DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to Applicant’s “AMENDMENT AND REPLY” filed on December 8, 2025 (hereinafter “Amendment”). In the Amendment, Applicant amended Claims 1, 24 and 25; cancelled no claim(s); and added no claim(s). Therefore, Claims 1-25 remain pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 1 and 24-25 are the independent claims.
Original Claims 1-25 were originally presented by Applicant and, therefore, have been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits per MPEP § 819 and MPEP § 821.03.
Based on Applicant’s Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed on 5/03/2024, the present application (App. No. 18/654,070) claims benefit to five (5) different U.S. Provisional Applications filed in 2024 (hereinafter “2024 Provisional Applications”) as well as to U.S. Application No. 18/585,212 (“Parent Application”) filed on February 23, 2024; and, therefore, this application (App. No. 18/654,070) is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ) since all these benefit-based applications were filed after March 16, 2013.
This application (App. No. 18/654,070) has published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0289841 of Chiu et al. (hereinafter “Chiu”).
CIP
This application (App. No. 18/654,070) is a continuation-in-part (“CIP”) application of U.S. Application No. 18/585,212 filed on February 23, 2024 (“Parent Application”). The Parent Application, per Applicant’s ADS filed on 5/03/2024, claims benefit to fifteen (15) different U.S. Provisional Applications filed in 2023 (hereinafter “2023 Provisional Applications”). See MPEP § 201.08. In accordance with MPEP § 609.02 A. 2 and MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) is reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP § 609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicant(s) is reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Priority/Benefit Claim
No foreign priority has been claimed in this application or in any parent application.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed on 5/03/2024 is inconsistent with paragraph [0001] of Applicant’s specification filed on 5/03/2024. Examiner notes that, unlike paragraph [0001] of Applicant’s specification filed on 5/03/2024, Applicant’s ADS filed on 5/03/2024 does not show the current application (App. No. 18/654,070) claiming benefit directly to any of the “2023 Provisional Applications”. Examiner notes that it appears that this application attempted, via paragraph [0001] of Applicant’s specification filed 5/03/2024 to claim benefit directly to nine (9) of the “2023 Provisional Applications” listed in the 5/03/2024 ADS. However, “[f]or applications filed…after September 16, 2012, the specific reference to the prior application must be included in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76)” (emphases added). See MPEP § 211.02 and § 211.03. If Applicant desired to claim the benefit directly to a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), this application MUST have included a specific reference in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications. Since the instant application is a utility application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the specific reference must have been submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four (4) months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen (16) months from the filing date of the prior application. No specific reference was submitted in an ADS within this time period. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c).
A benefit claim filed after the required time period may be accepted if it is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (see 37 CFR 1.78(c)) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see 37 CFR 1.78(e)). No petition has been granted and, therefore, no benefit claim(s) to any of the “2023 Provisional Applications” can be accepted at this time.
If Applicant desires any benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c) based upon a previously filed application, applicant must file a petition for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim(s) under 37 CFR 1.78(c) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), or under 37 CFR 1.78(e) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). Applicant’s petition must be accompanied by:
(1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted);
(2) the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m); and
(3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional.
The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to:
Mail Stop Petition
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
Regarding § 112(a), Examiner notes Applicant’s 5/03/2024 Application Data Sheet (ADS) and Applicant’s corresponding Parent Application (i.e., U.S. Application No. 18/585,212) in view of MPEP § 211.05(I)(B), “Only the claims of the continuation-in-part application that are disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) in the prior-filed application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the prior-filed application. If there is a continuous chain of co-pending nonprovisional applications, each co-pending application must disclose the claimed invention of the later-filed application in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in order for the later-filed application to be entitled to the benefit of the earliest filing date. See Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 1358, 1360, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (affirming the PTAB's decision in an inter partes review proceeding and holding that the patentee was not entitled to rely on the earlier filing dates of two nonprovisional applications and a provisional application because the prior-filed applications did not provide sufficient written description to support the invention claimed in the challenged patent)”.
Therefore, Applicant’s present application (App. No. 18/654,070) has not complied with one or more conditions to receive benefit of a 2023 filing date as follows. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s “Parent Application” (i.e., U.S. Application No. 18/585,212) claiming benefit under AIA 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to the “2023 Provisional Applications” per Applicant’s 5/03/2024 ADS. See 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 (a)(4) – (a)(6) for the benefit claim of a prior provisional application. See MPEP § 201.11. However, the effective priority date of the present application (App. No. 18/654,070) goes to its filing date and, therefore, is May 3, 2024. A later-filed application must be a patent application for an invention that is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). U.S. Application No. 18/654,070 is a CIP of U.S. Application No. 18/585,212 (“Parent Application”); however, the disclosure of this earlier-filed “Parent Application” fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner required by the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of the AIA for the claims pending in this U.S. Application No. 18/654,070. Similarly, the present application (App. No. 18/654,070) claims benefit to five (5) different Provisional Applications filed in 2024 (“2024 Provisional Applications”), but none directly to the any of the nine (9) provisional applications listed in the “2023 Provisional Applications” listed in Applicant’s 5/03/2024 ADS. The disclosure of each of these “2024 Provisional Applications” fails to provide § 112(a) support for the language included in Applicant’s independent claims. Since the earlier-filed “Parent Application” and the “2024 Provisional Applications” fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner required by the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) of the AIA for the claims pending in this U.S. Application No. 18/654,070, the priority date of Claims 1-25 in the current App. No. 18/654,070 is May 3, 2024.
According to 37 CFR 1.57(c), “ ‘Essential material’ may be incorporated by reference, but only by way of an incorporation by reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, which patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference” (emphasis added). See 37 CFR 1.57(c).
Examiner notes that only “Nonessential material” of the “2024 Provisional Applications” — not “Essential material” as referenced in 37 CFR 1.57(c) — may be incorporated by reference since none of the “2024 Provisional Applications” have published. See 37 CFR 1.57(c) and 37 CFR 1.57(d).
CPC Classification Notes
Examiner notes CPC classifications G06Q 30/0255; G06Q 30/0269; G06Q 30/0641; and G06Q 30/0643 — each of which encompasses targeted-based advertising:
G06Q 30/00 Commerce
G06Q 30/02 • Marketing Price estimation or determination;
G06Q 30/0241 •• Advertisements
G06Q 30/0251 ••• Targeted advertisements
G06Q 30/0255 •••• {based on user history}
G06Q 30/0269 •••• {based on user profile or attribute}
G06Q 30/0601 •• Electronic shopping [e-shopping]
G06Q 30/0641 ••• {Shopping interfaces}
G06Q 30/0643 •••• {Graphical representation of items or shoppers}
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicant is notified of MPEP § 2001.06(b): “prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are ‘material to patentability’ of the subsequent application”.
Applicant is notified of 37 C.F.R. 1.56, which states that each inventor named in the application has a duty to disclose information material to patentability.
Examiner notes that Applicant has submitted over 40 documents in the two “Information Disclosure Statements” filed on 7/21/2024 (hereinafter “first IDS”) and on 1/17/2025 (hereinafter “second IDS”), without identifying documents having particular significance to patentability. The first and second IDSs were filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.97 (c) and (p); however, based on the volume or size of the IDSs, consideration was given only to the extent that relevance of the submitted reference(s) was established. See MPEP § 2004, item number 13: “It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance.”
Response to Amendments
A Summary of the Response to Applicant’s Amendment:
Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; therefore, the Examiner asserts/maintains § 101 rejections to Claims 1-25, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the rejections under § 102. However, Applicant’s Amendment introduces new prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103; therefore, the Examiner asserts the new rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as provided below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see Examiner’s “Response to Arguments” provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP § 2111). In view of this standard and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-25 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 1-23 and 25 satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) in view of Applicant’s disclosure. However, Claim 24 encompasses a signal per se, which is ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent Claim 24 is drawn to “a computer program product…comprising code…”; however, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to “a computer program product…comprising code”, as recited in Claim 24, covers forms of a transitory computer program product (CPP), such as a transitory propagating signal per se, with the recited “code” (e.g., software code) being encoded on, or coupled to, the signal(s) per se. Examiner understands that the phrase “computer program product” (CPP) as encompassing a transitory computer program product (CPP). While Applicant’s mentions the CPP “embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium”, this leaves open the interpretation that the computer program product (CPP) recited in Claim 24 can be a single transitory signal, which can be directly/indirectly “embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium”. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Examiner understands that “a computer program product…comprising code…”, as recited in Claim 24, can be either transitory, non-transitory, or a combination of both. See MPEP § 2111.01. Since independent Claim 24 encompasses a signal per se, Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being drawn to non-statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A: Claims 1-25 are rejected under § 101 because Applicant’s claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this finding is that Applicant’s claims recite utilizing information about a plurality of users/shoppers to identify one or more groups (i.e., of the users/shoppers) having “an interest in one or more products” (i.e., of recited “a plurality of products for sale”) — market segmenting; and then, targeting “the one or more products” (i.e., those identified as interesting the “one or more groups” of the users/shoppers) to “each group of the one or more groups of users” for product purchase (i.e., “enabling…purchase of the one or more products”) — target advertising/marketing — as more particularly recited in Applicant’s pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements): a website including a container unit comprising one or more short-form videos; a plurality of users; an immediate livestream (also see US PATENT NO. 7,679,637 LLC v. GOOGLE LLC, No. 2024-1520 (Fed. Cir. 2026)); each of Applicant’s recited processes/operations of accessing, creating, rendering and enabling; (Claim 8) inviting; (Claim 10) notifying users; (Claim 11) revealing a countdown timer as an overlay to the immediate livestream; (Claim 14) adding to the immediate livestream; (Claim 15) initiating the specific immediate livestream; (Claims 16-18) a virtual purchase cart; (Claim 17) displaying, within the immediate livestream, the virtual purchase cart; (Claim 18) the virtual purchase cart covering a portion of the immediate livestream; (Claim 19) the immediate livestream including highlighting; (Claim 20) representing in an on-screen product card; (Claim 21) the immediate livestream including an interactive overlay; (only Claim 24) A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium, the program product comprising code which causes one or more processors to perform operations; and (only Claim 25) A computer system comprising: a memory which stores instructions; one or more processors coupled to the memory wherein the one or more processors, when executing the instructions which are stored, are configured to perform operations. However, utilizing information about a plurality of users/shoppers to identify one or more groups (i.e., of the users/shoppers) having “an interest in one or more products” (i.e., of recited “a plurality of products for sale”) — market segmenting; and then, targeting “the one or more products” (i.e., those identified as interesting the “one or more groups” of the users/shoppers) to “each group of the one or more groups of users” for product purchase (i.e., “enabling…purchase of the one or more products”) — target advertising/marketing, as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below, is within a certain method of organizing human activity — (i) fundamental economic principle or practice; and/or (ii) commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) provides examples of “fundamental economic principles or practices” while MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) provides additional discussion and examples of commercial or legal interactions. This judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea exception) is not integrated into a practical application because each claim as a whole, having the combination of additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and, therefore, the pending claims are “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. More specifically, each claim as a whole does not appear to reflect the combination of additional elements as: (1) improving the functioning of a computer itself or improving another technology or technical field, (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/manufacture that is integral to the claim, (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (4) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Instead, any improvement is to the underlying abstract idea of market segmenting (utilizing information about a plurality of users/shoppers to identify one or more groups), as well as target advertising/marketing (targeting a product for purchase to “each group of the one or more groups of users”). SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590, Slip. Op. 13 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm.”). Examiner notes that Applicant's recited use or usage of “machine learning” in Claim 7 appears as a high-level black box with no detail about any machine learning algorithm itself or any machine learning processes, such as how Applicant's machine learning operates on input data to produce an output(s). In addition, Examiner notes that no detail of any training algorithm appears to be mentioned in Applicant's disclosure and, therefore, no specific way of training the algorithm/model exists within Applicant's recited use of machine learning. Consequently, Applicant's mere recitation to "machine learning" is not sufficient to amount to a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis. In addition, although the claims require a number of users higher than a threshold value, as discussed above, this technique encompasses a mathematical concept(s) in the form of formulas, equations, and calculations which also have been determined to constitute abstract ideas. See Memorandum, "Grouping of Abstract Ideas" and cases cited in footnote 12, such as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50). As noted on page 4 of the “October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” issued by the USPTO, Examiner notes that a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, in light of the specification, encompasses one or more mathematical calculations. Applicant’s additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not appear to be integrated into a practical application since they embody mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, do no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., e-commerce environment with live video streaming — “Participating in real-time events that demonstrate products and services… result in higher sales” per Chiu at ¶ [0009] of Applicant’s published specification; with “livestreams in a[n]…ecommerce environment are disclosed” per Applicant’s specification Chiu at ¶ [0008]; “Disclosed embodiments provide techniques for immediate livestreams in a[n] ecommerce environment” per Chiu at ¶ [0009] of Applicant’s published specification; and “livestream events that engage the users… and increase product sales” per Chiu at ¶ [0021]), and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of accessing, creating, enabling, rendering, inviting, notifying, revealing, adding, initiating, displaying, highlighting and representing, as further explained below. See US PATENT NO. 7,679,637 LLC v. GOOGLE LLC, No. 2024-1520 (Fed. Cir. 2026), decided on January 22, 2026, where the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held livestreaming claims to be too result-oriented because the disclosure did not explain how the client applications achieve the recited manipulation of the data streams. “[T]his case is like Hawk Technology Systems, where the claims at issue also involved the manipulation of multiple data streams but “fail[ed] to recite a specific solution to make the alleged improvement — conserving bandwidth while preserving quality — ‘concrete’” and were “recited at such a level of result-oriented generality that those claims amount[ed] to a mere implementation of an abstract idea.” 60 F.4th at 1358 (quoting Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2019))” with bolding emphases added by Examiner. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B: Under Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), Applicant’s instant claims do not recite limitations, taken individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because Applicant’s claims do not recite, as further explained in detail below, an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, an application with or by a particular machine, a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, unconventional steps confining the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Examiner notes that each of Claims 1-23 is drawn to a method; however, the method steps do not recite, require, or indicate implementation by a particular machine since none of limitations recited in Applicant’s method claims are performed by any computer or processing device since recited use of a computing device encompasses a situation where the computing device does no more than assist/help a person perform such steps/processes or thoughts when the person is using the computing device. Even if a computer/machine was implied, Applicant’s claim limitations taken individually and in combination would be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and would require no more than generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., e-commerce environment with live video streaming — “livestreams in a[n]…ecommerce environment are disclosed” per Applicant’s specification Chiu at ¶ [0008]; “Disclosed embodiments provide techniques for immediate livestreams in a[n] ecommerce environment” per Chiu at ¶ [0009] of Applicant’s published specification), and having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of accessing, creating, enabling, rendering, inviting, notifying, revealing, adding, initiating, displaying, highlighting and representing, as further explained below. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in the Claims 24-25 are performed by the generically recited “one or more processors”, these claim limitations taken individually and in combination are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., e-commerce environment with a live product showroom or exhibition — “livestreams in a[n]…ecommerce environment are disclosed” per Applicant’s specification Chiu at ¶ [0008]; “Disclosed embodiments provide techniques for immediate livestreams in a[n] ecommerce environment” per Chiu at ¶ [0009] of Applicant’s published specification), and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of accessing, creating, enabling and rendering,, as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include: a website including a container unit comprising one or more short-form videos; a plurality of users; an immediate livestream; each of Applicant’s recited processes/operations of accessing, creating, rendering and enabling; (Claim 8) inviting; (Claim 10) notifying users; (Claim 11) revealing a countdown timer as an overlay to the immediate livestream; (Claim 14) adding to the immediate livestream; (Claim 15) initiating the specific immediate livestream; (Claims 16-18) a virtual purchase cart; (Claim 17) displaying, within the immediate livestream, the virtual purchase cart; (Claim 18) the virtual purchase cart covering a portion of the immediate livestream; (Claim 19) the immediate livestream including highlighting; (Claim 20) representing in an on-screen product card; (Claim 21) the immediate livestream including an interactive overlay; (only Claim 24) A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium, the program product comprising code which causes one or more processors to perform operations; and (only Claim 25) A computer system comprising: a memory which stores instructions; one or more processors coupled to the memory wherein the one or more processors, when executing the instructions which are stored, are configured to perform operations. However, each of these components is recited at a high level of generality that taken individually and in combination perform corresponding generic computer functions of accessing, creating, enabling, rendering, inviting, notifying, revealing, adding, initiating, displaying, highlighting and representing — there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology since the additional elements taken individually and collectively merely provide conventional computer implementations known to the industry. Furthermore, Examiner notes that none of the processes/steps recited in the pending claims taken individually and in combination impose a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope since none of recited processes/steps taken individually and in combination involve activity that amounts to more than generic computer functions/activity. The recited operations/processes of accessing, creating, enabling, rendering, inviting, notifying, revealing, adding, initiating, displaying, highlighting and representing, as currently recited individually and in combination in Applicant’s claims, are considered to be generic computer functions since they involve having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use previously known to the industry — each of operation of accessing encompasses a data recognition/retrieval function or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data recognition); and each of Applicant’s operations of creating, enabling, rendering, inviting, notifying, revealing, adding, initiating, displaying, highlighting and representing encompasses a data output/transmittal function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014)}. Also see the “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” document, at page 7, second and sixth bullet points (July 30, 2015) regarding various well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer. Employing well-known computer functions individually and in combination to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the computer-implemented abstract idea in Flook (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978)) to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims do not satisfy Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Consequently, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For information regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, please see Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instructional materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes guidance, memoranda, and updates regarding SME under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 (AIA ) 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10 and 12-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the AIA as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0191594 of Devoy, III et al. (“Devoy”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0013364 of BEERS et al. (hereinafter “Beers”).
Regarding Claim 1, Devoy discloses a computer-implemented method for video creation comprising:
accessing a website, wherein the website includes a plurality of products for sale, wherein the website includes a container unit comprising one or more short-form videos, and wherein the website is viewed by a plurality of users (e.g., “social networking system 106 may present… within a webpage…or any other suitable interface…to…user 102 and…104” —Devoy at ¶ [0045]; “websites…promote products, items, and merchandise…. product or item page that users…access…to purchase the item…. navigate to…page…to complete a purchase [of] the item or product” —Devoy at ¶ [0017]; “websites… promote products …. providing information related to products in the form of… pre-recorded videos” —Devoy at ¶ [0017]; and Devoy at ¶¶ [0017], [0032] and [0039]);
identifying one or more groups of users from the plurality of users, wherein each of the one or more groups includes users with an interest in one or more products from the plurality of products for sale (e.g., “identify …users of the social networking system that may be interested in or are likely to attend the live stream event” and with “topics, items, collections of items… to be featured in regard to the lives stream event” —Devoy at ¶¶ [0019] and [0072]; “user account…include… information on personal interests of the user” and “send a notification to the identified or selected users” —Devoy at ¶¶ [0041] and [0020]; and Devoy at ¶¶ [0019], [0032] and [0072]–[0074]);
creating, for each group of the one or more groups of users, an immediate livestream, wherein a number of users within each group is higher than a threshold value, and wherein the immediate livestream includes the one or more products (e.g., Figures 5-8 of Devoy; and Devoy at ¶¶ [0018]–[0019], [0031]–[0033], [0037], [0067] and [0072]–[0074]);
rendering, to each group of the one or more groups of users, the immediate livestream within the container unit on the website (e.g., Figures 5-8 of Devoy; and Devoy at ¶¶ [0018]–[0019], [0031]–[0033], [0037], [0067], [0072]–[0074] and [0078]); and
enabling, within the immediate livestream that was rendered, an ecommerce purchase of the one or more products (e.g., “provides users of the social networking system with functionality to consume the educational live content and to purchase the item or items associated with the educational content without pausing or leaving the live content stream” —Devoy at ¶ [0018]; “users may add the items to a shopping cart from the shopping interface and/or purchase the items via the shopping cart while consuming the live stream content” —Devoy at ¶ [0021]; Figures 7-8 of Devoy; and Devoy at ¶¶ [0018], [0021], [0030], [0034]–[0035], [0063], [0065]–[0066], [0098] and [0107]), but Devoy arguably fails to explicitly disclose wherein the threshold value specifies a number of users required to initiate creation of the immediate livestream. However, Beers teaches a media stream, such as a live-streaming video (e.g., “Media streams 124 may each be any suitable combination of live…audio and…video data” —Beers at ¶ [0021]) as well as a threshold value specifying a number of users required to initiate creation of a media stream such as a livestream (e.g., Beers at ¶¶ [0011], [0021] and [0048]–[0051]; and needing a “quorum” —Beers at ¶¶ [0011] and [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the threshold value specifies a number of users required to initiate creation of the immediate livestream, as taught by Beers, into the method/system disclosed by Devoy, which is directed toward identifying social networking users interested in or are likely to attend a live stream event that will have purchase items or topics featured or otherwise discussed during the event (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0019], [0032], [0072] and [0074]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 1 above and Devoy teaching wherein the identifying is based on a trigger event (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0019]–[0020], [0032], [0041], [0072]–[0074] and [0076]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 2 above and Devoy teaching wherein the trigger event includes watching, by the one or more groups of users, at least one short-form video related to the one or more products (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0019]–[0020], [0032], [0041], [0068], [0072]–[0074], [0076] and [0109]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 2 above and Devoy teaching wherein the trigger event includes placing, by the one or more groups of users, the one or more products into a virtual cart (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0019]–[0021], [0030], [0032], [0041] and [0072]–[0074]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 2 above and Devoy teaching wherein the trigger event includes viewing a comparison of at least two products for sale by the one or more groups of users (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0017], [0032], [0039] and [0045]; also see Fig. 3 of Canfield and Canfield at ¶ [0040]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 1 above and Devoy teaching inviting each group of the one or more groups of users to participate in the immediate livestream that was created (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0019]–[0020], [0032], [0041] and [0072]–[0074]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 8 above and Devoy teaching scheduling a time for the immediate livestream to begin (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0019]–[0020], [0027]–[0029], [0031], [0058], [0072]–[0073], [0076] and [0104]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 9 above and Devoy teaching notifying users within each group of the one or more groups of the time for the immediate livestream to begin (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0029], [0077], [0080] and [0105]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 1 above and Devoy teaching selecting, by a sales associate, a specific immediate livestream from a list of the immediate livestreams that were created for each group of the one or more groups of users (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0033], [0059] and [0076]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 12 above and Devoy teaching editing, by the sales associate, information pertaining to the specific immediate livestream (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0019]–[0022], [0030]–[0031], [0032], [0041], [0058] and [0072]–[0074]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 13 above and Devoy teaching adding, to the immediate livestream, other products for sale related to the one or more products for sale (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0022], [0031] and [0058]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 12 above and Devoy teaching initiating, by the sales associate, the specific immediate livestream (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0033], [0059] and [0076]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 1 above and Devoy teaching wherein the enabling the ecommerce purchase includes a virtual purchase cart (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0018], [0021], [0030], [0034]–[0035], [0063], [0065]–[0066], [0098] and [0107]; and Figures 7-8 of Devoy).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 16 above and Devoy teaching displaying, within the immediate livestream, the virtual purchase cart (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0018], [0021], [0030], [0034]–[0035], [0063], [0065]–[0066], [0098] and [0107]; and Figures 7-8 of Devoy).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 17 above and Devoy teaching wherein the virtual purchase cart covers a portion of the immediate livestream (e.g., Figures 7-8 of Devoy; and Devoy at ¶¶ [0018], [0021], [0030], [0034]–[0035], [0063], [0065]–[0066], [0098] and [0107]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 1 above and Devoy teaching wherein the immediate livestream includes highlighting the one or more products for sale to the user (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0067]–[0068] and [0081]–[0084]; and Figures 4-8 of Devoy).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 19 above and Devoy teaching representing the one or more products for sale in an on-screen product card (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0067]–[0068] and [0081]–[0084]; and Figures 4-8 of Devoy).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 1 above and Devoy teaching wherein the immediate livestream includes an interactive overlay (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0067]–[0068] and [0081]–[0084]; and Figures 4-8 of Devoy).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 1 above and Devoy teaching wherein the threshold value is programmable (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0018]–[0019], [0031]–[0033], [0037] and [0072]–[0074]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devoy in view of Beers as applied to Claim 1 above and Devoy teaching wherein the container unit comprises a story block, carousel, floating player, or grid (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0017], [0032], [0039] and [0045]).
Regarding Claim 24, Devoy in view of Beers teaches a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium for video creation, the product comprising code which causes one or more processors (e.g., Figures 1 and 14 of Devoy; and Devoy at ¶¶ [0114]–[0120]) to perform respective processes/operations as recited in Claim 1, and, therefore, Claim 24 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 25, Devoy in view of Beers teaches a computer system for video creation comprising: a memory which stores instructions; one or more processors coupled to the memory wherein the one or more processors, when executing the instructions which are stored, are configured (e.g., Figures 1 and 14 of Devoy; and Devoy at ¶¶ [0114]–[0120]) to perform respective processes/operations as recited in Claim 1, and, therefore, Claim 25 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 5, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the AIA as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0191594 of Devoy, III et al. (“Devoy”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0013364 of BEERS et al. (“Beers”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0225725 of Paul et al. (hereinafter “Paul”).
Regarding Claim 5, Devoy in view of Beers teaches the method of claim 2, but Devoy arguably fails to explicitly teach wherein the trigger event includes spending a length of time on a webpage within the website by the one or more groups of users. However, Paul teaches a media item, such as a live-streaming video (e.g., Paul at ¶¶ [0008], [0058] and [0073]), being sent to a client computing device of a user based on an interest level of the user for the live-streaming video (e.g., Paul at ¶ [0006]); sending a sponsored content item (e.g., a video advertisement, a commercial, etc.) for display on the client computing device of the user (e.g., Paul at ¶ [0008]) and “the user may take additional actions, such as purchasing a product or service associated with the advertisement” (e.g., Paul at ¶ [0140]); wherein a trigger event includes spending a length of time on a webpage within a website by one or more groups of users (e.g., Paul at ¶¶ [0008], [0057], [0060]–[0061], [0067], [0073] and [0139]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the trigger event includes spending a length of time on a webpage within the website by the one or more groups of users, as taught by Paul, into the method/system taught by Devoy in view of Beers, which is directed toward identifying social networking users interested in or are likely to attend a live stream event that will have purchase items or topics featured or otherwise discussed during the event (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0019], [0032], [0072] and [0074]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Regarding Claim 7, Devoy in view of Beers teaches the method of claim 1, but Devoy arguably fails to explicitly teach wherein the identifying is based on machine learning. However, Paul teaches a media item, such as a live-streaming video (e.g., Paul at ¶¶ [0008], [0058] and [0073]), being sent to a client computing device of a user based on an interest level of the user for the live-streaming video (e.g., Paul at ¶ [0006]); sending a sponsored content item (e.g., a video advertisement, a commercial, etc.) for display on the client computing device of the user (e.g., Paul at ¶ [0008]) and “the user may take additional actions, such as purchasing a product or service associated with the advertisement” (e.g., Paul at ¶ [0140]); wherein identifying one or more groups of users is based on machine learning (e.g., Paul at ¶¶ [0130]–[0131], [0135] and [0140]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the identifying is based on machine learning, as taught by Paul, into the method/system taught by Devoy in view of Beers, which is directed toward utilizing a computer to automatically to identify social networking users interested in or are likely to attend a live stream event that will have purchase items or topics featured or otherwise discussed during the event (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0019], [0032], [0072] and [0074]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Regarding Claim 11, Devoy in view of Beers teaches the method of claim 9, but Devoy arguably fails to explicitly teach revealing a countdown timer as an overlay to the immediate livestream prior to a start of the immediate livestream. However, Paul teaches a media item, such as a live-streaming video (e.g., Paul at ¶¶ [0008], [0058] and [0073]), being sent to a client computing device of a user based on an interest level of the user for the live-streaming video (e.g., Paul at ¶ [0006]); sending a sponsored content item (e.g., a video advertisement, a commercial, etc.) for display on the client computing device of the user (e.g., Paul at ¶ [0008]) and “the user may take additional actions, such as purchasing a product or service associated with the advertisement” (e.g., Paul at ¶ [0140]); as well as revealing a countdown timer as an overlay to the live-streaming video prior to a start of the live-streaming video (e.g., Paul at ¶¶ [0006], [0058], [0062], [0067] and [0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate revealing a countdown timer as an overlay to the immediate livestream prior to a start of the immediate livestream, as taught by Paul, into the method/system taught by Devoy in view of Beers, which is directed toward identifying and notifying social networking users about attending a live stream event that will feature or otherwise discuss purchase items or topics during the event (e.g., Devoy at ¶¶ [0019], [0032], [0072] and [0074]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Amendment filed on December 8, 2025, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner notes recitation above to U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2022/0191594 (“Devoy”) and 2013/0013364 (“Beers”) in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments in “Amendment”.
Applicant's Arguments in the Amendment
(Pages 7-8) Applicant asserts that the pending claims, in view of amendments to the independent claims, are drawn to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
(Pages 8-9) Applicant asserts that the independent claims, as currently amended, are not anticipated by Devoy.
(Pages 9-10) Applicant asserts that Claims 2-23, which depend from respective independent Claim 1 and include respective limitations therein, are patentably distinguishable over Devoy and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0225725 (“Paul”) based on at least the same reasons provided with respect to Claim 1.
Examiner’s Response to Applicant's Arguments
Please see § 101 rejections above regarding pending claims being drawn to ineligible subject matter in view of considering all relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole including amended portions of the independent claims. Examiner notes that newly introduced language in each independent claim (i.e., “wherein the threshold value specifies a number of users required to initiate creation of the immediate livestream”) is claim language that merely indicates what the “threshold value specifies”, which is not positively recited as influencing Applicant’s “creating” operation since the process of “creating” is not required to depend on any threshold value and, therefore, recited “a number of users…is higher than a threshold value” in inconsequential to Applicant’s “creating” step/operation of the claimed subject matter of Applicant’s independent claims. Also see US PATENT NO. 7,679,637 LLC v. GOOGLE LLC, No. 2024-1520 (Fed. Cir. 2026), decided on January 22, 2026, where the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held livestreaming claims to be too result-oriented because the disclosure did not explain how the client applications achieve the recited manipulation of the data streams.
Regarding § 102, Applicant's argument(s) is moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection(s) necessitated by Applicant’s Amendment. The new ground(s) of rejection(s) in this Office action relies on U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0013364 of BEERS et al. (“Beers”), which describes, for example, Beers teaching a media stream, such as a live-streaming video as well as a threshold value specifying a number of users required to initiate creation of a media stream such as a livestream, as noted above with respect to citations to Beers at ¶¶ [0011], [0021] and [0048]–[0051] included above regarding independent Claim 1. Examiner notes that during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation”. In view of this standard, Examiner asserts § 103 rejections to Applicant’s amended claims, as noted above under § 103. In addition, Examiner notes that patent documents are relevant as prior art for all they contain and that “[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments” —MPEP § 2123. Please see above § 103 rejections with respect to Claims 1-25.
Please see above § 103 rejections with respect to independent Claim 1 for at least the same reasons provided with respect to Claim 1 that Claims 2-23, depending from respective Claim 1 and including the limitations therein, are not patentable based on dependency from independent Claim 1.
Conclusion
The following references are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and are being made of record albeit the references are not relied upon as a basis for rejection in this Office action:
U.S. Patent No. 12,279,017 issued to Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”) for “smart shopping based on recognition of objects presented in video. A method may include identifying, by a first device, using a machine learning model using a computer vision technique, objects represented in video content; determining that an object of the objects is available for purchase using an online retail system; causing concurrent presentation of the video content and a first indication that the object is available for purchase using the online retail system; receiving, from a second device, a second indication of a user selection of the first indication, wherein the user selection is indicative of a request to present additional information associated with the object; generating, based on the request, presentation data including the additional information and an option to purchase the object using the online retail system; and causing, based on the request, presentation of the presentation data.” —Abstract of Wang.
U.S. Patent No. 10,440,436 issued to Taylor et al. (hereinafter “Taylor”) for “Synchronizing Interactive Content With A Live Video Stream” —Title of Taylor; Figure 3D of Taylor; “interactive shopping interfaces are described in U.S. Patent Application entitled “LIVE VIDEO STREAM WITH INTERACTIVE SHOPPING INTERFACE,” filed on Jun. 26, 2015 under Ser. No. 14/751,810, and U.S. Patent Application entitled “ELECTRONIC COMMERCE FUNCTIONALITY IN VIDEO OVERLAYS,” filed on Jun. 26, 2015 under Ser. No. 14/751,823, which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety” —Title of Taylor;
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0202800 of LI et al. (hereinafter “Li”) for “The target promoter may publish a guidance content (for example, a live streaming content, a video file, an online article, and so on) to guide users to acquire corresponding object” —Li at ¶ [0022].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0103691 of TANG et al. (hereinafter “Tang”) for “Livestream e-commerce platforms provide opportunities for customers to interact with sellers before purchasing products through real-time broadcasting. During a livestream, customers may be able to ask questions regarding products they are interested in to help make a decision regarding a purchase” —Tang at ¶ [0002].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0298089 of PETERSON et al. (hereinafter “Peterson”) for “FACILITATING PURCHASING FROM WITHIN STREAMING VIDEOS” —Title of Peterson.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0171438 of LIU et al. (hereinafter “Liu”) for “Processing Live Streaming” —Title of Liu;
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0032373 of Backor et al. (hereinafter “Backor”) for “using a video stream interface based on third-party webpage information are disclosed. Information on one or more products is obtained from a website by a third party. The one or more products comprise a product, a service, a coupon, or a membership. A video about the one or more products is rendered by a video user interface to a user. The video user interface comprises a video player in combination with a user interface. The video user interface and the third party are interfaced between each other based on a user interaction with the video user interface. Product information is fetched from a server based on the interfacing between the video user interface and the third party. Further product information comprises a reaction, a chat, a transaction, a promotion, and an interaction. The video is augmented with further information based on the fetching.” —Abstract of Backor.
PNG
media_image1.png
639
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0383394 of Anerella et al. (hereinafter “Anerella”) for “Live Shopping Broadcast” —Title of Anerella; Figures 5A–7D of Anerella; “The store 108 is an online marketplace including items for purchase…. the online store 108 is a marketplace hosted by the provider of the backend system 102. …. the online store 108 is a remote marketplace accessed by the backend system 102 via the network 106” —Anerella at ¶ [0026]; “serves predefined selected products for selection in a carousel (see FIG. 9A) presented on the presenter user device 104 during the live shopping broadcast. Selection of a product from the carousel (e.g., by tapping on a product image)” —Anerella at ¶ [0062]; and “The viewer GUI also includes a product tile including a tile corresponding to the tile currently selected from the tile carousel by the presenter on the presenter electronic device” —Anerella at ¶ [0086].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0337911 of BAYAT et al. (hereinafter “Bayat”) for “integrates live video streams with an e-commerce platform, and provides customized stream content based on account data associated with viewers of live streams. The system processes video data for a live video stream and identifies a featured product. For each viewer of the live video stream, the system determines a product variant preference for the viewer. The product variant information for the viewers may be determined based on commerce data that is associated with the e-commerce accounts of the viewers” —Bayat at ¶ [0066]; “…store data collected by the e-commerce platform 100 based on the interaction of merchants and customers with the e-commerce platform 100… Examples of merchant data…include… product data for products offered for sale… historical sales data, and inventory locations. Customer data… interaction of customers and prospective purchasers with the e-commerce platform 100…” —Bayat at ¶ [0087]; “customer preference data for customers of the e-commerce platform 100. For example, the data facility 134 may store account information, order history, browsing history, and the like, for each customer having an account associated with the e-commerce platform 100. The data facility 134 may additionally store, for a plurality of e-commerce accounts, wish list data and cart content data for one or more virtual shopping carts” —Bayat at ¶ [0088]; and “streaming media management engine may identify most commonly found product attributes among the items in the wish lists and/or purchase history and determine the preferred product variant to be a version of the product having one or more of said product attributes” —Bayat at ¶ [0101].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0164864 of Chenhao Li (hereinafter “Li”) for “beneficial to show product information using a webpage that presents a live streaming window. To facilitate the generation of livestreams and their links to product pages, a store owner (e.g., seller of a product) may send (e.g., using a request sent via the messaging system) product information (including an address, such as a hyperlink) to one or more live seller accounts, requesting the live sellers to generate a livestream and include product page addresses in the webpages that present the livestreams. These messages may be provided to the live seller accounts using the message center. The live seller has control of when and what products to present (e.g., using product images and/or addresses provided in the request messages) in the live streaming window by posting these product links from the message center to a live steaming window. In this manner, a seller may rely on multiple livestreaming users to generate livestreams that may feature the seller's products/brands, and may link to the seller's products/brands (e.g., product pages, seller pages, etc.)” —Li at ¶ [0027]; “provides a group buy feature with a group buy price that is less than a normal price for a product when the product is purchased a number of times within a limited time duration. The group buy option may be applied at an individual products level…. Any user can click or otherwise select the group buy link from the product page and place an order that is conditional on the number of orders being satisfied within the time limit” —Li at ¶ [0028]; “a page may be displayed with links to both the livestream home page 112 and to the products home page 114. The devices 104 may display a product page 114 that may present products 120 (e.g., sold by any of the users 102) and a livestream link 122 (e.g., a URL to a livestream page) to allow users to find more information about the products 120, add the products 120 to a virtual shopping cart for purchase, or access a product livestream” —Li at ¶ [0031].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0070514 of Danielle Li (hereinafter “Danielle Li”) for “LIVE STREAMING SHOPPING EXPERIENCE” —Title of Danielle Li.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0070388 of Nihas et al. (hereinafter “Nihas”) for “obtaining a real-time live stream of images from the camera; processing the live stream from the camera to create a processed live stream, and displaying the product item display page with the processed live stream displayed within the designated portion” —Abstract of Nihas; “online stores 138 may be served by the e-commerce platform 100 to customers, where customers can browse and purchase the various products available (e.g., add them to a cart, purchase immediately through a buy-button, and the like)” —Nihas at ¶ [0031].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0158420 of Canfield et al. (hereinafter “Canfield”) for “in FIG. 3, products 320, 322 and 324 are shown grouped together so that a user directly compares the products displayed” —Canfield at ¶ [0040]; and “determine or receive a history of interactions between a user and one or more network pages associated with an electronic marketplace. The history of interactions includes various information, including a time of an interaction, an item presented on at least one network page, an identification of the interaction performed, where a user clicked on a network page (e.g., using clickstream analysis, etc.), interactions performed by the user to view additional detail about an item or merchant, item information (e.g., description, title, image of an item, etc.)….” —Canfield at ¶ [0026].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0232977 of Calman et al. (“Calman”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0219298 of Whalin et al. (hereinafter “Whalin”) for “a predetermined minimum number of participants”; “whether a minimum number of common participants exist by comparing a number of confirmed attendees with a threshold value. When at least the minimum number of common participants exists, a gathering on the identified topic or event of interest is scheduled to occur”; and “When less than a predetermined minimum number of members RSVPed in the affirmative, i.e., not enough members plan to attend the gathering, the gathering may be canceled at step 225. The attendance threshold may be determined on various bases, such as a minimum number of e.g. 5 for all gatherings, or may be determined based on a characteristic of the topic, such as 10 for basketball or 4 for bridge”.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mathew Syrowik whose telephone number is 313-446-4862. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at telephone number 517-270-3948. 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 Patent Center. Status information of published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or by email at EBC@uspto.gov. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conference using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please email Mathew.Syrowik@USPTO.gov or applicant may use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. For additional information or questions, please contact the Inventors Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 (toll free), 571-272-1000 (local), or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD/TTY).
/Mathew Syrowik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621