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 § 2146 et seq. 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 1-11, and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16, and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12075135. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than the claims in U.S. Patent No. 12075135.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20, respectively of the conflicting Patent.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16, and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11399220 in view of Travez (2008/0189215), Pacella (2017/0193548), and Baryla (2018/0198836).
Claims 1, 11, and 18 of application 18/798339 recite a system and method comprising: a server platform in network communication with at least one broadcaster computer and at least one advertiser computer; wherein the server platform is operable to calculate an intensity level for at least one moment of a live sporting event; wherein the server platform is further operable to provide data analytics on at least one key audience segment to the at least one broadcaster computer; wherein the at least one broadcaster computer is operable to provide the data analytics on the at least one key audience segment to the at least one advertiser computer; wherein the intensity level is a rating given to the at least one moment of the live sporting event based on real-time data and historical data, statistical data, and/or prediction data; wherein the real-time data includes data related to events and/or participants in the live sporting event; wherein the intensity level is a value measuring the likelihood of exciting imminent events in the live sporting event, including a likelihood of an upcoming type of play and/or a likelihood a particular player taking specific actions; and wherein the server platform is operable to receive an ask value for at least one location on video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event from the at least one broadcaster computer, wherein the ask value is based on the intensity level and the key audience segment.
The system and method of U.S. Patent No. 11399220 claims 1, 12, and 18 differ from instant application claims 1, 11, and 18 in that it fails to disclose:
wherein the real-time data includes data related to events and/or participants in the live sporting event;
wherein the intensity level is a value measuring the likelihood of exciting imminent events in the live sporting event, including a likelihood of an upcoming type of play and/or a likelihood a particular player taking specific actions;
wherein the server platform is operable to receive an ask value for at least one location on video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event from the at least one broadcaster computer;
In an analogous art, Travez discloses:
wherein the real-time data includes data related to events and/or participants in the live sporting event; (A possible outcome (ex. touchdown, interception) for a sporting event is determined, and bids are then received for an ad to be displayed at the time of the possible outcome. The highest bidder is selected at a time before the possible outcome occurs. The ad of the highest bidder is displayed at the time of the possible outcome occurrence. A GPS device could be integrated into the athlete’s apparel enabling the CPU to know exactly when the one yard line was reached, resulting in the winning bidder’s ad to be displayed at the correct time; [0005], [0014]-[0016], [0018]-[0019], [0021]-[0023], [0032], [0034]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1, 12, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11399220 to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Travez, for the advantage of maximizing revenue.
However, U.S. Patent No. 11399220 and Travez fail to disclose:
wherein the intensity level is a value measuring the likelihood of exciting imminent events in the live sporting event, including a likelihood of an upcoming type of play and/or a likelihood a particular player taking specific actions;
wherein the server platform is operable to receive an ask value for at least one location on video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event from the at least one broadcaster computer;
In an analogous art, Pacella discloses:
wherein the server platform is operable to receive an ask value for at least one location on video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event from the at least one broadcaster computer ([0046], [0019], [0039], [0043], [0045], [0094]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1, 12, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11399220 and Travez’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Pacella, for the advantage optimizing revenue from advertisers.
However, However, U.S. Patent No. 11399220, Travez, and Pacella fail to disclose:
wherein the intensity level is a value measuring the likelihood of exciting imminent events in the live sporting event, including a likelihood of an upcoming type of play and/or a likelihood a particular player taking specific actions;
In an analogous art, Baryla discloses:
wherein the intensity level (“factor value”) is a value measuring the likelihood of exciting imminent (“forecasting period”) events (ex. scoring events in sports) in the live sporting event, including a likelihood of an upcoming type of play (“scoring events”) and/or a likelihood a particular player taking specific actions (A set of factor values are formulated from a set of climactic events (ex. scoring events in sports), where the set of factor values is representative of a climactic event. Using the set of factor values, the forecasting engine predicts whether an event that satisfies the set of factor values is likely to occur during a period, and a probability of such an occurrence. When an event that satisfies the set of factor values is predicted with the forecasting period with greater than a threshold likelihood, it is ascertained that a climactic event has been identified in the forecasting period [0044], [0045], [0047]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1, 12, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11399220, Travez, and Pacella’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Baryla, for the advantage of determining an opportune time to insert secondary content.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20, respectively of the conflicting Patent.
Claims 1-11, and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16, and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12348837. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than the claims in U.S. Patent No. 12348837.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20, respectively of the conflicting Patent.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9-11, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil (2008/0167943) in view of Travez (2008/0189215), Pacella (2017/0193548), and Ade (2018/0288496).
As for claim 1, O’Neil discloses a system for determining intensity levels during live sporting event broadcasting, comprising:
a server platform (content distribution network) in network communication with at least one broadcaster computer (auction engine) and at least one advertiser computer (advertising aggregator); ([0037], [0042]);
wherein the server platform is operable to calculate an intensity level for at least one moment of a live sporting event (Viewership is calculated in real-time for the sporting event; [0028], [0039], [0043], [0044], [0048], [0049], [0051], [0052]);
wherein the server platform (content distribution network) is further operable to provide data analytics on at least one key audience segment to the at least one broadcaster computer (auction engine); (“..the Auction Engine 130 accesses or otherwise retrieves viewership information from the content distribution network 120”; [0037]);
However, O’Neil fails to disclose:
wherein the at least one broadcaster computer is operable to provide the data analytics on the at least one key audience segment to the at least one advertiser computer;
wherein the real-time data includes data related to events and/or participants in the live sporting event;
wherein the server platform is operable to receive an ask value for at least one location on video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event from the at least one broadcaster computer, wherein the ask value is based on the intensity level and the key audience segment; and
wherein the at least one location on the video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event is fixed and designated in accordance with a score bug or a score banner, wherein the score bug or the score banner is a digital on-screen graphic displayed during the live sporting event to show the current score or other statistics.
In an analogous art, Travez discloses:
wherein the real-time data includes data related to events and/or participants in the live sporting event; (A possible outcome (ex. touchdown, interception) for a sporting event is determined, and bids are then received for an ad to be displayed at the time of the possible outcome. The highest bidder is selected at a time before the possible outcome occurs. The ad of the highest bidder is displayed at the time of the possible outcome occurrence. A GPS device could be integrated into the athlete’s apparel enabling the CPU to know exactly when the one yard line was reached, resulting in the winning bidder’s ad to be displayed at the correct time; [0005], [0014]-[0016], [0018]-[0019], [0021]-[0023], [0032], [0034]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Neil’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Travez, for the advantage of maximizing revenue.
However, O’Neil and Travez fail to discloses:
wherein the at least one broadcaster computer is operable to provide the data analytics on the at least one key audience segment to the at least one advertiser computer;
wherein the server platform is operable to receive an ask value for at least one location on video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event from the at least one broadcaster computer, wherein the ask value is based on the intensity level and the key audience segment; and
wherein the at least one location on the video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event is fixed and designated in accordance with a score bug or a score banner, wherein the score bug or the score banner is a digital on-screen graphic displayed during the live sporting event to show the current score or other statistics.
In an analogous art, Pacella discloses:
wherein the at least one broadcaster computer (ad server device 113) is operable to provide the data analytics (viewership information) on the at least one key audience segment to the at least one advertiser computer (ad bidding device); ([0088], [0091]); and
wherein the server platform is operable to receive an ask value for at least one location on video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event from the at least one broadcaster computer ([0046], [0019], [0039], [0043], [0045], [0094]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Neil and Travez’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Pacella, for the advantage optimizing revenue from advertisers.
However, O’Neil, Travez, and Pacella fail to disclose:
wherein the at least one location on the video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event is fixed and designated in accordance with a score bug or a score banner, wherein the score bug or the score banner is a digital on-screen graphic displayed during the live sporting event to show the current score or other statistics.
In an analogous art, Ade discloses:
wherein the at least one location on the video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event is fixed and designated in accordance with a score bug or a score banner, wherein the score bug or the score banner is a digital on-screen graphic displayed during the live sporting event to show the current score or other statistics (During a live basketball game, player or team statistics are included in a graphic object that has a fixed and designated location in the media presentation. The statistics are automatically updated throughout the live media presentation; [0094]-[0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Neil, Travez, and Pacella’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Ade, for the advantage of enhancing the content currently being viewed by the user.
As for claims 2 and 11, Travez discloses wherein the server platform is operable to overlay at least one graphical element representing at least one advertisement from at least one bid-winning advertiser computer on the video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event or real-time content ([0021]-[0023]).
As for claims 4, Travez discloses wherein the at least one location on the video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event is variable based on the live sporting event ([0021]-[0023]).
As for claims 5 and 13, Travez discloses wherein the server platform is operable to facilitate a transaction for advertising on the at least one location on the video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event between the at least one broadcaster computer and at least one bid-winning advertiser computer ([0005], [0014]-[0016], [0018]-[0019], [0021]-[0023], [0032], [0034]).
As for claims 6, O’Neil discloses wherein the at least one advertiser computer is operable to manage bids and accounts on the server platform via a bidder graphical user interface (GUI), and wherein the at least one advertiser computer is further operable to monitor and optimize advertisement campaign performance via the bidder GUI ([0037], [0039], [0040]).
As for claims 9, O’Neil discloses wherein the server platform further comprises a seller graphical user interface (GUI), wherein the seller GUI enables the at least one broadcaster computer to interact with the server platform, wherein the at least one broadcaster computer can manage space inventory, fill the screen space with advertisements, and/or receive revenue via the seller GUI, wherein the at least one broadcaster computer can automate and optimize the selling of advertisements during the at least one moment of the live sporting events, and wherein the seller GUI is accessed through a web page login or an application (Fig. 7 & 8; [0045]-[0046]).
Claim 10 contains the limitations of claim 1 and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim 1. Claim 10 additionally claim the following:
multiplicity of broadcaster computers and a multiplicity of advertiser computers (see O’Neil: [0037], [0042]).
wherein the intensity level is a rating given to the at least one moment of the live sporting event based on real-time data and statistical data (see O’Neil: Viewership data indicates content is being viewed by a threshold number of desirable viewers; [0040], [0048]-[0049], [0052]);
As for claim 16, Travez discloses wherein the server platform is operable to send a real-time alert when the intensity level is above a predetermined threshold to the multiplicity of advertiser computers via a bidder user interface, and wherein at least one advertiser computer bids for the at least one moment of the live event that is above the predetermined threshold ([0015], [0016]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil (2008/0167943) in view of Travez (2008/0189215), Pacella (2017/0193548), and Ade (2018/0288496) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gallo (2014/0278847).
As for claims 3, O’Neil, Travez, Pacella, and Ade fail to disclose wherein the server platform is operable to receive at least one bid value for an instant replay of the at least one moment of the live sporting event independently from the at least one bid value for the at least one moment of the live sporting event, wherein the at least one graphical element is displayed in the instant replay of the at least one moment of the live sporting event.
In an analogous art, Gallo discloses wherein the server platform is operable to receive at least one bid value for an instant replay of the at least one moment of the live sporting event independently from the at least one bid value for the at least one moment of the live sporting event, wherein the at least one graphical element is displayed in the instant replay of the at least one moment of the live sporting event ([0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the abovementioned limitations as taught by Gallo in combined teaching O’Neil, Travez, Pacella, and Ade for the advantage of optimizing earned revenue.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil (2008/0167943) in view of Travez (2008/0189215), Pacella (2017/0193548), and Ade (2018/0288496) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Heilig (2010/0114716).
As for claim 7, O’Neil discloses wherein the at least one bid value is based on audience targeting data (“Geography”; [0037], [0049]; Fig. 9), but O’Neil, Travez, Pacella, and Ade fail to disclose wherein the audience targeting data includes psychographic data.
In an analogous art, Heilig discloses wherein the audience targeting data includes psychographic data ([0034], [0049], [0050], [0062], [0063], [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Neil, Travez, Pacella, and Ade’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Heilig, for the advantage of providing a more tailored advertisement to the user.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil (2008/0167943) in view of Travez (2008/0189215), Pacella (2017/0193548), and Ade (2018/0288496) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goswami (2018/0054659).
As for claims 8, O’Neil discloses wherein the intensity level is based on real-time data relating to the live sporting event, and Travez discloses collected real-time data from athletes as discussed above in claim 1. However, O’Neil, Travez, Pacella, and Ade fail to disclose wherein the real-time data is collected from sporting instruments, and videos automatically or manually via input capture devices for the live sporting event.
In an analogous art, Goswami discloses wherein the real-time data is collected from athletes, sporting instruments, and videos automatically or manually via input capture devices for the live sporting event (Abstract, [0014]-[0015], [0029]-[0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Neil, Travez, Pacella, and Ade’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Goswami, for the advantage of accurately predicting data.
As for claim 15, O’Neil, Travez, Pacella, and Ade fail to disclose wherein the live event comprises variable moments depending on lengths of specific events happening during different moments.
In an analogous art, Goswami (pp0011, pp0022, Fig. 1, item 120, pp0058, Fig. 2, item 212,pp0070, Fig. 5, pp0105) teaches wherein the live event comprises variable moments depending on the length of specific events happening during different moments; that variable moments (one or more deciding moments of the sports event) may be identified based on at least the prediction of the location-of-occurrence of the upcoming activity-of-interest based on the predicted location-of-occurrence, received plurality of video feeds, and/or received sensor data, the prediction unit 212 may be further configured to predict the one or more deciding moments in the sports event and further generate a summary video as a highlight of the sports event, based on the one or more deciding moments.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Neil, Travez, Pacella, and Ade’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Goswami, for the advantage of accurately predicting one or more deciding moments in a sports event.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil (2008/0167943) in view of Travez (2008/0189215), Pacella (2017/0193548), and Ade (2018/0288496) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Rudnick (2019/0213627) and Potkonjak (2011/0039624).
As for claim 12, O’Neil, Travez, Pacella, and Ade fail to disclose wherein the intensity level is based on event-specific weighting factors for a presence of at least one event element and an event context for the at least one event element, wherein weighting factors based on historical statistics are weighted more heavily than other weighting factors.
In an analogous art, Rudnick teaches wherein the intensity level is a rating given to the at least one moment of the live sporting event further based on event-specific weighting factors for a presence of at least one event element and an event context for the at least one event element ([0021], [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the abovementioned limitations as taught by Rudnick in combined teaching O’Neil, Travez, Pacella, and Ade for the advantage of optimizing earned revenue.
However, O’Neil, Travez, Pacella, Ade and Rudnick fail to disclose:
wherein weighting factors based on historical statistics are weighted more heavily than other weighting factors.
In an analogous art, Potkonjack discloses:
wherein weighting factors based on historical statistics are weighted more heavily than other weighting factors (“…the historical records of the athletes frequency moving to the positions may be used as a weighting factor in the statistical technique, e.g. more frequently visited positions are weighted more heavily than infrequently visited positions.” [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the abovementioned limitations as taught by Potkonjack in combined teaching O’Neil, Travez, Pacella, Ade and Rudnick for the advantage of facilitating modeling.
Claim 14 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil, Travez, Pacella, Ade as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Sedam (US. Pub. 2009/0210395).
As for claim 14, O’Neil, Travez, Pacella, and Ade fail to disclose wherein the live event is divided into fixed and equal moments, and wherein each moment has the same length timewise and has an intensity level.
In an analogous art, Sedam (Abstract, pp0011, Fig. 1, items 118,120, pp0033, pp0035-pp0037) teaches wherein the live event is divided into fixed and equal moments, and wherein each moment has the same length timewise; that a media divider module 118 divides the video content for each game occurring this week (in which are highlights of Alex Rodriguez's at bats this week) into time-limited media portions for presentation to user 112 in the same length timewise and has an intensity level. (media divider may divide the media presentations associated with each of the three games into four media portions corresponding to each at bat. The length of the at bat may be determined by the user, and may include for example, from the first pitch to the last pitch. After the media presentation is divided into media portions, video output module 120 may format the video clips for presentation and/or delivery to user 112 by an email, a short message service (SMS) message, a real simple syndication (RSS) feed, a multimedia message service (MMS) message, a uniform resource locator (URL), or a webpage including a hyperlink to the video resource. Thus, media portions corresponding to each at bat. The length of the at bat with respect to time (timewise)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the live event is divided into fixed and equal moments, and wherein each moment has the same length timewise as taught by Sedam in the live event has an intensity level of combined O’Neil, Travez, Pacella, and Ade for providing dynamic user access to factually tagged media portions of a media presentation via a fantasy sports game interface.
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil (2008/0167943) in view of Baryla (2018/0198836), Deshpande (20140064693), and Ade (2018/0288496).
As for claim 17, O’Neil dislcoses a method for advertising during live sporting event broadcasting, comprising:
providing a server platform in network communication with at least one broadcaster computer and at least one advertiser computer ([0037], [0042]);
wherein the at least one broadcaster computer is operable to broadcast video images of a live sporting event ([0028], [0039], [0043], [0044], [0048], [0049], [0051], [0052]));
wherein the real-time data includes data related to events and/or participants in the live sporting event ([0028]),
the server platform calculating an intensity level for at least one moment of the live sporting event based on real-time data and statistical data relating to the live sporting event (Viewership is calculated in real-time for the sporting event; [0028], [0039]-[0040], [0043], [0044], [0048], [0049], [0051], [0052]);
wherein the ask value is based on the intensity level (The auction engine establishes the bid price ([0012], [0028]). The ad bid is based on viewership data, which includes the number of viewer currently watching and the demographics; [0028], [0030], [0039]-[0040], [0042]-[0043], [0048]-[0049], [0051]-[0052]); and
However, O’Neil fails to disclose:
wherein the prediction data includes predictions of likelihoods of imminent gameplay events;
the server platform receiving an ask value for at least one location on video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event from the at least one broadcaster computer;
wherein the at least one location on the video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event is fixed and designated in accordance with a score bug or a score banner, wherein the score bug or the score banner is a digital on-screen graphic displayed during the live sporting event to show the current score or other statistics.
In an analogous art, Baryla discloses:
wherein the prediction data includes predictions of likelihoods of imminent gameplay events (A set of factor values are formulated from a set of climactic events (ex. scoring events in sports), where the set of factor values is representative of a climactic event. Using the set of factor values, the forecasting engine predicts whether an event that satisfies the set of factor values is likely to occur during a period, and a probability of such an occurrence. When an event that satisfies the set of factor values is predicted with the forecasting period with greater than a threshold likelihood, it is ascertained that a climactic event has been identified in the forecasting period [0044], [0045], [0047]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Neil’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Baryla, for the advantage determining an opportune time to insert secondary content.
However, O’Neil and Baryla fail to disclose:
the server platform receiving an ask value for at least one location on video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event from the at least one broadcaster computer;
wherein the at least one location on the video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event is fixed and designated in accordance with a score bug or a score banner, wherein the score bug or the score banner is a digital on-screen graphic displayed during the live sporting event to show the current score or other statistics.
In an analogous art, Deshpande discloses:
the server platform receiving an ask value for at least one location on video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event from the at least one broadcaster computer ([0013], [0014], [0016])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Neil and Baryla’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Deshpande, for the advantage of selecting a desirable location.
However, O’Neil, Baryla, and Deshpande fail to disclose:
wherein the at least one location on the video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event is fixed and designated in accordance with a score bug or a score banner, wherein the score bug or the score banner is a digital on-screen graphic displayed during the live sporting event to show the current score or other statistics.
In an analogous art, Ade discloses:
wherein the at least one location on the video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event is fixed and designated in accordance with a score bug or a score banner, wherein the score bug or the score banner is a digital on-screen graphic displayed during the live sporting event to show the current score or other statistics (During a live basketball game, player or team statistics are included in a graphic object that has a fixed and designated location in the media presentation. The statistics are automatically updated throughout the live media presentation; [0094]-[0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Neil, Baryla, and Deshpande’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Ade, for the advantage of enhancing the content currently being viewed by the user.
As for claim 20, O’Neil, Baryla, Deshpande, and Ade fail to disclose wherein the server platform is operable to overlay at least one graphical element representing at least one advertisement from at least one bid-winning advertiser computer on the video images of the live event for the at least one moment in real- time.
In an analogous art, Travez discloses wherein the server platform is operable to overlay at least one graphical element representing at least one advertisement from at least one bid-winning advertiser computer on the video images of the live event for the at least one moment in real- time ([0021]-[0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Neil, Baryla, Deshpande, and Ade’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Travez, for the advantage of ensuring the viewer views the ad.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil (2008/0167943) in view of Baryla (2018/0198836), Deshpande (20140064693), and Ade (2018/0288496) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Heilig.
As for claim 18, O’Neil, Baryla, Deshpande, and Ade fail to disclose further comprising the at least one broadcaster computer opening a multiplicity of bids for the at least one location on the video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event, wherein the at least one broadcaster computer shows at least two different key audiences at least two different advertisements at the same at least one location at the same at least one moment of the live sporting event, wherein the at least two different key audiences are based on audience segmentation data, and wherein the audience segmentation data comprises demographic data, geographic data, psychographic data, and/or delivery channels for the broadcasting the live sporting event.
In an analogous art, Heilig discloses
the at least one broadcaster computer opening a multiplicity of bids for the at least one location on the video images for the at least one moment of the live sporting event, wherein the at least one broadcaster computer shows at least two different key audiences at least two different advertisements at the same time at least one location at the same as least one moment of the live sporting event, wherein the at least two different key audiences are based on audience segmentation data, and wherein the audience segmentation data comprises demographic data, geographic data, psychographic data, and/or delivery channels for the broadcasting the live sporting event ([0032], [0039], [0051], [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Neil, Baryla, Deshpande, and Ade’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Heilig, for the advantage of providing a more tailored advertisement to the user.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neil (2008/0167943) in view of Baryla (2018/0198836), Deshpande (20140064693), and Ade (2018/0288496) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Rudnick (2019/0213627).
As for claim 19, O’Neil, Baryla, Deshpande, and Ade fail to disclose wherein the event-specific weighting factors for a presence of at least one event element and an event context for the at least one event element comprise: presence of a star player, a short amount of time on a game clock, a final game in a series.
In an analogous art, Rudnick discloses wherein the event-specific weighting factors for a presence of at least one event element and an event context for the at least one event element comprise: presence of a star player, a short amount of time on a game clock, a final game in a series ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Neil, Baryla, Deshpande, and Ade’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Rudnick, for the advantage of pressing the advertiser to bid high, thereby optimizing revenue.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8567. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-3:00 PM.
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, NATHAN FLYNN can be reached at (571)272-1915. 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.
SUMAIYA A. CHOWDHURY
Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights