 7, ORTIZ discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive an indication of an event performed via the host player profile during the session (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein regarding “event performed”. See Fig. 4, wager “create” is submitted by the “another” user); and
update the session to include the indication of the event (ORTIZ, Fig. 4 and [0044], “Touching or otherwise indicting "create" button 331 will begin a process of creating a wager, which will subsequently appear in lists of available wagers, for example, list of available wagers 230 of FIG. 2”; Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, the session is updated to be viewable by any user of the game system, when the wager is made “Public”, see Fig. 4; [0046], “Public/private button set 430 allow a user, e.g., via touch input, to select whether a wager is to be public or private. For example, a public wager is viewable and bet-able by all users of a gaming system”).
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, ORTIZ discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: update a session feed of the session comprising the plurality of content items to include an additional content item corresponding to the event (Fig. 2, the available list of wagers constitutes a session feed, which is updated to include an additional wager content item corresponding to the detected initiation of the wager formation event, see [0044], “Touching or otherwise indicting "create" button 331 will begin a process of creating a wager, which will subsequently appear in lists of available wagers, for example, list of available wagers 230 of FIG. 2”; Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, the session is updated to be viewable by any user of the game system, when the wager is made “Public”, see Fig. 4; [0046], “Public/private button set 430 allow a user, e.g., via touch input, to select whether a wager is to be public or private. For example, a public wager is viewable and bet-able by all users of a gaming system”; see also [0041], “Graphical user interface 300 may comprise more than the illustrated two windows. For example, there may be more than one "accept" window and/or more than one "create" window).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 9, ORTIZ discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
transmit the session feed comprising the plurality of content items to an additional client device associated with an additional player profile responsive to the additional player profile being identified in the session as a viewer (see Fig., 4, “Participants (# of other Players)” is set to “2” indicating an additional client device associated with an additional player profile other than the first viewer player. See Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, wherein the invitation is sent to the participants. See [0037], “According to a selection of a high level category indicated by high level category wager selection 210, and a sub-category wager selection of "any" 221, only proposed wagers conforming to both the high level category, e.g., wagers on or about the San Francisco team, and the subcategory, e.g., any wagers related to the San Francisco team, are displayed”; [0038], “Graphical user interface 200 comprises a list of available wagers 230. The list is filtered according to the selections of high-level category wager selection 210 and sub-category wager selection 220”, wherein the user’s selection of the high-level category and sub-category wager selection of “any” is equivalent to being identified in the session as a viewer of filtered wagers applicable to the selected categories, thereupon the list of corresponding available wager content items is transmitted/displayed to this viewer player. Alternatively, in the case of a private wager, see Fig. 4, “password”; Fig. 6, “<link, including optional password>”; and [0053], “Message 600 comprises a link 610 for directing a recipient's electronic systems to the wager. The link 610 may comprise a universal resource locator (URL) in some embodiments. If the wager is a private wager, the link also comprise a password, e.g., to automate access to the private wager”, wherein the invitee’s clicking on the link invokes password encoded URL to view the wager interface, which is equivalent to identify the user as a viewer of the particular wager).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 9.
As to claim 10, ORTIZ discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive, from the viewer client device, a request to permit automatic population of
records corresponding to events performed via the host player profile during the session (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein regarding “event performed”. See [0037], “According to a selection of a high level category indicated by high level category wager selection 210, and a sub-category wager selection of "any" 221, only proposed wagers conforming to both the high level category, e.g., wagers on or about the San Francisco team, and the subcategory, e.g., any wagers related to the San Francisco team, are displayed”; [0038], “Graphical user interface 200 comprises a list of available wagers 230. The list is filtered according to the selections of high-level category wager selection 210 and sub-category wager selection 220”, wherein the viewer player’s selection of the categories is equivalent to a request to permit automatic population of records corresponding to the filtered wagers (hence the corresponding wager formation events), without requiring further user input(s) to request details of these records such as those shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. See [0039], “a single user may propose the same wager multiple times”, indicating multiple wager formation events partially performed by the host player, with respective records showing as available wagers in the list of Fig. 2 and further details showing in Fig. 3, see [0041], “Graphical user interface 300 may comprise more than the illustrated two windows. For example, there may be more than one "accept" window and/or more than one "create" window”).
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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 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.
14. 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 of this title, 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.
15. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
16. Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ORTIZ, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malek (US 2019/0147702).
As to claim 4, ORTIZ discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, including detecting a time period of the session expiration (Fig. 3, “Countdown” timer) but does not expressly disclose terminate the session responsive to such detection. Malek discloses terminating a wager session upon expiration (0800],“expiring an offer to bet”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine ORITIZ with Malek. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to terminate accepting offers (Malek, [0800]).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUA FAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights