DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to application 18/817243 filed on 08/28/2024. Claims 1-14 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/04/2024 has been acknowledged and is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “user interface service module” and “streaming output service module” in claims 1-3, 7.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claim 1 recites “a user interface service module configured to control…” and “a streaming output service module configured to encode…” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding claim 1, the “user interface service module” and “streaming output service module” are considered specialized functions, such that the “user interface service module” and “streaming output service module” must disclose the corresponding structure to perform the entire claimed function and an algorithm for the claimed “control one or more image elements…” and “encode the live video output.” However, the “user interface service module” and “streaming output service module” are shown as a “blank boxes” in figure 1B. The written description does not disclose any structure that actually performs the entire claimed function and that the structure is clearly linked to the functions. The specification merely states that the “user interface service module” is responsible for controlling one or more image elements (Applicant’s PGPub, Paragraph 17) and that the “streaming output service module” is responsible for encoding live output video (Applicant’s PGPUB, Paragraph 17). To show an algorithm, it is required to disclose at least two steps, which applicant’s specification does not. Therefore, the written description is deficient. Claims 2, 3, 7 also have the same deficiencies.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Per Federal Register [Vol. 76, No 27, Weds. Feb 9, 2011] guidance, pg. 7167:
The following is a list of non-structural terms that may invoke § 112, ¶6: "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." This list is not exhaustive and other non-structural terms may invoke § 112, ¶6
Claims 1-3, 7, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, claim 1 recites “a user interface service module configured to control…” and “a streaming output service module configured to encode…” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding claim 1, the “user interface service module” and “streaming output service module” are considered specialized functions, such that the “user interface service module” and “streaming output service module” must disclose the corresponding structure to perform the entire claimed function and an algorithm for the claimed “control one or more image elements…” and “encode the live video output.” However, the “user interface service module” and “streaming output service module” are shown as a “blank boxes” in figure 1B. The written description does not disclose any structure that actually performs the entire claimed function and that the structure is clearly linked to the functions. The specification merely states that the “user interface service module” is responsible for controlling one or more image elements (Applicant’s PGPub, Paragraph 17) and that the “streaming output service module” is responsible for encoding live output video (Applicant’s PGPUB, Paragraph 17). To show an algorithm, it is required to disclose at least two steps, which applicant’s specification does not. Therefore, the written description is deficient. Claims 2, 3, 7 also have the same deficiencies. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. SEE ALSO MPEP 2181: Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is the structure, material or act described in the specification as performing the entire claimed function and equivalents to the disclosed structure, material or act. As a result, section 112(f) or pre-AIA section 112, sixth paragraph, limitations will, in some cases, be afforded a more narrow interpretation than a limitation that is not crafted in "means plus function" format.
To overcome this rejection, applicant is encouraged to amend claim 1 with substance equivalent to:
1. A multi-platform live streaming device, comprising:
a processor in communication with a memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor, provide:
a user interface service module…
a streaming output service module…
wherein the screen layout…
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazar et al. (US 2020/0344498) in view of Hussain et al. (US 2019/0261025).
Regarding claim 1, Lazar disclosed:
A multi-platform live streaming device, comprising: a user interface service module (Figure 6, director user interface 310) configured to control one or more image elements (Figure 6, representations) based on a user interface setting (Paragraph 154, scene subregion selections), thereby determining screen layouts of a local monitoring video (Figure 6, layout selector 352) and a live output video (Figure 8, live monitor region 390) respectively (Paragraph 79, live media streaming system that includes multiple participant computing devices (i.e., multi-platform). Paragraphs 151-152, representations are images or video that can be selected for inclusion into the broadcast. Paragraph 154, layout selector 352 provides the director with options as to how a scene region 354 is to be subdivided into scene subregions such as full, two equal subregions, three equal subregions, etc.); and
encode the live output video to generate live streaming media and streaming the live streaming media simultaneously to multiple live streaming platforms (Paragraph 90, streaming the video to various downstream users. Paragraph 130, director computing device receives multiple incoming media streams and the video and audio is encoded using WebRTC compatible VP8 codec and Opus audio codec);
wherein the screen layout of the local monitoring video can differ from that of the live output video (Paragraph 179, Figure 8, the director user interface 310 showing all the different regions of control for the audio/video streams, where the live video monitor region only shows the selected representations).
While Lazar disclosed encoding the video (see above), the encoding is done by the users and not the director user interface. Lazar did not explicitly disclose a streaming output service module configured to encode the live output video to generate live streaming media and streaming the live streaming media simultaneously to multiple live streaming platforms.
However, in an analogous art, Hussain disclosed a streaming output service module configured to encode the live output video to generate live streaming media and streaming the live streaming media simultaneously to multiple live streaming platforms (Paragraph 47, 66, Figure 1A, the local broadcast software encodes a graphical overlay using video encoder 190 before it is sent to a multistream service. Paragraph 78, the video file is re-encoded to optimize it for individual streaming services).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lazar with Hussain because the references involve multistreaming, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the streaming output service module of Hussain with the teachings of Lazar in order to configure and optimize streaming protocols (Hussain, Paragraph 69).
Regarding claim 8, the claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 2, 9, the limitations of claims 1, 8, have been addressed. Lazar and Hussain disclosed:
wherein while the streaming output service module is streaming the live streaming media to the multiple live streaming platforms (Hussain, Paragraph 47, 66, Figure 1A, the local broadcast software encodes a graphical overlay using video encoder 190 before it is sent to a multistream service), the user interface service module is configured to adjust the screen layout of the live output video based on a modified user interface setting (Lazar, Paragraph 154, layout selector 352 provides the director with options as to how a scene region 354 is to be subdivided into scene subregions such as full, two equal subregions, three equal subregions. Paragraph 165, a media stream is selected for inclusion in the upper left quadrant of a four quadrant scene layout (as shown in Figure 7)).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claims 3, 10, the limitations of claims 1, 8, have been addressed. Lazar and Hussain disclosed:
wherein the user interface service module is configured to determine and control transparency, position, size, and/or Z-axis position of the one or more image elements based on the user interface setting (Lazar, Paragraph 165, a media stream is selected for inclusion in the upper left quadrant (i.e., position) of a four quadrant scene layout (as shown in Figure 7)).
Regarding claims 4, 11, the limitations of claims 1, 8, have been addressed. Lazar and Hussain disclosed:
wherein the one or more image elements are utilized to display one or more of a timer user interface, a network connection status user interface, a status information user interface, a cursor or a pointer of a controller, a captured video or image outputted by an image capturing device (Lazar, Paragraph 152, lineup region 330 provides director with a mechanism for listing representations 332 of video of participants whose media streams have been selected by the director from the feed pool region 320 for mixing into a broadcast), and a base video or image outputted by a video source.
Regarding claims 6, 13, the limitations of claims 1, 8, have been addressed. Lazar and Hussain disclosed:
further comprising: a composer, configured to render graphics corresponding to different image elements, generate the local monitoring video based on a portion or all of the rendered graphics and generate the live output video based on a portion or all of the rendered graphics (Lazar, Paragraph 115, Figure 4, server system 200 includes a full WebRTC server side implementation using a WebRTC gateway 232 to handle publishing of incoming streams that have been transcoded in order to broadcast the streams).
Regarding claims 7, 14, the limitations of claims 1, 8, have been addressed. Lazar and Hussain disclosed:
wherein the streaming output service module is configured to change a bit rate corresponding to the live streaming media based on a network connection status between the live streaming device and one of the multiple live streaming platforms (Lazar, Paragraph 90, the system forms multiple copies of a particular digital video, each encoded with a respective bitrate to facilitate streaming of the same digital video to various down stream users who may have different time varying capacities to stream through adaptive bitrate streaming).
Claims 5, 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazar et al. (US 2020/0344498) in view of Hussain et al. (US 2019/0261025) and Li et al. (US 2019/0281327).
Regarding claims 5, 12, the limitations of claims 4, 11, have been addressed. Lazar and Hussain disclosed:
wherein the one or more image elements are utilized to display the captured video or image (Lazar, Paragraph 152, lineup region 330 provides director with a mechanism for listing representations 332 of video of participants whose media streams have been selected by the director from the feed pool region 320 for mixing into a broadcast).
Lazar and Hussain did not explicitly disclose a quick response code (QR code) associated with a live streaming/broadcasting event that the live output video corresponds to.
However, in an analogous art, Li disclosed a quick response code (QR code) associated with a live streaming/broadcasting event that the live output video corresponds to (Paragraph 134, after sharing live streaming is selected, a QR code is outputted on the video live stream client in order to obtain pre-protocol information by scanning the QR code. After the verification process is completed, a connection request is made in order to start the live stream room).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lazar and Hussain with Li because the references involve live streaming, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the QR code of Li with the teachings of Lazar and Hussain in order to improve the efficiency of live streaming and improves the user experience (Li, Paragraph 50).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven C. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM - 3PM and alternatively, through e-mail at Steven.Nguyen2@USPTO.gov.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/S.C.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Soe Hlaing/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451