Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/967,803

TEMPORARY TELEVISION RIGHTS SCHEME GRANT BASED ON UNCERTAIN MEASURABLE EVENTS

Non-Final OA §103§DP
Filed
Dec 04, 2024
Examiner
CHOKSHI, PINKAL R
Art Unit
2425
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
DISH NETWORK L.L.C.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
305 granted / 505 resolved
+2.4% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
534
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.6%
-35.4% vs TC avg
§103
59.6%
+19.6% vs TC avg
§102
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
§112
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 505 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, and 10-11 of US Patent 11,616,998. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is an obvious variation, recited similarly to the patented subject matter. The table below shows the claim sets similarities. Instant Application # 18/967,803 US Patent # 11,616,998 1. A system for authorizing content viewing, the system comprising: a content provider system, configured to: receive, from an electronic sportsbook provider system, data corresponding to a sports wager placed by a user; determine authorized content based on the data received from the electronic sportsbook provider system; in response to the received data from the electronic sportsbook provider system, authorize a user account using a rights scheme for access to content via a streaming media application; after authorizing the user account, stream the content via the streaming media application linked with the authorized user account; and after authorizing the user account and streaming the content, deauthorize the user account for access to the content via the streaming media application by removing the rights scheme such that access to the content is blocked. 1. A system for authorizing content viewing, the system comprising:…the television service provider system…configured to: receive, from the electronic sportsbook provider system, sports wager data indicating that a sports wager has been placed by a user…; perform a lookup to determine a content event based on the sports wager data, … in response to the received sports wager data, authorize a user account mapped to the user for viewing the television channel for the content event based on the date and the scheduled start time; … and 10. The system for authorizing content viewing of claim 1, further comprising: a computerized streaming device, wherein the television service provider system is further configured to: stream the television channel to an application being executed by the computerized streaming device via the Internet, wherein the user account is active within the application. after the content event ends, deauthorize the user account mapped to the user for viewing the television channel such that access to the television channel on which the content event was broadcast is blocked. 2. The system for authorizing the content viewing of claim 1, wherein a minimum bet amount is required to be met in order for access to the content to be authorized 3. The system for authorizing content viewing of claim 2, further comprising the electronic sportsbook provider system configured to set a minimum bet amount partially based on the authorized channel data for the user account. 3. The system for authorizing the content viewing of claim 1, wherein the content provider system is further configured to deauthorize the user account for access to the content via the streaming media application based at least in part on the received data from the electronic sportsbook provider system. 11. The system for authorizing content viewing of claim 1, wherein the television service provider system being configured to deauthorize the user account for access to the television channel is based on the content event having concluded. 4. The system for authorizing the content viewing of claim 3, further comprising the electronic sportsbook provider system. 3. The system for authorizing content viewing of claim 2, further comprising the electronic sportsbook provider system… 5. The system for authorizing the content viewing of claim 4, wherein the electronic sportsbook provider system is configured to receive an indication from the user indicating that viewing access to the content is desired. 5. The system for authorizing content viewing of claim 1, further comprising the electronic sportsbook provider system configured to: receive an indication from the user indicating that viewing access to the content event is desired… 6. The system for authorizing the content viewing of claim 1, further comprising: a computerized streaming device, wherein the content provider system is further configured to: stream the content to the streaming media application being executed by the computerized streaming device via the Internet, wherein the user account is active within the streaming media application. 10. The system for authorizing content viewing of claim 1, further comprising: a computerized streaming device, wherein the television service provider system is further configured to: stream the television channel to an application being executed by the computerized streaming device via the Internet, wherein the user account is active within the application. 7. The system for authorizing the content viewing of claim 6, further comprising: a smartphone, wherein the smartphone functions as the computerized streaming device and is used to access the electronic sportsbook provider system to place the sports wager. 10. The system for authorizing content viewing of claim 1, further comprising: a computerized streaming device, wherein the television service provider system is further configured to: stream the television channel to an application being executed by the computerized streaming device via the Internet, wherein the user account is active within the application. 8. The system for authorizing the content viewing of claim 1, wherein the content is a sporting event. 1. A system for authorizing content viewing, the system comprising: an electronic sportsbook provider system, configured to: provide wager information to a television service provider system; and host wagers on sporting events. Claims 9-20 comprise similar language as claims 1-8 above. See claims 1, 3, 5, and 10-11 for similar claim language as above claims. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 2008/0064490 to Ellis (“Ellis”) in view of US PG Pub 2021/0118264 to Nelson (“Nelson”) and US PG Pub 2019/0238909 to Graham (“Graham”). Regarding claim 1, “A system for authorizing content viewing” reads on the system/environment for sports watching and sports wagering where it relates to media system with sports-specific viewing and tuning enhancements (abstract, ¶0002) disclosed by Ellis and represented in Fig. 1. As to “the system comprising: a content provider system, configured to: receive, from an electronic sportsbook provider system, data corresponding to a sports wager placed by a user” Ellis discloses (¶0041, claim 1) that the spread and wagering data and other sports-related information is provided by the supplemental content source database as represented in Fig. 1 (element 120); (¶0044, ¶0098) database stores user’s active and recent wagers. As to “in response to the received data from the electronic sportsbook provider system, authorize a user account using a rights scheme for access to content via a streaming media application” Ellis discloses (¶0122, ¶0125) that upon receiving a wager, the user’s wagering account is authorized by entering PIN by the user as represented in Fig. 24. As to “after authorizing the user account, stream the content via the streaming media application linked with the authorized user account” Ellis discloses (¶0053) that the user equipment is a computer equipment with an interactive sports watcher application integrated in the computer, where (¶0040) the user equipment receives media content over the Internet. Ellis meets all the limitations of the claim except “determine authorized content based on the data received from the electronic sportsbook provider system.” However, Nelson discloses (¶0045) that the system determines that at least one wager was placed on at least one sporting event wagering opportunity, then the system displays the sporting event associated with that wagered on sporting event wagering opportunity as represented in Fig. 1 (element 112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ellis’ system by determining a content event associated with the sports wager data as taught by Nelson in order to enable a user to utilize an account to place a sporting event wager on a sporting event displayed to a user remote from the gaming establishment sports book (Nelson - ¶0011). Combination of Ellis and Nelson meets all the limitations of the claim except “10after authorizing the user account and streaming the content, deauthorize the user account for access to the content via the streaming media application by removing the rights scheme such that access to the content is blocked.” However, Graham discloses (¶0068-¶0070) that the user is prevented from using betting account to place the bet upon conclusion of the virtual sporting event as represented in Fig. 4A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ellis and Nelson’s systems by deauthorizing the user account to block the access to the channel in response to the received sports wager data as taught by Graham in order to prevent users from placing any more bets. Regarding claim 2, “The system for authorizing the content viewing of claim 1, wherein a minimum bet amount is required to be met in order for access to the content to be authorized” Ellis discloses (¶0123) that the user is provided with an option to select any dollar amount for the new wager as represented in Fig. 25 (element 2506). However, the Examiner takes official notice that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to set a minimum bet amount. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to set a minimum bet amount to Ellis’ system would have yielded predictable result of having a larger profit for the sportsbook provider by setting a larger amount for a minimum bet. Regarding claim 3, “The system for authorizing the content viewing of claim 1, wherein the content provider system is further configured to deauthorize the user account for access to the content via the streaming media application based at least in part on the received data from the electronic sportsbook provider system” Graham discloses (¶0068-¶0070) that upon conclusion of the virtual sporting event, the user is prevented from using betting account to place the bet as represented in Fig. 4A. Regarding claim 4, “The system for authorizing the content viewing of claim 3, further comprising the electronic sportsbook provider system” Ellis discloses (abstract) that an integrated environment for sports watching, sports wagering, and fantasy league play is provided; (¶0118) through the interactive wagering interface, the user may build wagers and place these wagers with a network transaction processing system; Wagers on sporting events, such as football and baseball games, all be created and placed from the user equipment device. Regarding claim 5, “The system for authorizing the content viewing of claim 4, wherein the electronic sportsbook provider system is configured to receive an indication from the user indicating that viewing access to the content is desired” Ellis discloses (¶0037, ¶0044) that the interactive sports watcher application monitors a request for a sporting event or sports-related content. Regarding claim 6, “The system for authorizing the content viewing of claim 1, further comprising: a computerized streaming device, wherein the content provider system is further configured to: stream the content to the streaming media application being executed by the computerized streaming device via the Internet, wherein the user account is active within the streaming media application” Ellis discloses (¶0053) that the user equipment is a computer equipment with an interactive sports watcher application integrated in the computer, where (¶0040) the user equipment receives media content over the Internet. Regarding claim 7, The system for authorizing the content viewing of claim 6, further comprising: a smartphone, wherein the smartphone functions as the computerized streaming device and is used to access the electronic sportsbook provider system to place the sports wager” Ellis discloses (¶0048) that the user equipment includes a computer equipment; (¶0053) where the computer equipment with an interactive sports watcher application is integrated in the computer, and Nelson discloses (¶0032) that the system uses a television, a SmartTV, a computer, a mobile device, or other such media delivery device to display the one or more sporting event wagering opportunities to the player. Regarding claim 8, “The system for authorizing the content viewing of claim 1, wherein the content is a sporting event” Ellis discloses (¶0037) that the sports watcher application automatically launches after a request for a sporting event or sports-related content is received; (¶0038) although the terms "sporting event" and "sports-related content" are sometimes used interchangeably herein, both of these terms include content. Regarding claim 9, see rejection similar to claim 1. Regarding claim 10, see rejection similar to claim 2. Regarding claim 11, see rejection similar to claim 3. Regarding claim 12, see rejection similar to claim 5. Regarding claim 13, see rejection similar to claim 6. Regarding claim 14, see rejection similar to claim 7. Regarding claim 15, see rejection similar to claim 8. Regarding claim 16, see rejection similar to claim 1. Regarding claim 17, see rejection similar to claim 2. Regarding claim 18, see rejection similar to claim 3. Regarding claim 19, see rejection similar to claim 5. Regarding claim 20, see rejection similar to claim 8. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0164396 to Montgomery Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PINKAL R CHOKSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3317. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8am-5pm. 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, BRIAN T PENDLETON can be reached on (571)272-7527. 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. /PINKAL R CHOKSHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 04, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598332
PROCESSING OF MULTI-VIEW VIDEO
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593114
APPARATUS AND A METHOD FOR SIGNALING INFORMATION IN A CONTAINER FILE FORMAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593084
VIDEO STREAMING SYSTEM AND VIDEO STREAMING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581144
A METHOD OF PROVIDING A TIME-SYNCHRONIZED MULTI-STREAM DATA TRANSMISSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574599
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR REDACTING UNDESIRABLE DIGITAL CONTENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+29.6%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 505 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month