DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Initiated Interview
For compact prosecution, Examiner contacted Applicant numerous time and sent proposed amendment with explanation the current claims are not allowable. Unfortunately, no agreement was reached. On July 8, 2026, Applicant’s representative, Eric Finnerty indicated that Applicant would like a rejection to be mailed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 5, 7-13, 15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery et al. (US 20220377427) in view of Goldman et al. (US 20120115585).
Regarding claim 1, Montgomery discloses a system (figures 1, 3), comprising:
one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory (general-purpose processors that coupled to non-transitory processor readable mediums – see for example, paragraphs 0045,0076) the one or more processors configured to:
maintain a viewing session for a broadcast of a live event (a viewing group for broadcast of a live event shown in 410 – see figures 4-6, paragraphs 0004, 0047);
receive a request to join the viewing session, the request corresponding to a second player profile (receiving a request to join/participate in the viewing group of live event from second user profile/name in the viewing group – see include, but are not limited to, paragraphs 0047, 0050, 0052);
update the viewing session to identify the second player profile (update/modify the viewing group to identify second user profile/name with wager – see include, but are not limited to, figures 4-5, paragraphs 0052, 0056);
determine that the second player profile comprises a configuration setting that authorizes outcomes of wagers to be shared in the viewing session (determine that the second user profile/account comprises linkage/permission/setting that authorize outcome of wagers to be shared in the viewing group with friends or unauthorized user – see include, but are not limited to, figures 4-6, paragraphs 0047-0052, 0057, 0066-0067); and
responsive to determining that the second player profile comprises the configuration setting, cause presentation of an outcome of a wager placed using the second player profile with the broadcast of the live event (based on account information setting with linkage to friends, cause presentation/display of an outcome of a wager placed using the second player profile/account with the broadcast of the live event – see figures 4-5, paragraphs 0016, 0025, 0043, 0047, 0067, 0071).
Montgomery does not explicitly disclose the viewing session established using a first player profile, the viewing session corresponding to a session identifier, the request to join the viewing session from a second user profile comprises the session identifier.
Goldman discloses viewing session established using a first player profile (user create a league or community in which the fantasy sport game is played (see include, but are not limited to, paragraphs 0058-0060), the viewing session corresponding to the session identifier (league identifier/name – see include, but are not limited to, paragraph 0058, 0060-0061);
receive a request to join the viewing session, the request corresponding to a second player profile and comprising the session identifier (receive a selection from a second user to join the league, the selection comprises the league identifier/name – see include, but are not limited to, figure 7, paragraph 0061).
In addition to Montgomery, Goldman discloses the processor configured to: determine that second player profile comprises a configuration setting that authorizes outcomes of wagers to be shared in the viewing session (determine set of user-specified privacy rules that only a desired level of information/specific data is shared with other users in the league session as public version of user home page or private version – see include, but are not limited to, figures 23-24, paragraphs 0101, 0103, 0110-0111);
responsive to determining that the second player profile comprises the configuration setting, cause presentation of an outcome of a wager placed using the second player profile with event (based on the setting in the user profile, cause presentation of an output of wager to a friends or public – see include, but are not limited to, figures 23-24, paragraphs 0101, 0103, 0110-0111).
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 Montgomery with the teachings including viewing session established using a first player profile, the viewing session corresponding to a session identifier, the request to join the viewing session from a second user profile comprises the session identifier as taught by Goldman in order to yield predictable result such as allowing user to create a league or community in which the game is played and identifying the league (paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 2, Montgomery in view of Goldman discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
generate a login code (e.g., unique access identifier, password or machine readable code) for the viewing session (see include, but are not limited to, Montgomery: paragraphs 0029-0030; Goldman: paragraphs 0061, 0072, 0101); and
update the viewing session to identify the second player profile upon determining that the request comprises the login code (update the viewing group/league to identify the second user profile/name/account upon determining that a request/selection comprises the login code, access identifier – see Montgomery: figures 4-6, paragraphs 0029-0030; Goldman: paragraphs 0061-0065).
Regarding claim 3, Montgomery in view of Goldman discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a second request to place the wager using the second player profile (receiving request to place a wager using second player account/name – see include, but are not limited to, Montgomery: figures 4-5, paragraph 0014, 0052-0054; Goldman: paragraph 0083)’ and
determine, based on messages received from an external computing system, the outcome of the wager (see include, but are not limited to, Montgomery: figures 3-5, paragraph 0047, 0065; Goldman: claim 9).
Regarding claim 5, Montgomery in view of Goldman discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first player profile is associated with a broadcast receiver device (user profile/account/name associated with television receiver that receives broadcast content – see include, but are not limited to, figure see include, but are not limited to, Montgomery: figures 1-2, paragraph 0019) , and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: cause presentation of a content item indicating the outcome of the wager with the broadcast of the live event via the broadcast receiver device (see include, but are not limited to, Montgomery: figures 2-5).
Regarding claim 7, Montgomery in view of Goldman discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
update the second player profile to include an indication of the outcome of the wager (update/modifying the user profile/name to include indication of the outcome/result of the wager such as a user “You” (+27), John (+75) – see include, but are not limited to, Montgomery: figures 4-5, 7).
Regarding claim 8, Montgomery in view of Goldman discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify the wager associated with the live event from a plurality of active wagers associated with the second player profile (see include, but are not limited to, Montgomery: figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 9, Montgomery in view of Goldman discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to establish the viewing session in response to a second request received from a broadcast receiver device associated with the first player profile (establishing/creating the viewing group/league in response to a request received from user device – see include, but are not limited to, Montgomery: figures 1, 6, paragraphs 0051, 0053, 0067; Goldman: paragraphs 0007, 0048, 0058, 0061).
Regarding claim 10, Montgomery in view of Goldman discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit a plurality of notifications to a respective plurality of client devices corresponding to a plurality of player profiles identified as participants of the viewing session (transmitting a plurality of notifications/information to a respective client devices corresponding to user profiles identified as participants of the viewing group/league to notify/display other users in the group – see include, but are not limited to, Montgomery: figures 4-7; Goldman: paragraphs 0061-0062).
Regarding claim 11, limitations of a method as claimed that correspond to the limitations of the system of claim 1 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. In particular, Montgomery in view of Goldman discloses a method, comprising: maintaining, by one or more processors coupled to non-transitory memory, a viewing session for a broadcast of a live event, the viewing session established using a first player profile, the viewing session corresponding to a session identifier;
receiving, by the one or more processors, a request to join the viewing session, the request corresponding to a second player profile and comprising the session identifier;
updating, by the one or more processors, the viewing session to identify the second player profile; determining, by the one or more processors, that the second player profile comprises a configuration setting that authorizes outcomes of wagers to be shared in the viewing session; and
responsive to determining that the second player profile comprises the configuration setting, causing, by the one or more processors, presentation of an outcome of a wager placed using the second player profile with the broadcast of the live event (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claims 12-13, 15, 17-20, the additional limitations of the method as claimed correspond to the additional limitations of the system of claims 2-3, 5, 7-10 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 2-3, 5, 7-10.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery et al. (US 20220377427) in view of Goldman et al. (US 20120115585) as applied to claim 1 or claim 11, and further in view of either Winner et al. (US 20100144426) or Dykeman et al. (US 20130174223) .
Note: all documents that are directly or indirectly incorporated by references in their entireties in Dykeman (see paragraphs 0043, 0045, 0048, 0049, 0054, 0085, 0095, 0122, 0138 including Ser. No. 12/265,486 (corresponding to US 20110069940 -referred to as Shimy), Attorney Docket No. 003597-0672-101 – corresponding to 20130174273 (referred to as Grab) are treated as part of the specification of Dykeman (see MPEP 2163.07 b).
Regarding claim 4, Montgomery in view of Goldman discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive a second request to modify the configuration setting of the second player profile (updating or modifying configuration setting based on balance, outcome, gaming unit, etc. -see include, but are not limited to, Montgomery: figures 4-7; Goldman: paragraphs 0006-0007, 0084). However, Montgomery in view of Goldman does not explicitly disclose modifying the configuration setting according to request to restrict sharing of outcomes of wagers in the viewing session.
Winner or Dykeman discloses receive a request to modifying the configuration setting of second player profile (request to switch the configuration from public to private – see Winner, for example, figure 8A, paragraphs 0071, 0073; or request to terminating sharing the authorization information (see include, but are not limited to, Dykeman: figures 13-15; Shimy: figures 6-7, 11, paragraphs 0111-0112, 0129); and
modify the configuration setting according to the request to restrict sharing of outcomes of wagers in the viewing session (modifying the configuration setting according to the request of switching to private or stop displaying/sharing content to restrict sharing outcome of wagers/content in the viewing group – see include, but are not limited to, Winner: figure 8A, paragraphs 0071, 0073; or Dykeman: figures 13-15; Shimy: figures 6-7, 11, paragraphs 0111-0112, 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 Montgomery in view of Goldman with the teaching of modifying configuration setting to restrict sharing of outcome of content in viewing session/common display as taught by Winner or Dykeman in order to yield predictable result of preventing outputting content to unauthorized user (see for example, Winner, paragraph 0071) thereby improving privacy/security protection or see Dykeman: paragraph 0051; Shimy: paragraphs 0111-0112).
Regarding claim 14, the additional limitations of the method that correspond to the additional limitation of the system of claim 4 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery et al. (US 20220377427) in view of Goldman et al. (US 20120115585) as applied to claim 1, or claim 11 and further in view of Dykeman et al. (US 20130174223)
Note: all documents that are directly or indirectly incorporated by references in their entireties in Dykeman (see paragraphs 0043, 0045, 0048, 0049, 0054, 0085, 0095, 0122, 0138 including Ser. No. 12/265,486 (corresponding to US 20110069940 -referred to as Shimy), Attorney Docket No. 003597-0672-101 – corresponding to 20130174273 (referred to as Grab) are treated as part of the specification of Dykeman (see MPEP 2163.07 b).
Regarding claim 6, Montgomery in view of Goldman discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive a second request associated with the viewing session from a client device associated with the second player profile (e.g., request to select private version or not sharing wager to public/unauthorized user or request to add wager, join the viewing group– see include, but are not limited to, Montgomery: paragraphs 0047-0052; Goldman: paragraphs 0110-0111); and
modify the viewing session such that a second outcome of a second wager placed using the second player profile on the viewing session based on the request (see include, but are not limited to, Montgomery: figures 4-7, paragraphs 0057, 0065-0067; Goldman: paragraphs 0110-0111). However, Montgomery does not explicitly disclose the request comprises request to leave and modifying by not displaying outcome corresponding to the user profile that left.
Dykeman discloses one or more processor configured to:
receive a second request to leave the viewing session from a client device associated with second player profile (second user leaves the viewing session/common display screen – see include, but are not limited to, Dykeman: paragraphs 0111-0112, Shimy: figure 11, paragraph 0157);
modify the viewing session such that a second outcome data placed/selected using the second player profile is not presented as part of the viewing session (stop or terminate displaying content selected/placed for user profile that left the area (see for example, Dykeman: paragraphs 0111-0112; Shimy: figures 11 , 15-16, 20, paragraphs 0090, 0135-0136, 0150).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Montgomery with the teachings including in response to request to leave, modifying the outcome of content by not presenting content associated with the user that left the room as taught by Dykeman in order to yield predictable result such as preventing unauthorized user to view the content or to customize content based on remain user or allowing user to continue to view content at interrupted point – see for example, Shimy: paragraphs 0135-0136, 0148, 0162).
Regarding claim 16, the additional limitations of the method that correspond to the additional limitations of system in claim 6 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 6.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12155906. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims 1-20 and Patent claims 1-14 are directed to the same invention with a different in scope and are therefore an obvious variant thereof or the invention defined in instant claims 1-20 is an obvious variation of the invention defined in the patent claims 1-14 because for limitations in the instant claims that are not recited in patent claims (e.g., maintaining a viewing session for a broadcast of live event….) are known by prior art (see for example, prior arts discussed in the rejection above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine in patent claims with the well-known teachings as taught in the prior art cited above for the benefit as discussed in the prior art rejection above such as attracting users to view and place wager on live event with other users.
Allowance of claims 1-20 would result in an un-warranted timewise extension of the monopoly granted for the invention as defined in claims 1-14 of Patent No. 12155906
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Srinivasan (US 20210001236) discloses system and method for integrating live video communication and content in the context of internet-based sports gaming mobile device application, where a user/host create a viewing session for a group of users and invite users to viewing session to view a live program and place wagers (see paragraphs 0040-0045).
Deguara (US 20180174128) discloses collaborative betting platform.
Trussel et al. (US 20150262275) discloses creation and use of public and private groups in a location sharing application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN SON PHI HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7295. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANH TUAN T. NGUYEN can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/AN SON P HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795
July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights