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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 12, 16, 19-20 and 24 have been amended.
Claims 2, 10-11, 14-15 and 17 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-9, 12-13, 16 and 18-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
I. 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.
CLAIMS 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 12-13, 16, 18, 20-22 and 24 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAZAR et al (US 2022/0408120) in view of HUMPHRIES (US 2020/0382746).
Per claim 1, LAZAR et al teach an interactive live streaming method applicable to a first client, comprising:
receiving an invite message sent from a second client, wherein the invite message is configured to invite the first client to establish an interactive live streaming (paras 0114, 0117, 0125, 0156, 0161, 0200—a user participant receiving an invitation from another user or director for an establishing a streaming session); and
sending a Real Time Communication (RTC) reply message to the second client according to the invite message, wherein the RTC reply message is configured to indicate an agreement to establish the interactive live streaming with the second client, and is for the second client to establish the interactive live streaming with the first client according to the RTC reply message (paras 0014, 0046, 0072-73, 0115, 0151-152, 0161—sending RTC response to invitation and acceptance of the invitation to establish interactive live broadcast streaming between participants).
LAZAR et al teach the limitations as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach “in response to a remaining valid duration of the invite message being less than a first duration threshold”. HUMPHRIES teaches providing real-time communication among two or more parties, transmitting in response to the received authorized user-initiated requests, an invitations for an audio/video visitation session to the uniquely identified authorized user; automatically establish an audio/video visitation session with the uniquely identified authorized user when the invitation is accepted; and continue the automatically established audio/video visitation session for a duration of time up to a predetermined maximum time limit determined by the correctional facility or until financial funds are exhausted (paras 0004, page 20 claim 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of LAZAR et al with HUMPHRIES for the purpose of providing a remaining valid duration of the invite message being less than a first duration threshold, which is well-known in the art for providing a duration threshold information for invitation messages.
Claims 12-13 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 6, LAZAR et al teach an interactive live streaming method applicable to a second client, comprising:
sending an invite message to a first client, wherein the invite message is configured to invite the first client to establish an interactive live streaming (paras 0114, 0117, 0125, 0156, 0161, 0200—a user participant receiving an invitation from another user or director for an establishing a streaming session); and
receiving a Real Time Communication (RTC) reply message sent from the first client, wherein the RTC reply message is for the second client to establish the interactive live streaming with the first client according to the RTC reply message, and is configure to indicate that the first client agrees to establish the interactive live streaming with the second client (paras 0014, 0046, 0072-73, 0115, 0151-152, 0161—sending RTC response to invitation and acceptance of the invitation to establish interactive live broadcast streaming between the participants).
LAZAR et al teach the limitations as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach “in response to a remaining valid duration of the invite message being less than a first duration threshold”. HUMPHRIES teaches providing real-time communication among two or more parties, transmitting in response to the received authorized user-initiated requests, an invitations for an audio/video visitation session to the uniquely identified authorized user; automatically establish an audio/video visitation session with the uniquely identified authorized user when the invitation is accepted; and continue the automatically established audio/video visitation session for a duration of time up to a predetermined maximum time limit determined by the correctional facility or until financial funds are exhausted (paras 0004, page 20 claim 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of LAZAR et al with HUMPHRIES for the purpose of providing a remaining valid duration of the invite message being less than a first duration threshold, which is well-known in the art for providing a duration threshold information for invitation messages.
Claims 16 and 21 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 6 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 3, LAZAR et al with HUMPHRIES teach the interactive live streaming method according to claim 1, LAZAR et al further teach wherein the sending the RTC reply message to the second client according to the invite message comprises: sending the RTC reply message and a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) reply message to the second client according to the invite message, to enable the second client to establish an interactive live streaming with the first client based on a target reply message, wherein the target reply message is one of the RTC reply message and the HTTP reply message received first by the second client, and the HTTP reply message is configured to indicate the agreement to establish the interactive live streaming with the second client (paras 0016, 0073, 0114, 0121, 0152, 0161—streaming a modified WebRTC stream in response HTTP API request and response, accepted invitations to provide the live broadcast streaming).
Claim 18 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 3 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 5, LAZAR et al with HUMPHRIES teach the interactive live streaming method according to claim 1, LAZAR et al further teach wherein: the receiving the invite message sent from the second client comprises, receiving the invite message sent from the second client via a first server; and the sending the RTC reply message to the second client comprises, sending the RTC reply message to the second client via a second server, wherein the first server is different from the second server, and the second server is an RTC server (paras 0061, 0114, 0118, 0121, 0157—invitation received via web server and responding to the request from an API server, WebRTC server-side gateway, WebRTC edge servers, whereby the established channels along which media and other data are routed between the server system and connected destination computing systems).
Claims 9, 20 and 24 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 5 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 7, LAZAR et al with HUMPHRIES teach the interactive live streaming method according to claim 6, LAZAR et al further teach the method further comprising, after sending the invite message to the first client: receiving a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) reply message sent from the first client (paras 0016, 0073, 0114, 0118-119, 0121, 0152, 0161—streaming a modified WebRTC stream in response HTTP API request and response, accepted invitations to provide the live broadcast streaming; HUMPHRIES: para 0118—messages in JAVA or PHP HTML).
Claim 22 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 7 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
III. CLAIMS 4, 8, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAZAR et al (US 2022/0408120) in view of HUMPHRIES (US 2020/0382746) and HARTNETT et al (US 2022/0070504).
Per claim 4, LAZAR et al with HUMPHRIES teach claims, as applied above, and duration of the broadcasting, time delay between when a viewer requests a stream and when the viewer begins viewing it (paras 0087, 0150-153), yet fail to explicitly teach the “interactive live streaming method according to The interactive live streaming method according to wherein the sending the HTTP reply message to the second client according to the invite message comprises: sending the HTTP reply message to the second client in response to the remaining valid duration of the invite message being greater than or equal to a second duration threshold”.
HARTNETT et al teach a minimum viewing time threshold before selecting a target view device and starting a new live video stream within a time threshold of being disconnected and streaming continuity threshold (paras 0303, 0336-338); and if the request is beyond the time threshold as second threshold is used to confirm the connection (paras 0343-345). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of LAZAR et al and HUMPHRIES with HARTNETT et al the purpose of sending a reply with time threshold information to indicate the duration of time remaining, which is well-known in the art for providing time threshold information.
Claim 19 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 4 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 8, LAZAR et al with HUMPHRIES teach the claim as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach interactive live streaming method according to claim 7, further comprising, after sending the invite message to the first client: in response to receiving the RTC reply message and not establishing the interactive live streaming with the first client, establishing the interactive live streaming with the first client according to the RTC reply message; or in response to receiving the HTTP reply message and not establishing the interactive live streaming with the first client, establishing the interactive live streaming with the first client based on the HTTP reply message.
HARTNETT et al teach determining to resume a previous live video stream based on a reply prompt to reconnect or resume the live stream (paras 0217, 0330-334, 0338-345). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of LAZAR et al and HUMPHRIES with HARTNETT et al the purpose of determining not to establish the interactive live streaming based on the reply, which is well-known in the art.
Claim 23 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 8 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Conclusion
IV. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2014/0025230.
V. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
VI. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights