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
Per Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment 10/31/24
Claims 3-5, 9, 12-13 and 16 have been amended.
Claims 10-11 and 14-15 have been canceled.
Claims 17-24 have been newly added.
Claims 1-9, 12-13 and 16-24 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
CLAIMS 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 12-13, 16, 18, 20-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated LAZAR et al (US 2022/0408120).
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).
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).
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 teach the interactive live streaming method according to claim 1, 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 teach the interactive live streaming method according to claim 1, 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 teach the interactive live streaming method according to claim 6, 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).
Claim 22 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 7 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
III. 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.
IV. CLAIMS 2, 4, 8, 17, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAZAR et al (US 2022/0408120) in view of HARTNETT et al (US 2022/0070504).
Per claim 2, LAZAR et al 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 claim 1, wherein the sending the RTC reply message to the second client according to the invite message comprises: sending the RTC reply message to the second client in response to a remaining valid duration of the invite message being less than a first 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 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.
Claims 4, 17 and 19 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 2 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 8, LAZAR et al 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 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
V. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2022/0312047; US 2018/0018714.
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