DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
With regard to claim 5, claim limitation “acceptance unit that accepts” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “acceptance unit” coupled with functional language “that accepts” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: client device 10 ([0030]).
With regard to claim 5, claim limitation “reception unit that receives” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “reception unit” coupled with functional language “that receives” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: server 20 including reception unit 22 ([0094]).
With regard to claim 5, claim limitation “display unit that displays” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “display unit” coupled with functional language “that displays” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: video reproducer 23 within server 20 ([0046]).
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 5 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Li et al. US 9426543 and Alonso et al. (US 2017/0277790).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a video stream management method executed by a video stream management system that manages a video stream received from a video source (Col. 4, lines 56-62; Col. 5, lines 41-49) , the method comprising:
accepting editing of a predetermined portion in a distribution URL set to the video source (Col. 19, line 54 to col. 20, line 2, “Accordingly, two URLs may be assigned to the sequence—an extended URL in which the various identifiers and/or request metadata are included within the URL, and another shortened version of the URL. The shortened version of the URL may refer to or be intercepted by a proxy server, deployed between the client and the video server.”);
receiving
a distribution URL having the predetermined portion edited (Col. 22, lines 31-36, “If a shortened URL has been generated, both the serial number and the extended URL are stored in the memory 705, and the shortened URL is returned by the video API server 703 instead of the full URL. The portal 702 then returns 780 a HTML web page showing the link to the browser 701.”) and
the video stream from the video source (Col. 5, lines 41-49, “Video server 120 is configured to send video data, such as stored in one or more video repositories 170, to clients 110.”).
Li does not expressly teach displaying a description of the predetermined portion together with the video stream.
Alonso teaches displaying a description of a predetermined portion together with content ([0035], “In FIG. 2, news web page 200, describing the exemplary topic of seals at the LA Zoo, includes fields such as a URL address 205, headline 210, descriptive text 220, and one or more descriptive images 230. Note URL link 143 in post 140 may be an abbreviated version of the full-length URL 205.”).
In view of Alonso’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to include displaying a description of the predetermined portion together with the video stream in order to provide viewers with additional information regarding content. The modification would serve to enhance the user experience.
Regarding claim 4, the combination further teaches wherein the description of the predetermined portion includes information unique to the video source (Alonso: [0035], “In FIG. 2, news web page 200, describing the exemplary topic of seals at the LA Zoo, includes fields such as a URL address 205, headline 210, descriptive text 220, and one or more descriptive images 230. Note URL link 143 in post 140 may be an abbreviated version of the full-length URL 205.”).
The grounds of rejection under 35 USC §103 presented with respect to claim 1 are similarly applied to the limitations of claim 5.
The grounds of rejection under 35 USC §103 presented with respect to claim 1 are similarly applied to the limitations of claim 6.
The grounds of rejection under 35 USC §103 presented with respect to claim 1 are similarly applied to the limitations of claim 7.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Li, Alonso, and Tamersoy et al. (US 11172258).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach, when having received a distribution URL having the predetermined portion not edited, displaying that a transmission source of the video stream is unknown together with the video stream.
Tamersoy teaches, when having received a URL, displaying that a transmission source of the video stream is unverified together with the video stream (Col. 5, lines 41-62, “the security app 130 may determine that the unverified streamer 128 is impersonating one or more of the verified streamers 124a-124n. … In response, the security app 130 may perform a remedial action to protect the one or more users, such as the user 118, from the impersonation scam. These remedial actions may include, for example, sending a security alert to the user 118 regarding the impersonation scam (e.g., to warn the user 118 against clicking on any potentially malicious link), blocking the user from accessing the unverified video stream 126 (e.g., by blocking network access to the unverified video stream 126 on the user device 104), reporting the impersonation scam to the streaming platform server 106 (e.g., to enable the streaming platform server 106 to cancel the unverified video stream 126—and/or any related streaming channel or account—from being used by the unverified streamer 128), one or more other remedial actions, or some combination thereof.”).
In view of Tamersoy’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to include, when having received a distribution URL having the predetermined portion not edited, displaying that a transmission source of the video stream is unknown together with the video stream. The modification would serve to enhance improve user safety and security.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach when having received a distribution URL having the predetermined portion not edited, not receiving the video stream from the video source to which the distribution URL has been set.
Tamersoy teaches, when having received a URL, not receiving a video stream from a video source to which the URL has been set (Col. 5, lines 41-62, “the security app 130 may determine that the unverified streamer 128 is impersonating one or more of the verified streamers 124a-124n. … In response, the security app 130 may perform a remedial action to protect the one or more users, such as the user 118, from the impersonation scam. These remedial actions may include, for example, sending a security alert to the user 118 regarding the impersonation scam (e.g., to warn the user 118 against clicking on any potentially malicious link), blocking the user from accessing the unverified video stream 126 (e.g., by blocking network access to the unverified video stream 126 on the user device 104), reporting the impersonation scam to the streaming platform server 106 (e.g., to enable the streaming platform server 106 to cancel the unverified video stream 126—and/or any related streaming channel or account—from being used by the unverified streamer 128), one or more other remedial actions, or some combination thereof.”).
In view of Tamersoy’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to include, when having received a distribution URL having the predetermined portion not edited, not receiving the video stream from the video source to which the distribution URL has been set. The modification would serve to enhance improve user safety and security.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R TELAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5940. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at (571) 272-4195. 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.
/MICHAEL R TELAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426