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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 18 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.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kellicker US 20170250882 A1) in view of Talvensaari et al. (US 9,338,203 B2).
Regarding claim 18, Kellicker teaches a computer-readable storage device storing instructions that, when executed by a processor (see 0124, abstract), cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving analytics data from a first plurality of network components of a stream network, the analytics data associated with the first plurality of network components used to stream a first live stream (receiving at the server 130 analytics data from one or more network components, e.g., 110,160 170, the analytics data associated with one or more network components used to stream a live stream. See FIG. 1, 0025, 0032, 0034, 0036, 0057); and
generating a graphical user interface (GUI) based on the analytics data, wherein the GUI displays a portion of the analytics data (generating a GUI based on the analytics data, the GUI displays a portion of analytics data, e.g., events and statistics that occur at both client devices and streaming servers that are streaming to client devices, and how the statistics are related. See 0072-0075); and providing the GUI to a display device (sending the GUI to computing device for displaying - see 0071-0072).
Kellicker lacks to teach the features of the GUI including a display element to display content of the first live stream, and the GUI displays a portion of the analytics data corresponding to a portion of the content of the first live stream on display by the display element and wherein the GUI is generated during streaming of the first live stream. However, Talvensaari teaches the system presents GUI, as shown in FIG. 8, including a display element to display content of a live stream, and a portion of the analytics data corresponding to a portion of the content of the live stream on display by the display element (e.g., server address, URL, bitrate, stream status, stream name) and wherein the GUI is generated during streaming the live stream. See FIG. 8; col. 5, lines 27-44; col. 7, lines 24-41. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kellicker’s GUI by adding a display element to display content of the first live stream, and the GUI displays a portion of the analytics data corresponding to a portion of the content of the first live stream on display by the display element and wherein the GUI is generated during streaming of the first live stream as taught or suggested by Talvensaari to improve monitoring the performance of video streaming service.
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.
/NGOC K VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights