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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in reply to Applicant’s Response dated 05/18/2026. Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-17, 22, 24 and 25 are amended. Claims 18-21 and 23 are canceled. Claims 1-17, 22 and 24-25 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s argument (see page 9) regarding the objection to the drawings, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn in view of the amendment made to Fig. 1.
In response to the Applicant’s argument (see page 9) regarding the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 101, the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments made to claim 25.
In response to the Applicant’s argument (see page 9) regarding the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments made to claim 24.
The Applicant argues (see pages 11-12) regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 that claim 1, especially as clarified, requires causing a different interface corresponding to the predetermined request to be presented instead of the live streaming interface, wherein the different interface provides second content that is different from the first content and that Displaying additional elements on an existing canvas is not the same as displaying a different interface instead of displaying the canvas. Applicant submits that claim 1 is not anticipated by Springer.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Springer et al. (U.S. PGPub 2023/0353835) in view of Libin (U.S. Patent No. 12,088,646) is made in view of the amendments made to the claims. The combination of the Springer and the new reference, Libin, is now relied upon to teach all of the features of claim 1.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: “processing unit” in claim 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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: "actual processor” (see paragraph 0147 of the specification as filed).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 12, 14 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Springer et al. (U.S. PGPub 2023/0353835) in view of Libin (U.S. Patent No. 12,088,646).
Regarding claims 1, 24 and 25, Springer teaches A method for live streaming interface interaction, comprising: receiving a predetermined request for a live streaming interface, (Springer, see fig. 2; see paragraph 0041 connecting participants to a live communication stream via their respective client devices…; see paragraph 0054 receives a request to place a chosen selector component from the asset selector section into a specified location in the canvas section...request may take the form of a participant using the client device interactively selecting one or more UI components in such a way that a request is triggered)
the live streaming interface providing, in real time, first content associated with a session established in a live stream, (Springer, see figs. 3A-4D; see paragraph 0041 connecting participants to a live communication stream via their respective client devices…; see paragraph 0081 the user has selected various selector components to be placed within the canvas section, particularly App 4, Video Stream 1, Video Stream 2, and Content Share 1...)
wherein the window displays at least description information associated with at least one participant in the session established in the live stream. (Springer, see paragraph 0053 where UI displays a number of participant windows...the participant's name (e.g., real name or chosen username) may appear in the participant window as well…)
However, Springer does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined request comprises a request to exit the live streaming interface while maintaining an association with the session established in the live stream;
causing a different interface corresponding to the predetermined request to be presented instead of the live streaming interface, wherein the different interface provides second content that is different from the first content; and
superimposing, on the different interface, a window associated with the live streaming interface,
Libin teaches wherein the predetermined request comprises a request to exit the live streaming interface while maintaining an association with the session established in the live stream; (Libin, see figs. 3-6; see col. 9, lines 27-56 where a request for a private view has been received for a group…a private review pane with group members is built and displayed…group members are chatting within a private view pane (exit the main video conference and switch to the private review pane while still maintaining association with the established video conference)...)
causing a different interface corresponding to the predetermined request to be presented instead of the live streaming interface, wherein the different interface provides second content that is different from the first content; and (Libin, see figs. 3-6; see col. 2, lines 33 - col. 3, lines 22 The private communication may use a private view pane and a chat pane for at least some of the subset of participants. Each of the private view pane and the chat pane may be an overlay on top of a main video conferencing grid...One of the subset of participants of the video conference may be a separate presenter that is different from a presenter of the video conference and may be provided to the at least some of the subset of the participants using the private view pane and the chat pane. The at least some of the subset of the participants may be provided with a recording feature that is separate from any recording feature of the video conference software...; see also col. 7, line 59-col. 8, line 22 where the participants in the murmuration 310 have opened a private...view pane with a separate presenter 320 with an additional presentation 330...)
superimposing, on the different interface, a window associated with the live streaming interface, (Libin, see figs. 3-5; see col. 2, lines 33-67 ...The private communication may use a private view pane and a chat pane for at least some of the subset of participants. Each of the private view pane and the chat pane may be an overlay on top of a main video conferencing grid...; see col. 3, lines 44-49 private communication may use a private view pane and a chat pane for at least some of the subset of participants. Each of the private view pane and the chat pane may be an overlay on top of a main video conferencing grid)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Springer and Libin to provide the technique of the predetermined request comprises a request to exit the live streaming interface while maintaining an association with the session established in the live stream, causing a different interface corresponding to the predetermined request to be presented instead of the live streaming interface, wherein the different interface provides second content that is different from the first content and superimposing, on the different interface, a window associated with the live streaming interface of Libin in the system of Springer in order to improve video conferencing experiences (Libin, see col. 2, lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 2, Springer-Libin teaches wherein the request to exit the live streaming interface while maintaining the association with the session established in the live stream comprises at least one of: a first request to jump to the different interface; or a second request to display the live streaming interface in a windowed manner. (Libin, see figs. 3-6; see col. 9, lines 27-56 where a request for a private view has been received for a group…a private review pane with group members is built and displayed…group members are chatting within a private view pane (exit the main video conference and switch to the private review pane while still maintaining association with the established video conference)...) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 1, 24 and 25 is also applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Springer-Libin teaches wherein the description information associated with the at least one participant comprises: a text identification of the at least one participant; and/or an image identification of the at least one participant. (Springer, see paragraph 0053 where UI displays a number of participant windows...the participant's name (e.g., real name or chosen username) may appear in the participant window as well…)
Regarding claim 4, Springer-Libin teaches wherein the description information associated with the at least one participant comprises: a dynamic graphic corresponding to an audio stream from the at least one participant; and/or a video stream from the at least one participant. (Springer, see paragraph 0053 where UI displays a number of participant windows...include video, such as, e.g., video of the participant or some representation of the participant, a room the participant is in or a virtual background, and/or some other visuals the participant may wish to share (e.g., a document, image, animation, or other visuals)...the participant's name (e.g., real name or chosen username) may appear in the participant window as well…)
Regarding claim 12, Springer-Libin teaches wherein the predetermined request corresponds to a second user, and the second user is a viewer of the session established in the live stream. (Springer, see figs. 2 and 4A-4D Users A and B (second user); see paragraph 0041 connecting participants to a live communication stream via their respective client devices…; see paragraph 0054 receives a request to place a chosen selector component from the asset selector section into a specified location in the canvas section...request may take the form of a participant using the client device interactively selecting one or more UI components in such a way that a request is triggered)
Regarding claim 14, Springer-Libin teaches wherein the predetermined request corresponds to a third user, and the third user is a participant of the session established in the live stream. (Springer, see figs. 2 and 4A-4D Users A and B (second user); see paragraph 0041 connecting participants (third users) to a live communication stream via their respective client devices…; see paragraph 0054 receives a request to place a chosen selector component from the asset selector section into a specified location in the canvas section...request may take the form of a participant using the client device interactively selecting one or more UI components in such a way that a request is triggered)
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Springer-Libin in view of Rosenberg (U.S. PGPub 2018/0012192).
Regarding claim 5, Springer-Libin teaches all of the features of claim 1. However, Springer-Libin does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined request corresponds to a first user, and wherein the first user is an applicant who applies to join the session established in the live stream.
Rosenberg teaches wherein the predetermined request corresponds to a first user, and wherein the first user is an applicant who applies to join the session established in the live stream. (Rosenberg, see figs. 3-4; see paragraph 0126 a join request for a user to join a scheduled meeting; see paragraph 0046 receives from the client device the join request for the user to join the online meeting (similar to operation 305).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Springer-Libin and Rosenberg to provide the technique of the predetermined request corresponds to a first user, and wherein the first user is an applicant who applies to join the session established in the live stream of Rosenberg in the system of Springer-Libin in order to improve the handling of meetings and meeting experiences (Rosenberg, see paragraphs 0066, 0121 and 0123).
Regarding claim 6, Springer-Libin teaches all of the features of claim 1. However, Springer-Libin does not explicitly teach wherein the window further presents application information, and wherein the application information indicates an application status associated with a request to join the session established in the live stream
Rosenberg teaches wherein the window further presents application information, and wherein the application information indicates an application status associated with a request to join the session established in the live stream. (Rosenberg, see figs. 13-18; see paragraphs 0111- 0112 the lobby while the first meeting, meeting1, is in progress. Meeting1 includes three meeting1 participants and a host, while the lobby is empty...the meeting room and the lobby 3 mins before the second meeting, meeting2, starts. Three participants invited to meeting2 (i.e., meeting2 participants) show up and are directed to the lobby, where they are able to converse with each other...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Springer-Libin and Rosenberg to provide the technique of the window further presents application information, and wherein the application information indicates an application status associated with a request to join the session established in the live stream of Rosenberg in the system of Springer-Libin in order to improve the handling of meetings and meeting experiences (Rosenberg, see paragraphs 0066, 0121 and 0123).
Regarding claim 7, Springer-Libin-Rosenberg teaches wherein the application information at least indicates: a number of users waiting to join the session established in the live stream before a first user corresponding to the predetermined request, wherein the first user is an applicant who applies to join the session established in the live stream; and/or an expected waiting time for the first user to join the session established in the live stream (Rosenberg, see figs. 13-18; see paragraph 0112 the meeting room and the lobby 3 mins before the second meeting, meeting2, starts. Three participants invited to meeting2 (i.e., meeting2 participants) show up and are directed to the lobby, where they are able to converse with each other...) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claim 6 is also applied to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Springer-Libin-Rosenberg teaches further comprising: in accordance with a determination that the first user is permitted to join the session established in the live stream, presenting, in the window, a reminder of permission of joining the session established in the live stream. (Rosenberg, see fig. 4; see paragraphs 0055-0056 determines whether the user identifier received at 427 is on the invitee list...sends a webpage to the client device informing the user that an email message has been sent to the email address representative of the user identifier received at 430 and instructing the user to open the email and click on a “join meeting” link in the email to join the online meeting.) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claim 5 is also applied to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Springer-Libin-Rosenberg teaches wherein the reminder comprises: countdown information for automatically jumping to the live streaming interface. (Rosenberg, see figs. 13-18; see paragraphs 0111- 0112 the lobby while the first meeting, meeting1, is in progress. Meeting1 includes three meeting1 participants and a host, while the lobby is empty...the meeting room and the lobby 3 mins before the second meeting, meeting2, starts. Three participants invited to meeting2 (i.e., meeting2 participants) show up and are directed to the lobby, where they are able to converse with each other...) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claim 5 is also applied to claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Springer-Libin-Rosenberg in view of Renner et al. (U.S. PGPub 2005/0074107).
Regarding claim 10, Springer-Libin-Rosenberg teaches further comprising: in accordance with a determination that the first user is permitted to join the session established in the live stream, presenting the live streaming interface and (Rosenberg, see figs. 13-18; see paragraphs 0111- 0112 the lobby while the first meeting, meeting1, is in progress. Meeting1 includes three meeting1 participants and a host, while the lobby is empty...the meeting room and the lobby 3 mins before the second meeting, meeting2, starts....; see abstract , the information including a start time and an end time of each web-based meeting...; see paragraphs 0027 and 0047 also) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claim 5 is also applied to claim 10.
However, Springer-Libin-Rosenberg does not explicitly teaches closing the window after a predetermined time period.
Renner teaches closing the window after a predetermined time period. (Renner, see paragraph 0060 conference call invitation window may close when the user selects a conference call option, when the conference call is initiated, or after a predetermined interval of time.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Springer-Libin-Rosenberg and Renner to provide the technique of closing the window after a predetermined time period of Renner in the system of Springer-Libin-Rosenberg in order to avoid screen clutter (Renner, see paragraph 0060).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Springer-Libin-Rosenberg in view of Carrion (U.S. PGPub 2006/0218027).
Regarding claim 11, Springer-Libin-Rosenberg teaches all of the features of claim 5. However, Springer-Libin-Rosenberg does not explicitly teaches further comprising: receiving a close request to close the window; presenting prompt information, the prompt information indicating that a request to join the session established in the live stream will be canceled; and
in response to receiving a confirmation for the prompt information, closing the window and canceling the request to join the session established in the live stream.
Carrion teaches further comprising: receiving a close request to close the window; presenting prompt information, the prompt information indicating that a request to join the session established in the live stream will be canceled; and (Carrion, see figs. 2A-3; see paragraphs 0039-0040 the scheduling tool will remove time block 270 from conference room X's location schedule, and reserve conference room X for the user that has the event with the "A" priority... the user wishes to cancel the event request, the user selects command button 250 to close window 200...)
in response to receiving a confirmation for the prompt information, closing the window and canceling the request to join the session established in the live stream. (Carrion, see figs. 2A-3; see paragraphs 0039-0040 the scheduling tool will remove time block 270 from conference room X's location schedule, and reserve conference room X for the user that has the event with the "A" priority... the user wishes to cancel the event request, the user selects command button 250 to close window 200...; note that the user selecting the cancel button is a confirmation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Springer-Libin-Rosenberg and Carrion to provide the technique of receiving a close request to close the window; presenting prompt information, the prompt information indicating that a request to join the session established in the live stream will be canceled and in response to receiving a confirmation for the prompt information, closing the window and canceling the request to join the session established in the live stream of Carrion in the system of Springer-Libin-Rosenberg in order to reduce the complexity of scheduling and canceling meetings (Carrion, see paragraph 0008).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Springer-Libin-Rosenberg in view of Garrido et al. (U.S. PGPub 2019/0342351).
Regarding claim 13, Springer-Libin-Rosenberg teaches all of the features of claim 5. However, Springer-Libin-Rosenberg does not explicitly teaches wherein in the different interface, a playing priority of an audio content is higher than a playing priority of the window.
Garrido teaches wherein in the different interface, a playing priority of an audio content is higher than a playing priority of the window. (Garrido, see figs. 2-3; see paragraph 0020-0022 only the highest priority audio stream is relayed onto receiving endpoints... Lower priority video feeds may not be presented at all, may be presented within a smaller window...higher priority video feeds may be presented in a larger window or a more prominent region of a video display. In one aspect, a video window with a highest associated audio priority may be highlighted)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Springer-Libin-Rosenberg and Garrido to provide the technique of wherein in the different interface, a playing priority of an audio content is higher than a playing priority of the window of Garrido in the system of Springer-Libin-Rosenberg in order to improve user experience and management of scarce computing and network resources (Garrido, see abstract).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Springer-Libin in view of Garrido et al. (U.S. PGPub 2019/0342351).
Regarding claim 15, Springer-Libin teaches all of the features of claim 14. However, Springer-Libin does not explicitly teach wherein in the window, a playing priority of an audio content is higher than a playing priority of the different interface.
Garrido teaches wherein in the window, a playing priority of an audio content is higher than a playing priority of the different interface. (Garrido, see figs. 2-3; see paragraph 0020-0022 only the highest priority audio stream is relayed onto receiving endpoints... Lower priority video feeds may not be presented at all, may be presented within a smaller window...higher priority video feeds may be presented in a larger window or a more prominent region of a video display. In one aspect, a video window with a highest associated audio priority may be highlighted)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Springer-Libin and Garrido to provide the technique of wherein in the window, a playing priority of an audio content is higher than a playing priority of the different interface of Garrido in the system of Springer-Libin and Garrido in order to improve user experience and management of scarce computing and network resources (Garrido, see abstract).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Springer-Libin in view of Ferren (U.S. PGPub 2011/0102539).
Regarding claim 16, Springer-Libin teaches all of the features of claim 1. However, Springer-Libin does not explicitly teach further comprising: in accordance with a determination that a number of participants of the session established in the live stream is less than a predetermined threshold, presenting, in the window, description information of all participants; or in accordance with a determination that a number of participants of the session established in the live stream is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold, presenting, in the window, description information of a predetermined number of participants among all participants.
Ferren teaches further comprising: in accordance with a determination that a number of participants of the session established in the live stream is less than a predetermined threshold, presenting, in the window, description information of all participants; or in accordance with a determination that a number of participants of the session established in the live stream is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold, presenting, in the window, description information of a predetermined number of participants among all participants. (Ferren, see figs. 3-6; see paragraph 0015 if a number of displayed participants exceeds a predetermined limit, the video processor 16 resizes the regions of the displayed participants to fit within a field of view of the curved display surface 14...if a number of displayed participants is less than a predetermined limit, the video processor 16 displays a simulated backdrop or empty station in at least one region of the curved display surface 14...positioned behind each participant, such that each video image of the participant has a common background...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Springer-Libin and Ferren to provide the technique of in accordance with a determination that a number of participants of the session established in the live stream is less than a predetermined threshold, presenting, in the window, description information of all participants; or in accordance with a determination that a number of participants of the session established in the live stream is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold, presenting, in the window, description information of a predetermined number of participants among all participants of Ferren in the system of Springer-Libin in order to avoid switch frequently between participants such that participants are unable to arbitrarily view who they want (Ferren, see paragraph 0002).
Claims 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Springer-Libin in view of Pang et al. (U.S. PGPub 2012/0226997).
Regarding claim 17, Springer-Libin teaches all of the features of claim 1. However, Springer-Libin does not explicitly teach further comprising: in accordance with a determination that the at least one participant is outputting an audio, causing the description information of the at least one participant to be presented in the window highlighted, or wherein the method further comprise: in response to a change in participant information in the session established in the live stream, updating the window to indicate the change in the participant information, or wherein the method further comprise: in response to a predetermined operation for the window, presenting the live streaming interface and closing the window.
Pang teaches further comprising: in accordance with a determination that the at least one participant is outputting an audio, causing the description information of the at least one participant to be presented in the window highlighted, or wherein the method further comprise: in response to a change in participant information in the session established in the live stream, updating the window to indicate the change in the participant information, or wherein the method further comprise: in response to a predetermined operation for the window, presenting the live streaming interface and closing the window. (Pang, see fig. 4, see paragraph 0027 A talking stick paradigm can be incorporated into online meeting scenarios and, further, be provisioned in a WebEx meeting...a participant listing 62 is being illustrated, along with a talking stick soft button 64 and a designated talking stick icon 66. Additionally, FIG. 4 includes a talking stick queue 68, which allows the meeting participants to see the upcoming speakers, who will soon possess the talking stick...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Springer-Libin and Pang to provide the technique of in accordance with a determination that the at least one participant is outputting an audio, causing the description information of the at least one participant to be presented in the window highlighted, or wherein the method further comprise: in response to a change in participant information in the session established in the live stream, updating the window to indicate the change in the participant information, or wherein the method further comprise: in response to a predetermined operation for the window, presenting the live streaming interface and closing the window of Pang in the system of Springer-Libin in order to avoid meeting participants systematically talking over each other (Pang, see paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 22, Springer-Libin teaches all of the features of claim 1. However, Springer-Libin does not explicitly teach wherein a layout of the description information of the at least one participant in the window is determined based on at least one of: an order of the at least one participant in joining the session established in the live stream; or a sequence number assigned to the at least one participant in the session established in the live stream.
Pang teaches wherein a layout of the description information of the at least one participant in the window is determined based on at least one of: an order of the at least one participant in joining the session established in the live stream; or a sequence number assigned to the at least one participant in the session established in the live stream. (Pang, see fig. 4, see paragraph 0027 A talking stick paradigm can be incorporated into online meeting scenarios and, further, be provisioned in a WebEx meeting...a participant listing 62 is being illustrated, along with a talking stick soft button 64 and a designated talking stick icon 66. Additionally, FIG. 4 includes a talking stick queue 68, which allows the meeting participants to see the upcoming speakers, who will soon possess the talking stick...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Springer-Libin and Pang to provide the technique of an order of the at least one participant in joining the session established in the live stream; or a sequence number assigned to the at least one participant in the session established in the live stream of Pang in the system of Springer-Libin in order to avoid meeting participants systematically talking over each other (Pang, see paragraph 0002).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG VANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7023. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-2PM, 3PM-5PM.
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, NICHOLAS TAYLOR can be reached at (571) 272-3889. 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.
/MENG VANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights