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
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 11, 13-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Worley III (United States Patent 9508194 B1, hereinafter Worley).
Regarding Claim 1 (Original), 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 (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]) 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]).
Regarding Claim 3 (Original), Worley teaches the system of claim 1 wherein
the second display is a different size than the first display (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 teaches the system of claim 3 wherein
the second display is smaller than the first display (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 7 (Original), Worley teaches the system of claim 1 wherein
the second display includes a microphone and the processing module further comprises an Artificial Intelligence (AI) component (col 3 lines 2-5 the ARFN may learn/know repeating occurrences from the environment over time) that uses the microphone to listen to the audio from the first display and identify the first content and then display the supplemental interactive content related to the first content (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).
Regarding Claim 8 (Original), Worley 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 (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 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.
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 2, 5-6, 12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worley III (United States Patent 9508194 B1, hereinafter Worley) in view of Merati (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200302745 A1).
Regarding Claim 2 (Original), Worley teaches the system of claim 1. However, Worley appears not to expressly teach wherein
the supplemental interactive content comprises interactive wagering content.
Merati teaches wherein
the supplemental interactive content comprises interactive wagering content (par 0012 Fig 5 the supplemental interactive content on second client display device [smartphone] 520 comprises interactive wagering content wherein the user may watch a sporting event live [on a first display] and place wagers on their second smartphone screen during the game).
Worley and Merati 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 Merati. The motivation would have been in order to fulfill the urge for interactivity and instant gratification to appeal to millennials who have grown up playing interactive video games and now represent a large percentage of the population legally allowed to wager on sporting events (Merati par 0011).
Regarding Claim 5 (Original), Worley teaches the system of claim 1. However, Worley appears not to expressly teach wherein
the supplemental interactive content comprises interactive sports betting content.
Merati teaches wherein
the supplemental interactive content comprises interactive sports betting content (Merati par 0012 Fig 5 the supplemental interactive content on second client display device [smartphone] 520 comprises interactive wagering content wherein the user may watch a sporting event live [on a first display] and place wagers on their second smartphone screen during the game).
Worley and Merati 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 Merati. The motivation would have been in order to fulfill the urge for interactivity and instant gratification to appeal to millennials who have grown up playing interactive video games and now represent a large percentage of the population legally allowed to wager on sporting events (Merati par 0011).
Regarding Claim 6 (Original), Worley as modified teaches the system of claim 5 wherein
the sporting event is displayed in a substantially live manner and the interactive sports betting content comprises intra-event betting (Merati par 0012 Fig 5 the supplemental interactive content on second client display device [smartphone] 520 comprises interactive wagering content wherein the user may watch a sporting event live [on a first display] and place wagers on their second smartphone screen during the game).
Worley and Merati 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 Merati. The motivation would have been in order to fulfill the urge for interactivity and instant gratification to appeal to millennials who have grown up playing interactive video games and now represent a large percentage of the population legally allowed to wager on sporting events (Merati par 0011).
Claim 12 presents the limitations of Claim 2 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 12 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 2, 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.
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 Merati (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200302745 A1) and further in view of Barnett (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180124438 A1).
Regarding Claim 9 (Original), Worley as modified teaches the system of claim 6, wherein
when the sporting event ends the secondary digital display may access the supplemental interactive content
However, Worley as modified appears not to expressly teach
when the sporting event 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 sporting event 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 Merati 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/Merati 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 (Original), Worley as modified teaches the system of claim 9 wherein
the digital advertising comprises advertisements for a specific betting platform 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 Merati 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/Merati 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.
Conclusion
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