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 .
Restriction
This acknowledges Applicant has elected on 12/16/2025, Group I, Claims 1-13 and 19-20 without traverse.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
3. 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 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.
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0091863 to Anguiano in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0006322 to Dury.
In Reference to Claims 1 and 19
Anguiano discloses an interaction method for game media live-streaming (Titl., media streaming of live broadcast [0009], football game [0011]), the method comprising:
displaying, on a terminal device, a first game interface of a game application (Fig. 4 402); and
in response to a first trigger operation associated with a live-streaming screen of the application (user interacting with a touchscreen [0019], Fig. 5 506, 508)), generating and displaying a second game interface and a media streaming screen of the game application (Fig. 4 406 pop-up windows in alternative display region 404, [0019], Fig. 5 506, 508, see also [0037]), including:
creating a picture-in-picture view and adding the picture-in-picture view to a first region of the second game interface (alternative media formats for display region 404 include picture-in-picture [0045], the image 406 is a picture-in-picture in a first areas of the alternative display region 404), and
displaying, on the terminal device, the media streaming screen in the picture-in-picture view in the first region of the second game interface (Fig. 4 406, each receiving broadcast [0037]).
Anguiano discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose the live stream is a game application. Examiner deems that the recited content being a game application is non-functional descriptive matter as the content falls under the printed matter exception. Whether the content that is streamed broadcast media of a game application makes no patentable difference in the claim as the claim performs the same regardless of what is being streamed. Nonetheless, one of skill in the art would be aware of the game application streaming of Dury.
According to Dury, game server 120 (Fig. 1D) delivers game application content 650 in addition to channels 660 and video on demand 670 (Fig. 6A). “Games 650 may display UI elements corresponding to one or more online games 652 supported by or currently available through the game spectating system. This example shows a racing 652A game, a football 652B game, and a space explorer 652C game” (Fig. 6A). Dury invents this system to receive game application content as part of a “game spectating system [which] may allow players to broadcast live or recorded streams of their game play to tens, hundreds, or thousands of spectators, while allowing the spectators to select the live or recorded broadcasts of particular players for viewing.” ([0002]).
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the media live broadcasting of Anguiano with the game application titles of Dury in order to provide for the broadcast and enjoyment of spectators of the game ([0002]). The Courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
In Reference to Claim 4
Anguiano discloses generating and displaying the second game interface and the live-streaming screen in response to a touch interactive operation associated with the live-streaming screen ([0019]).
In Reference to Claim 6
Anguiano discloses pop-up windows 406, 408, and 410 which are at least the recited claims’ second and third interfaces which can be triggered upon a touch ([0019]) of the user while still maintaining display of scene 402 (Fig. 4).
7. Claim(s) 2-3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Anguiano, Dury further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0266864 to Rajendran.
In Reference to Claims 2-3 and 20
Anguiano discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose hiding the live-streaming screen in response to a second trigger {slide} operation during the display of the live-streaming screen; and displaying the live-streaming screen in response to a third trigger {slide} operation in a state where the live-streaming screen is in a hidden state. One of skill in the art would be aware of the teachings of Rajendran.
Rajendran teaches of enhancing electronic presentations (Titil.) wherein live stream presentations ([0038]) operated via game pad clients ([0104]) configured with touch screens ([0080]) resulting in open windows 905 (Fig. 9). For windows 905, “a user may swipe 960 right or left to respectively open or close conference window 905.” [0086].
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the streaming pop-up windows of Anguiano with the second and third sliding triggers of Rajendran to close and open any pop-up window to achieve the predictable result of allowing a user to control what information is to be viewed at any time. The Courts have held that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to be indicia of obviousness.
8. Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Anguiano, Dury further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2002/0183115 to Takahashi.
Anguiano discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose switching to a window of a game lobby in response to the first trigger operation, and displaying the live-streaming screen, the second game interface being the game lobby interface.
Takahashi discloses game management to improve the excitement of watching games (Abstr.) wherein the CPU 22 using a lobby server 13 can display a window screen 190 showing a lobby interface (Fig. 6).
Here, it would require only routine skill in the art to modify the content for the pop-up windows and touch activation of Anguiano with one that includes the game lobby of Takahashi in order to improve the enjoyment of the game by providing a familiar and popular lobby game element. The Courts have held that applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results to be indicia of obviousness.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 7-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the combination of references and those made of record are silent as to the switching the displayed game interface from the second game interface to the third game interface comprises when the fourth trigger operation triggers start of a game, switching the displayed game interface from the second game interface to a start interface of the game in response to the fourth trigger operation, the third game interface being the start interface of the game; and the method further comprises: displaying a fourth game interface after the game is started, displaying a game screen of the game in the fourth game interface, and continuing to display the live-streaming screen; during the display of the third game interface, generating and displaying a fourth game interface in the game application in response to one or more trigger operations, displaying a game screen of a started game in the fourth game interface, and continuing to display the live-streaming screen, the one or more trigger operations triggering start of the game; and creating a native picture-in-picture view and adding the native picture-in-picture view to a target view created by a game engine of the game application, wherein obtaining system permissions of a floating window in the terminal device is skipped, the first game interface being displayed in the target view; creating a view of a native player, and adding the view of the native player to the picture-in- picture view; and displaying the live-streaming screen in the picture-in-picture view using the native player; or of initializing a picture-in-picture function module in the game application, and transmitting a target request to a backend device of the game application; obtaining a picture-in-picture function switch configuration transmitted by the backend device in response to the target request, the picture-in-picture function switch configuration presenting and disabling a picture-in-picture function entry in the game application, and the picture-in-picture function entry displaying the live-streaming screen; and displaying the picture-in-picture function entry in the game application when the picture-in- picture function switch configuration is set to presenting the picture-in-picture function entry.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is in the Notice of References Cited.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul A. D’Agostino whose telephone number is (571) 270-1992.
13. 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.
14. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Lewis can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2992.
/PAUL A D'AGOSTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715