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
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant's amendments, filed August 12, 2026 are respectfully acknowledged and have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed August 12, 2026 and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11, 15-17, 19, and 20 are amended. Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled. Claim 21 has been newly added.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 5, 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 as amended includes the limitations “the first content further comprises a sporting event broadcast content that is the subject of a prediction market” [italics added] and “the supplemental interactive content displays or comprises relevant interactive sportsbetting content related to the broadcast content that is the subject of a prediction market” [italics added]. There is not adequate support for the italicized matter in the specification. See MPEP 2163.05 II, a portion of which follows:
The introduction of claim changes which involve narrowing the claims by introducing elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure is a violation of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See, e.g., Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (a "laundry list" disclosure of every possible moiety for every possible position does not constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not "reasonably lead" those skilled in the art to any particular species); and Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 1356-58, 2023 USQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995, 154 USPQ 118, 123 (CCPA 1967) ("If n-propylamine had been used in making the compound instead of n-butylamine, the compound of claim 13 would have resulted. Appellants submit to us, as they did to the board, an imaginary specific example patterned on specific example 6 by which the above butyl compound is made so that we can see what a simple change would have resulted in a specific supporting disclosure being present in the present specification. The trouble is that there is no such disclosure, easy though it is to imagine it.") (emphasis in original);
Claim 6 as amended includes the limitations “the relevant interactive sports betting or predictive market content comprises intra-event betting or predictions for purchase” [italics added]. There is not adequate support for the italicized matter in the specification. See MPEP 2163.05 II portion above.
Claim 10 as amended includes the limitations “the digital advertising comprises advertisements for a specific betting platform, predictive market, or for third party products and services” [italics added]. There is not adequate support for the italicized matter in the specification. See MPEP 2163.05 II portion above.
Claim 11 as amended includes the limitations “the supplemental interactive content comprises relevant interactive wagering or predictive market content” [italics added]. There is not adequate support for the italicized matter in the specification. See MPEP 2163.05 II portion above.
Claim 15 as amended includes the limitations “wherein the first content comprises a sporting event or broadcast content that is the subject of a prediction market or for which sportsbooks offer odds for placing wagers and the supplemental interactive content comprises relevant interactive sports or non-sports betting content derived from a predictive market source” [italics added]. There is not adequate support for the italicized matter in the specification. See MPEP 2163.05 II portion above.
Claim 16 as amended includes the limitations “the sporting event or broadcast content that is the subject of a prediction market or for which sportsbooks offer odds for placing wagers is displayed in a substantially live manner and the relevant interactive sports or non-sports betting content derived from a predictive market source comprises intra-event betting” [italics added]. There is not adequate support for the italicized matter in the specification. See MPEP 2163.05 II portion above.
Claim 19 as amended includes the limitations “when the sporting event or broadcast content that is the subject of a prediction market or for which sportsbooks offer odds for placing wagers ends…” [italics added]. There is not adequate support for the italicized matter in the specification. See MPEP 2163.05 II portion above.
Claim 20 as amended includes the limitations “the digital advertising comprises advertisements for a specific betting platform, predictive market, or for third party products and services” [italics added]. There is not adequate support for the italicized matter in the specification. See MPEP 2163.05 II portion above.
Further depending claims not mentioned inherit the deficiencies of their respective base claims and are rejected [objected to] under similar rationale.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worley III (United States Patent 9508194 B1, hereinafter Worley) in view of Fitzgerald et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20200293260 A1, hereinafter “Fitzgerald”).
Regarding Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Worley teaches a system for displaying supplemental interactive content (col 1 line 66 Fig 1 augmented reality system), the system comprising:
a first display screen for displaying a first content comprising a sporting event or other wagerable content (col 13 line 61 Fig 4 television 106 displaying a car race);
a second display (col 4 line 49 Fig 4 second display device ARFN 102, which includes projector 112; col 14 lines 21-23 projector 112 may comprise a liquid crystal on silicon [LCOS] display) electronically connected to communicate with the first display (col 4 line 65-col 5 line 1 Fig 1 ARFN 102 is electronically connected through wired or wireless interfaces 116 that allow the ARFN to communicate with television device 106);
the second display further comprising a processing module including a processor and processing instructions (col 5 lines 14-21,31-33 Fig 1 ARFN 102 includes computing device 118 within a housing of the ARFN 102, the computing device 118 comprising one or more processors 120 to execute instructions and memory 122 with the instructions stored thereon); and
wherein the processing module (col 3 lines 20-24 Fig 1 content identification module 144 within memory 122 executed on processor 120)
identifies the first content being displayed on the first display screen (col 3 lines 20-24 Figs 1,4 the ARFN may identify any [first] content that television [106] outputs) and
causes the second display to display supplemental interactive content related to the first content (col 13 lines 62-64 Fig 4 ARFN 102 projects information regarding [relating to] the cars and the drivers of the cars that the television 106 currently displays [as first content]), wherein the supplemental interactive content comprises interactive user fantasy sports player
However, Worley appears not to expressly teach wherein
the supplemental interactive content comprises interactive wagering content sourced from a betting platform or sports book.
Fitzgerald teaches wherein
the supplemental interactive content comprises interactive wagering content sourced from a betting platform or sports book (Fitzgerald par 0078 Fig 6 a video wall (10) comprising a plurality of video display screens (12, 14, 16) may display [a first content] video, which may be a live camera feed of the sporting event taking place; the video wall seamlessly transitions from the default panoramic [using all three displays 12, 14, 16] video or live feed to an interactive user environment, where individual display screens (12, 14) act as stand-alone interactive display for a separate user; and the user may be presented with options for placing bets on sporting events, such as a sports book, among other forms of on-premise gambling. The user may be able to place such bets using the interactive user environment).
Worley and Fitzgerald are analogous art as they each pertain to multi-display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Worley with the inclusion of the supplemental interactive wagering content of Fitzgerald. The motivation would have been in order to provide display screens that can seamlessly transition away from the singular video wall experience to provide a user with a unique interactive environment displayed only on the screen in which the user is physically interacting (Fitzgerald par 0006).
Regarding Claim 3 (Original), Worley as modified teaches the system of claim 1 wherein
the second display is a different size than the first display (Worley col 1 lines 48-52 Fig 4 shows that the second supplemental [projected] display is smaller than the television 106 display; col 14 lines 21-23 Fig 4 the LCOS source display of the ARFN 102 is a micro-display on a silicon chip and therefore much smaller than a wall television display).
Regarding Claim 4 (Original), Worley as modified teaches the system of claim 3 wherein
the second display is smaller than the first display (Worley col 1 lines 48-52 Fig 4 shows that the second supplemental [projected] display is smaller than the television 106 display; col 14 lines 21-23 Fig 4 the LCOS source display of the ARFN 102 is a micro-display on a silicon chip and therefore much smaller than a wall television display).
Regarding Claim 5 (Currently Amended), Worley as modified teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the first content further comprises broadcast content that is the subject of a prediction market for which sportsbooks offer odds for placing wagers (Worley col 13 line 61 Fig 4 television 106 displaying a car race, such comprising first content that is often the subject of a prediction market for which sportsbooks offer odds for placing wagers) and
the supplemental interactive content displays or comprises relevant interactive betting content related to the broadcast content that is the subject of a prediction market or for which sportsbooks offer odds for placing wagers (Fitzgerald par 0078 Fig 6 a video wall (10) comprising a plurality of video display screens (12, 14, 16) may display [a first content] video, which may be a live camera feed of the sporting event taking place, such comprising first content that is often the subject of a prediction market for which sportsbooks offer odds for placing wagers; the video wall seamlessly transitions from the default panoramic [using all three displays 12, 14, 16] video or live feed to an interactive user environment, where individual display screens (12, 14) act as stand-alone interactive display for a separate user; and the user may be presented with options for placing bets on sporting events, such as a sports book, among other forms of on-premise gambling, such comprising relevant interactive betting content for which sportsbooks offer odds for placing wagers. The user may be able to place such bets using the interactive user environment.)
Worley and Fitzgerald are analogous art as they each pertain to multi-display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Worley with the inclusion of the supplemental interactive wagering content of Fitzgerald. The motivation would have been in order to provide display screens that can seamlessly transition away from the singular video wall experience to provide a user with a unique interactive environment displayed only on the screen in which the user is physically interacting (Fitzgerald par 0006).
Regarding Claim 6 (Currently Amended), Worley as modified teaches the system of claim 5 wherein
the first content is displayed in a substantially live manner (Fitzgerald par 0078 Fig 6 a video wall (10) comprising a plurality of video display screens (12, 14, 16) may display [a first content] video, which may be a live camera feed of the sporting event taking place) and the relevant interactive sports betting or predictive market content comprises intra-event betting (Fitzgerald par 0078 Fig 6 the video wall seamlessly transitions from the default panoramic [using all three displays 12, 14, 16] live feed to an interactive user environment, where individual display screens (12, 14) act as stand-alone interactive display for a separate user; and the user may be presented with options for placing bets on sporting events, such as a sports book, among other forms of on-premise gambling, such comprising relevant interactive betting content for which sportsbooks offer odds for placing wagers. The user may be able to place such bets using the interactive user environment; par 0059 describes such interaction during e.g. a game) ) or predictions for purchase.
Worley and Fitzgerald are analogous art as they each pertain to multi-display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Worley with the inclusion of the supplemental interactive wagering content of Fitzgerald. The motivation would have been in order to provide display screens that can seamlessly transition away from the singular video wall experience to provide a user with a unique interactive environment displayed only on the screen in which the user is physically interacting (Fitzgerald par 0006).
Regarding Claim 7 (Currently Amended), Worley as modified teaches the system of claim 1 wherein
the second display includes a microphone or other identification means and the processing module further comprises an Artificial Intelligence (AI) component (Worley col 3 lines 2-5 the ARFN may learn/know repeating occurrences from the environment over time) that uses the microphone or other identification means to identify the first content being displayed on the first display (Worley col 10 lines 55-60 Fig 5 a microphone 514 of the ARFN 102 may capture audio content and provide this to the content identification module 144 to match this audio content to known audio content to make the first content identification; col 11 lines 2-3 the ARFN may use microphone-detected audio and camera images in unison to make the first content identification) and then retrieve from a remote source and display the supplemental interactive content related to the first content (Worley col 3 line 43-48 in response to determining that the television is displaying a particular sporting event, the ARFN may retrieve and project/ display content that is related (e.g., supplemental) to the event. For instance, the ARFN may navigate to a website to retrieve and project statistics associated with the teams that the television currently displays).
Regarding Claim 8 (Original), Worley as modified teaches the system of claim 1 wherein
the processing module further comprises a TV tuner-like device to manually, or automatically, set the secondary digital display to display supplemental interactive content related to the first content (Worley col 3 lines 37-40 Fig 4 the ARFN 102 may receive the content from a content provider that provides content to a television).
Claim 11 presents the limitations of Claim 1 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 11 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 13 presents the limitations of Claim 3 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 13 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 3, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 14 presents the limitations of Claim 4 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 14 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 4, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 15 presents the limitations of Claim 5 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 15 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 5, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 16 presents the limitations of Claim 6 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 16 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 6, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 17 presents the limitations of Claim 7 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 17 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 7, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 18 presents the limitations of Claim 8 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 18 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 8, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 21 (New), Worley as modified teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the sporting event or other wagerable content is displayed in a substantially live manner and the interactive sports betting content comprises intra-event betting (Fitzgerald par 0078 Fig 6 a video wall (10) comprising a plurality of video display screens (12, 14, 16) may display [a first content] video, which may be a live camera feed of the sporting event taking place; the video wall seamlessly transitions from the default panoramic [using all three displays 12, 14, 16] video or live feed to an interactive user environment, where individual display screens (12, 14) act as stand-alone interactive display for a separate user; and the user may be presented with options for placing bets on sporting events, such as a sports book, among other forms of on-premise gambling. The user may be able to place such bets using the interactive user environment; par 0059 describes such interaction during e.g. a game).
Worley and Fitzgerald are analogous art as they each pertain to multi-display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Worley with the inclusion of the supplemental interactive wagering content of Fitzgerald. The motivation would have been in order to provide display screens that can seamlessly transition away from the singular video wall experience to provide a user with a unique interactive environment displayed only on the screen in which the user is physically interacting (Fitzgerald par 0006).
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worley III (United States Patent 9508194 B1, hereinafter Worley) in view of Fitzgerald et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20200293260 A1, hereinafter “Fitzgerald”) and further in view of Barnett (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180124438 A1).
Regarding Claim 9 (Currently Amended), Worley as modified teaches the system of claim 6. However, Worley as modified appears not to expressly teach
when the first content ends the secondary digital display changes the supplemental interactive content to digital advertising that may, or may not, be related to current first content being displayed on the first display.
Barnett teaches
when the first content ends the secondary digital display changes the supplemental interactive content to digital advertising that may, or may not, be related to current first content being displayed on the first display (paras 0367,0370 when user 101 is viewing a live sporting event system 160 may provide targeted content 4010 [commercials/advertisements] for display on a second display device of user 101 during breaks of the live event; par 0367 breaks including after the event ends).
Worley Fitzgerald and Barnett are analogous art as they each pertain to multi-display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Worley/ Fitzgerald with the inclusion of the supplemental advertising content after event completion of Barnett. The motivation would have been in order to enhance a user's television viewing experience by presenting targeted information on a second screen of the user during downtimes of shows being watched on another display device (Barnett par 0005).
Regarding Claim 10 (Currently Amended), Worley as modified teaches the system of claim 9 wherein
the digital advertising comprises advertisements for a specific betting platform, predictive market, or for third party products and services (Barnett at least par 0114 the advertisement may be for a third party product such as Mega-Cola).
Worley Fitzgerald and Barnett are analogous art as they each pertain to multi-display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Worley/ Fitzgerald with the inclusion of the supplemental advertising content for third party products and services of Barnett. The motivation would have been in order to enhance a user's television viewing experience by presenting targeted information on a second screen of the user during downtimes of shows being watched on another display device (Barnett par 0005).
Claim 19 presents the limitations of Claim 9 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 19 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 9, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 20 presents the limitations of Claim 10 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 20 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 10, mutatis mutandis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 12, 2026 with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As such, the rejections of the independent claims and claims dependent thereon are maintained.
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 MARK EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7731. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9a-5p EST.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached on 571-272-7772. 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.
/MARK EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
