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 amendment/reconsideration filed 9/23/2026, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments been fully considered but they are not all persuasive. The applicant argues the following issues.
(A) Double Patenting Rejection
Issue: The applicant argues that the Terminal Disclaimer filed on 9/23/2026 overcomes the current Double Patenting Rejections.
The current Double Patenting rejections have been withdrawn in light of the approved Terminal disclaimer filed on 9/23/2026.
(B) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112
Issue: The applicant argues with respect to independent claims such as claim 1 that the amended limitations overcome the current 112 rejection.
The applicant’s arguments are moot in light of the new ground of 112 rejections set forth below.
(C) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102
Issue: The applicant argues with respect to independent claims such as claim 1 that the amended limitations overcome the current rejection.
The applicant’s arguments are moot in light of the new ground of 102 rejections set forth below.
(D) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Issue: The applicant’s arguments with respect to dependent claims 4 and 14 are based on the arguments with respect to independent claims.
See Examiner’s response to applicant’s arguments directed to independent claims above.
Terminal Disclaimer
3. The terminal disclaimer filed on 9/23/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 12155900 and US Patent 11622156 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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, last limitation recites:
“responsive to receiving, from the viewer client device, a request corresponding to a first content item of the plurality of content items, generate, in the viewer player profile, a wager record corresponding to a wager of the plurality of wagers that corresponds to the first content item, the wager having a first predicted outcome, the wager record identifying wager parameters including a second predicted outcome that is the same as the first predicted outcome of the wager placed via the host player profile”.
The scopes of and the relationship between the various predicted outcomes cannot be definitely determined.
First of all, the recited “the first predicted outcome of the wager placed via the host player profile” lacks sufficient antecedent basis, because no preceding limitations recites ”a first predicted outcome of the wager placed via the host player profile.” An earlier limitation merely recites “the wager having a first predicted outcome” without limiting to being placed via any profile at all.
Secondly, It is unclear regarding the relationship between the recited “the first predicted outcome of the wager placed via the host player profile” and the earlier recited “a first predicted outcome”.
Thirdly, the recited “a second predicted outcome that is the same as the first predicted outcome of the wager placed via the host player profile”. Due to lack of sufficient antecedent basis for “the first predicted outcome of the wager placed via the host player profile”, the scope of “a second predicted outcome that is the same as the first predicted outcome of the wager placed via the host player profile” cannot be definitely determined either.
Fourthly, the relationship between the second precited outcome and the first predicted outcome is unclear due to the unclear relationship between the first predicted outcome of the wager placed via the host player profile and the earlier recited a first predicted outcome.
Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner interprets these recited predicted outcomes as any predicted outcomes with any relationship between them. Claims 2-20 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 Inamdar (US 2022/0270446A1).
As to claim 1, Inamdar discloses a system, comprising:
one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory (Fig. 3), the one or more processors configured to:
maintain a session associated with a host player profile of a host of the session and a viewer player profile of a viewer of the session, the viewer player profile associated with a viewer client device ([0013], “the system enables a first user to track or otherwise follow the sporting event wagering activity associated with a second user… upon a followed sporting event wagerer placing ( or otherwise suggesting) a qualifying sporting event wager, such as a relatively complex parlay bet, the system communicates information regarding this qualifying sporting event wager to one or more following users whom previously applied to receive such communications”; [0004], “When executed by the processor responsive to an input received by the user to follow that designated sporting event wagerer, the instructions cause the processor to associate the user with that designated sporting event wagerer, and, communicate data that results in a display, by the display device, of a sporting event wager identified by that designated sporting event wagerer”, wherein the “follow” relationship and the continuous receipt of the followed user’s wagers functions as the host/viewer session);
transmit, during the session, a plurality of content items respectively corresponding to a plurality of wagers previously placed via the host player profile (abstract, “A system which causes an automatic publication of one or more sporting event wagers associated with one user to one or more other users”; [0013], “upon a sharable event occurring in association with the second user, the system causes information associated with the sporting event wagering activity of that second user to become available to the first user. For example, upon a followed sporting event wagerer placing ( or otherwise suggesting) a qualifying sporting event wager, such as a relatively complex parlay bet, the system communicates information regarding this qualifying sporting event wager to one or more following users whom previously applied to receive such communications”); and
responsive to receiving, from the viewer client device, a request corresponding to a first content item of the plurality of content items (see citation in rejection to the preceding limitations, e.g., [0004], “When executed by the processor responsive to an input received by the user to follow that designated sporting event wagerer, the instructions cause the processor to associate the user with that designated sporting event wagerer, and, communicate data that results in a display, by the display device, of a sporting event wager identified by that designated sporting event wagerer”, wherein the “follow” is a request corresponding to a first wager content. Also see [0019], “the system enables a first user to establish one or more screens to be applied to the universe of available second users that place sporting event wagers to narrow such available second users to the ones which the first user may potentially want to follow”; and [0013], “following users whom previously applied to receive such communications”),
generate, in the viewer player profile, a wager record corresponding to a wager of the plurality of wagers that corresponds to the first content item, the wager having a first predicted outcome, the wager record identifying wager parameters including a second predicted outcome that is the same as the first predicted outcome of the wager placed via the host player profile (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation stated therein. See citation in rejection to limitation 1, e.g., [0013], “the following users may then decide to act on such information and place the same sporting event wager without having to manually recreate the qualifying sporting event wager (which such users may not even know how to do)”; [0014], “while a five-leg parlay bet typically includes more than ten individual inputs to place (e.g., at least five inputs for each of the five sporting events selected, five inputs for each of the individual legs selected and one input for an amount of the sporting event wager), the same five-leg parlay bet made by a user of the system of the present disclosure takes two individual inputs to place ( e.g., one input to select the five-leg parlay bet from the followed user without having to identify the individual legs of the parlay bet, and one input for the amount of the sporting event wager)”; [0003], “responsive to a receipt, by an input device, of a second, lower quantity of inputs made by the first user, the instructions cause the processor to cause a placement of the second sporting event wager on the outcome of the sporting event”. Here, the “second sporting event wager…based on the first sporting event wager” is a generated corresponding record that enables the following user to perform the matching wager with the same (or substantially the same) parameters, wherein the parameters include predicted outcomes, see [0032], “the sporting event wagerer parameter include a type of sporting event wager available to be placed that a sporting event wagerer historically places. In this embodiment, the different types of sporting event wagers available include, but are not limited to, any suitable moneyline wager on an outcome of a sporting event ( e.g., Team X will win the game), any suitable wager on an outcome of a sporting event which accounts for a point spread (e.g., Team X will win the game by ten points)”).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 2, Inamdar 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 wager parameters corresponding to the first content item ([0003], “communicate data that results in a display, by a display device, of a second sporting event wager, wherein the second sporting event wager is based on the first sporting event wager”; [0013], “the system communicates information regarding this qualifying sporting event wager to one or more following users whom previously applied to receive such communications”).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Inamdar discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the set of wager parameters comprise odds values ([0031], “a sporting event wagerer parameter includes the odds of the outcomes of the sporting events on which a sporting event wagerer historically places”).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 5, Inamdar 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 citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., [0004], “When executed by the processor responsive to an input received by the user to follow that designated sporting event wagerer, the instructions cause the processor to associate the user with that designated sporting event wagerer”, wherein the host user who places the shareable wagers results in the system to enable the association (session) once the host’s activity is made available for following. The “request from a host client device” is the functional equivalent of the host making (or enabling their wagers shareable. It is to be noted that the claim does not require that the host client device’s request is the only activity that the session establishment is in response to).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 6, Inamdar 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 wager placed via the host player profile during the session ([0016], “In certain of these embodiments, regardless of if any users are charged any amount to follow the sporting event wagering activity of other user, the system provides a benefit (in monetary and/or non-monetary form) to the user whose sporting event wagering activities are shared with other users. In such embodiments, in view of the various time saving benefits, error reduction benefits and sporting event wagering teaching benefits realized, the system compensates certain users who facilitate such benefits by sharing part or all of their sporting event wagering activities”, indicating that sharing with other users is not default but instead updatable/configurable by a user).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 7, Inamdar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive an indication of a wager placed via the host player profile during the session; and update the session to include the indication of the event ([0004], “communicate data which results in a display, by a display device, of a notification of that designated sporting event wagerer. When executed by the processor responsive to an input received by the user to follow that designated sporting event wagerer, the instructions cause the processor to associate the user with that designated sporting event wagerer, and, communicate data that results in a display, by the display device, of a sporting event wager identified by that designated sporting event wagerer”).
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Inamdar 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 wager (abstract, “A system which causes an automatic publication of one or more sporting event wagers associated with one user to one or more other users”; [0013], “upon a followed sporting event wagerer placing (or otherwise suggesting) a qualifying sporting event wager, such as a relatively complex parlay bet, the system communicates information regarding this qualifying sporting event wager to one or more following users whom previously applied to receive such communications”; [0004], “communicate data which results in a display, by a display device, of a notification of that designated sporting event wagerer. When executed by the processor responsive to an input received by the user to follow that designated sporting event wagerer, the instructions cause the processor to associate the user with that designated sporting event wagerer, and, communicate data that results in a display, by the display device, of a sporting event wager identified by that designated sporting event wagerer”; [0032], “any suitable parlay/accumulator multiple sporting event wagers (including but not limited to a progressive parlay wager, a teaser and pleaser wager, a grand salami wager, and/or a round robin wager) and/or any combination of these different available sporting event wagers“. Disclosed here is an ongoing, automatically updated steam of shareable wagers from a followed (host) user that is delivered to one or more following (viewer) users. Each newly placed wager by the host is published as an additional item of information that the followers receive).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 9, Inamdar 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 ([0013], “the system enables a first user to track or otherwise follow the sporting event wagering activity associated with a second user… upon a followed sporting event wagerer placing (or otherwise suggesting) a qualifying sporting event wager, such as a relatively complex parlay bet, the system communicates information regarding this qualifying sporting event wager to one or more following users whom previously applied to receive such communications”).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 9.
As to claim 10, Inamdar 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 wagers placed via the host player profile during the session ([0013], “the system enables a first user to track or otherwise follow the sporting event wagering activity associated with a second user… upon a followed sporting event wagerer placing (or otherwise suggesting) a qualifying sporting event wager, such as a relatively complex parlay bet, the system communicates information regarding this qualifying sporting event wager to one or more following users whom previously applied to receive such communications).
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inamdar, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malek (US 2019/0147702).
As to claim 4, Inamdar 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 Inamdar 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.
Prior Art Cited but not Applied in the Rejection
14. Below is a list of prior art reference(s) cited but not applied in the rejection:
a) Inamdar et al (US 2023/0196871), disclosing automatic publication of one or more sporting event wagers to a user based on attributes of that user and another user.
Conclusion
15. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi, can be reached at (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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 2426
Prosecution Insights