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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/27/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 11,616,998 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply in view of newly found reference Dykeman being used in the current rejection.
Also, the well-known in the art statement applied to claims 2, 10, and 17 are taken to be admitted prior art due to Applicant’s failure to traverse Examiner’s assertion of official notice.
See the new rejection below.
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 1-2, 4-10, 12-17, and 19-20 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 2013/0174223 to Dykeman (“Dykeman”).
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 live television programming 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; (¶0125) using wager creation overlay, a user creates and places a new wager for the currently selected game where (¶0091) the information is received from the real-time data feeds as the game status information as represented in Fig. 27.
As to “after authorizing the user account, stream the live television programming 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 live television programming, deauthorize the user account for access to the live television programming via the streaming media application by removing the rights scheme such that viewing the live television programming within the streaming media application is blocked.” However, Dykeman discloses (¶0037, ¶0052, ¶0199, ¶0214) that the user device is given temporary access rights to live video from content asset; (¶0208-¶0209, ¶0216-¶0217) after time has expired, the system terminates/disables access to the content asset on a user device after the duration of the temporary access as represented in Fig. 13 (element 1390) and Fig. 14 (elements 1440, 1470). 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 content as taught by Dykeman in order to prevent the user from accessing the content asset and further to revoke access rights in the content authorization information of the user (Dykeman - ¶0184).
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 live television programming 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 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 live television programming 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 live television programming 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 live television programming 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 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 19, see rejection similar to claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, see rejection similar to claim 8.
Claims 3, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis in view of Nelson and Dykeman, and further in view of US PG Pub 2019/0238909 to Graham (“Graham”).
Regarding claim 3, combination Ellis, Nelson, and Dykeman meets all the limitations of the claim except “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 live television programming via the streaming media application based at least in part on the received data from the electronic sportsbook provider system.” However, 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. 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, Nelson, and Dykeman’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 11, see rejection similar to claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection similar to claim 3.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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 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 at (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 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.
/PINKAL R CHOKSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights