DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herring et al (2026/0101077) (herein “Herring”) in view of Kelly et al (2025/0225843) (herein “Kelly”). In regards to claims 1, 8 and 15, Herring teaches a user device, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory (See; Fig. 7 for memory node 708 and processors 706) and configured to: determine a geolocation of the user device (See; Fig. 3 and p[0039] for receiving geographic data associated with customer device 304); transmit a program information request to a scheduling server, wherein the program information request indicates the geolocation; receive scheduling information of a live event in the geolocation from the scheduling server; receive a broadcast signal based on the scheduling information; display, through a See; Fig. 3 and p[0039]-p[0040] for correlating geographic data of the customer device with geographic data associated with a live event. Authorizing the customer device access to the event when it is determined the user is actually located at the venue of the live event. Displaying the live event on the customer device). Herring fails to explicitly teach a betting application and perform one or more betting operations using the betting application in association with the live event. However, Kelly teaches a betting application configured to: determine a geolocation of the user device and perform one or more betting operations using the betting application in association with the live event (See; Fig. 3 and p[0061]-p[0069] where the user’s location is determined, determining the user is at the live event and allowing a wager placement after a time elapses). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Herring to include betting operations such as in Kelly to expand the functionalities of Herring’s application to cater to a larger user base.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 9, 10, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herring et al (2026/0101077) (herein “Herring”) in view of Kelly et al (2025/0225843) (herein “Kelly”) and further in view of Polson et al (2023/0124722) (herein “Polson”). In regards to claims 2, 9 and 16, Kelly teaches wherein the scheduling information includes an expected start time (See; Fig. 6A, p[0079] for displaying a start time). Kelly fails to explicitly teach scheduling information includes an expected stop time, and channel information of the live event. However, Polson teaches a sports wagering application which may provide details of a live event content wherein the scheduling information includes an expected start time, an expected stop time, and channel information of the live event (See; p[0026]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination to include further scheduling information so as to better inform the user about possible events they would want to view and wager on.
In regards to claim 3, 10 and 17, Polson fails to explicitly teach wherein the channel information includes an advanced television systems committee (ATSC) 3.0 frequency or an ATSC 3.0 tuner identification (ID). However the Examiner contends that ATSC 3.0 is a major version of the ATSC standards for television broadcasting and would have been well known for use at the time of filing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Polson to use ATSC 3.0 to provide a stable live event viewing experience for the user.
Claim(s) 4-6, 11-13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herring et al (2026/0101077) (herein “Herring”) in view of Kelly et al (2025/0225843) (herein “Kelly”) in view of Polson et al (2023/0124722) (herein “Polson”) and further in view of Jenkins (2023/0087084).
In regards to claim 4, 11 and 18, Polson teaches the broadcast signal includes metadata, the metadata includes an actual start time or an actual stop time of the live event (See; p[0026]). Polson fails to explicitly teach the at least one processor is further configured to: display the live event based on the actual start time; and stop displaying the live event based on the actual stop time. However, Jenkins teaches the broadcast signal includes metadata, the metadata include an actual start time or an actual stop time of the live event, and the at least one processor is further configured to: display the live event based on the actual start time; and stop displaying the live event based on the actual stop time (See; p[0054] where the content automatically displays at the start of the live event. Where it is inherent that display of a live event will stop or cease when the live stream / broadcast actually stops, i.e. there is no further content to display). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Polson to automatically play live events at scheduled start times to further increase users satisfaction in the device so that they do not miss live events they plan to watch.
In regards to claims 5, 12 and 19, Kelly teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine a timestamp indicating a time of capture based on the metadata; determine a current time; determine a delay based on the time of capture and the current time; and perform the one or more betting operations based on the delay (See; Fig. 3 where a delay 312 is added for the user when they are indicated as being at the live event before performing a wager placement).
In regards to claims 6, 13 and 20, Polson fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit a request for accessing the metadata to an authorization server; receive an approval message from the authorization server, wherein the approval message includes one or more decryption keys; and retrieve the metadata from the broadcast signal based on the one or more decryption keys. However the Examiner contends that ATSC 3.0 is a major version of the ATSC standards for television broadcasting and would have been well known for use at the time of filing. Where it is well known that ATSC 3.0 supports encryption of the signal to provide digital rights management and protects against intrusion, where it is further well known that an application would need to decrypt the encrypted live signal for proper access to the live event. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Polson to use ATSC 3.0 with encryption / decryption in order to legally access live broadcast events.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herring et al (2026/0101077) (herein “Herring”) in view of Kelly et al (2025/0225843) (herein “Kelly”) and further in view of Phillips et al (2025/0203156). In regards to claims 7 and 14, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: monitor a signal quality of the broadcast signal based on the scheduling information; determine that the signal quality is above a threshold; and display the live event in response to determining that the signal quality is above the threshold. However, Phillips teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: monitor a signal quality of the broadcast signal based on the scheduling information; determine that the signal quality is above a threshold; and display the live event in response to determining that the signal quality is above the threshold (See; p[0049] where the signal quality of the live stream is compared to a threshold quality to determine whether or not to stream the event to the user at a particular quality such as 4k or to change the transmission scheme to something more suitable for the connection). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination to use a broadcast quality monitor so as to provide an appropriate quality broadcast / stream to the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)270-7503. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571) 272-7776. 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.
/JONATHAN A BOYD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights