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 .
Request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/29/2026 has been entered.
Objections to the claims
Claims 19, 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims rejections-35 U.S.C. 112(b):
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 18-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 18-19 and 21-22, those claims depend on claims 2 and 13 that were previously cancelled and based on that situation, those claims are vague and indefinite.
Statement:
Regarding claims 18 and 21 that depend on claims 13 and 2 now, it appears that the applicant intends to have claims 18 and 21 dependent on claims 1 and 11. However, if the applicant would amend claims 18 and 21 to be dependent on claims 1 and 11, they would be rejected under 112(d) because they would not limit claims 1 and 11. And the claims 18 and 21 should be canceled.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claims have been fully considered, but they are moot because of the new ground of rejection. Applicant argues that the cited references failed to disclose obtaining, by a client device, an identifier of a to-be-rendered gift;
determining an attribute value of a graphical effect corresponding to the identifier,
wherein the attribute value indicates a complexity associated with rendering the graphical effect over a live stream interface, and wherein the complexity is determined based on a size of a rendering file corresponding to the identifier; uploading, based on the complexity exceeding a complexity threshold associated with a computing performance of the client device, the identifier and a live stream interface view to a server, to cause the server to perform rendering processing on the live stream interface view based on a graphical effect rendering algorithm corresponding to the identifier; and receiving a rendering result from the server, wherein the rendering result comprises the graphical effect rendered over the live stream interface and
displaying the rendering result by the client device. Claims 2 and 13 were cancelled.
However, Kurabuchi et al disclose a system being capable of providing identification associated with gift to be displayed with live video stream and the system can provide specific parameter or attribute related to location or position of the gift on the screen with respect to the live video and finally, the system is able to provide information about how the graphical effect or effect gift must be displayed on the screen as partially or entirely as disclosed in para.0084; 0080; 0056-0058; 0127;0054.
And Beier et al disclose a system being capable of displaying graphic overlay as rendering search results or other results while the live video is being presented on the screen of the user device as disclosed in para. 0046; 0069;0014.
And Douillet et al disclose a system being capable of allowing a device or STB with limited processing capability to load or upload video content or graphics file to a remote device or server for processing based on the complexity or dimension of the files to be processed and the remote server will return the video content or graphics file to the STB after the video content or graphics file was processed by the remote server as disclosed in para. 0016; 0029; 0005-0007. This office action is made non-final.
Claims rejections-35 U.S.C. 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; 3; 5; 11; 14; 16-17; 20; 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurabuchi (US.Pub.No.20200077157) in view of Douillet (US.Pub.No.20040194145) and Beier(US.Pub.No.20190362148).
Regarding claim 1, Kurabuchi et al disclose a method for cloud rendering of a live stream gift(see fig.1 to fig.7b for rendering gifts over live video stream; 0008; 0019), comprising: obtaining, by a client device, an identifier of a to-be-rendered (the system is able to provide identification associated with gift to be displayed with live video stream; gift identification information (gift ID) that identifies the gift for which the display request is made, 0080) and determining an attribute value of a graphical effect corresponding to the identifier(the system is able to provide parameter or attribute related to location or position of the gift on the screen with respect to the live video;0084);
wherein the attribute value indicates a complexity associated with rendering the graphical effect over a live stream interface(the system is able to provide information about how the graphical effect or effect gift needs to be displayed on the screen as partially or entirely; 0056-0058).
But did not explicitly disclose wherein the complexity is determined based on a size of a
rendering file corresponding to the identifier; uploading, based on the complexity exceeding a complexity threshold associated with a computing performance of the client device, the identifier and a live stream interface view to a server, to cause the server to perform rendering processing on the live stream interface view based on a graphical effect rendering algorithm corresponding to the identifier; and receiving a rendering result from the server, wherein the rendering result comprises the graphical effect rendered over the live stream interface and displaying the rendering result by the client device.
However, Douillet et al disclose wherein the complexity is determined based on a size of a
rendering file corresponding to the identifier; uploading, based on the complexity exceeding a complexity threshold associated with a computing performance of the client device, the identifier and a live stream interface view to a server, to cause the server to perform rendering processing on the live stream interface view based on a graphical effect rendering algorithm corresponding to the identifier(with Douillet, the system is able to allow a device or STB with limited processing capability to load or upload video content or graphics file to a remote device or server for processing based on the complexity or dimension of the files to be processed and the remote server will return the video content or graphics file to the STB after the video content or graphics file was processed by the remote server; 0016; 0029; 0005-0007).
It would have been obvious before effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Douillet to modify Kurabuchi by providing options to upload large file to a remote server for processing resulting in “ wherein the complexity is determined based on a size of a rendering file corresponding to the identifier; uploading, based on the complexity exceeding a complexity threshold associated with a computing performance of the client device, the identifier and a live stream interface view to a server, to cause the server to perform rendering processing on the live stream interface view based on a graphical effect rendering algorithm corresponding to the identifier ” for the purpose of managing processing capability of the user devices accordingly.
And Beier et al disclose receiving rendering result issued by the target server(the system is able to provide results to be displayed on the screen of the user devices; 0045-0047), wherein the rendering result comprises the graphical effect rendered over the live stream interface; and displaying the rendering result by the client device(the system is able to overlay search result or other result while the live video is being displayed on the screen; 0046; 0069;0014).
It would have been obvious before effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Beier to modify Kurabuchi and Douillet by providing options to display search results on the top of the live video stream resulting in “receiving rendering result issued by the target server, wherein the rendering result comprises the graphical effect rendered over the live stream interface; and displaying the rendering result by the client device” for the purpose of increasing the satisfaction accordingly.
Regarding claim 3, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Kurabuchi et al disclose wherein the method further comprises: identifying the computing performance of the client device (the system is able to monitor the operation or performance of the user device; 0042;0074 );
in response to a determination that the computing performance satisfies a criterion for running a gift effect rendering algorithm corresponding to a different identifier of a different to be-rendered gift (the system is able to make determination to display the graphical effect or effect gift on the screen as partially or entirely based on some specific characteristic or parameter; 0056-0058) ,capturing the live stream interface view( the system is able to provide live stream video content;0008-0009;0018-0019), and obtaining the gift effect(the system is capable of providing effect gift; 0055-0056; 0074); rendering algorithm corresponding to the different identifier(0080); and rendering the live stream interface view based on the gift effect rendering algorithm corresponding to the different identifier(see fig.1 to fig.7b for displaying effect gift or effect object with live video stream; 0008-0009; 0018-0019).
But did not explicitly disclose displaying the rendering result.
However, Beier et al disclose displaying the rendering result(the system is able to provide results to be displayed on the screen of the user devices; 0045-0047; 0069;0014).
It would have been obvious before effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Beier to modify Kurabuchi and Douillet by providing options to overlay additional content on the top of the live video stream for the purpose of increasing the satisfaction accordingly.
Regarding claim 11, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 17.
Regarding claim 23, Kurabuchi et al disclose wherein the to-be-rendered gift identifier comprises: an identifier of a selected and triggered effect gift on a client interface(the system is able to provide gift identifier and effect gift or effect object; gift identification information (gift ID) that identifies the gift for which the display request is made, 0080; 0055-0056).
Claim(s) 4; 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurabuchi (US.Pub.No.20200077157) in view of Douillet (US.Pub.No.20040194145) and Beier(US.Pub.No.20190362148) and Louch(US.Pub.No.20100115471).
Regarding claim 4, Kurabuchi and Douillet and Beier et al did not explicitly disclose further comprising: in response to a determination that the view rendering result has not been received within a predetermined period, playing an alternative effect animation corresponding to the identifier.
However, Louch et al disclose further comprising: in response to a determination that the view rendering result has not been received within a predetermined period, playing an alternative effect animation corresponding to the identifier(the system is able to display or play other animation after a predefined period of time; 0035).
It would have been obvious before effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Louch to modify Kurabuchi and Douillet and Beier by providing options to display alternative animation for the purpose of improving viewing experiences accordingly.
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN D SAINT CYR whose telephone number is (571)270-3224. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 5712727527. 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.
/JEAN D SAINT CYR/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
/Brian T Pendleton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights