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
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 11/21/2024. Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are presently pending. Claim 9 has been canceled by the Applicant. Claims 12-21 are newly presented.
Paragraph [0001] of the Specification, as amended, is acceptable.
Amended Abstract is acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 11 recites “a computer-readable storage medium”. This is non-statutory as ¶ [82] of the Specification fails to exclude transitory media. and explicitly states that such medium is a “signal”. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. For example, “machine readable medium” as disclosed by Miri et al (USPN 7,571,138) includes interpretation of such medium to include carrier wave or signal (Col. 11, line 28 through Col. 12, line 2).
Claims 19-21 depend on claim 11 and are so rejected.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pollefeys, USPGPUB 2022/0103784 (hereinafter “Pollefeys”).
Regarding claim 1, Pollefeys discloses a method for processing livestreaming video (Abstract, Figs. 1, 6), comprising:
displaying a first livestreaming interface, the first livestreaming interface displaying a first display image corresponding to a first streamer and a second display image corresponding to a second streamer, the second streamer being a streamer that interacts with the first streamer (Fig. 1, ¶¶ [17]-[20]; Fig. 6, ¶¶ [67]-[77]);
enlarging, in response to a trigger operation of the first streamer on a target display image in the first livestreaming room interface, the target display image in the first livestreaming room interface, wherein the target display image is the first display image or the second display image (Fig. 6, ¶¶ [67]-[77]).
Regarding claim 2, Pollefeys discloses:
wherein, the first streamer is an inviter of an interaction (¶ [38]), the target display image is the first display image or the second display image, the trigger operation is a first trigger operation or a second trigger operation, the first trigger operation indicates to enlarge the target display image in livestreaming interfaces corresponding to all streamers participating in the interaction, and the second trigger operation indicates to enlarge the target display image in a livestreaming interface corresponding to a streamer that triggers the second trigger operation (Fig. 6, ¶¶ [67]-[77]); or
when the first streamer is an invitee of the interaction (¶ [38]), the target display image is the first display image and the trigger operation is the second trigger operation (Fig. 6, ¶¶ [67]-[77]).
Regarding claim 3, Pollefeys discloses sending, in response to the trigger operation being the first trigger operation, a zoom-in instruction to a server so that the server sends the zoom-in instruction to a client corresponding to the second streamer, and the client corresponding to the second streamer enlarges the target display image according to the zoom-in instruction (¶¶ [71], [76], [79]).
Regarding claim 5, Pollefeys discloses wherein the first streamer is an inviter of an interaction, the method further comprises:
sending, in response to a setting operation triggered by the first streamer in the first livestreaming interface, a setting result to a server so that the server controls an interaction authority of the second streamer according to the setting result, the interaction authority comprising a first authority for sending livestreaming room interaction invitations and/or a second authority for receiving livestreaming interaction requests, and wherein the livestreaming is initiated by the first streamer (¶¶ [42]-[52]).
Regarding claim 6, Pollefeys discloses wherein when the first streamer is an inviter of an interaction, the method further comprises:
canceling, in response to a third trigger operation of the first streamer on the second display image, a display of the second display image in the first livestreaming room interface (¶¶ [67]-[78], in particular ¶ [77]).
Regarding claim 7, Pollefeys discloses in response to that a client corresponding to an inviter of the interaction sends a zoom-in instruction for the second display image, enlarging the second display image in the first livestreaming room interface (¶¶ [67]-[79]).
Regarding claim 8, Pollefeys discloses canceling an enlarged display of the first display image in the first livestreaming room interface (¶¶ [67]-[78], in particular ¶ [77]).
The device of claims 10-13 and 15-18 recites similar features as the method of claims 1-3 and 5-8, respectively, effectuated by the same, therefore, are rejected by the same analysis.
The computer program product of claims 11 and 19-20 recite similar features as the method of claims 1 and 2-3, respectively, effectuating the same, therefore, are rejected by the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pollefeys, in view of Hartman et al, USPGPUB 2015/0304605 (hereinafter “Hartman”).
Regarding claims 4, 14, and 21 Pollefeys teaches all elements except (highlighted segments below) wherein, in response to the trigger operation of the first streamer on the target display image in the first livestreaming interface, enlarging the target display image in the first livestreaming room interface, comprising:
the first streamer is the inviter of the interaction, displaying first operation panel in response to the trigger operation of the first streamer on the target display image in the first livestreaming interface, the first operation panel comprising a first control and a second control, the first trigger operation being on the first control, and the second trigger operation being on the second control; and in response to the trigger operation of the first streamer being the first trigger operation on the first control or the second trigger operation on the second control, enlarging the target display image in the first livestreaming interface; or
the first streamer is the invitee of the interaction, displaying a second operation panel in response to the trigger operation of the first streamer on the target display image in the first livestreaming interface, the second operation panel comprising the second control; and in response to the trigger operation of the first streamer being the second trigger operation on the second control, enlarging the target display image in the first livestreaming interface.
However, Hartman discloses a method, system, and computer program product for streaming events and sharing the same via video conferencing amongst plurality of users (Abstract, Exemplary Figs. 11A, 14, 23, and corresponding descriptions) wherein:
the first streamer is the inviter of the interaction, displaying first operation panel in response to the trigger operation of the first streamer on the target display image in the first livestreaming interface, the first operation panel comprising a first control and a second control, the first trigger operation being on the first control, and the second trigger operation being on the second control; and in response to the trigger operation of the first streamer being the first trigger operation on the first control or the second trigger operation on the second control, enlarging the target display image in the first livestreaming interface (Exemplary Figs. 11A, 14, 23, and corresponding descriptions; ¶ [126]); or
when the first streamer is the invitee of the interaction, displaying a second operation panel in response to the trigger operation of the first streamer on the target display image in the first livestreaming interface, the second operation panel comprising the second control; and in response to the trigger operation of the first streamer being the second trigger operation on the second control, enlarging the target display image in the first livestreaming interface (Exemplary Figs. 11A, 14, 23, and corresponding descriptions; ¶ [126]).
Therefore, 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 system of Pollefeys with Hartman’s teachings in order to provide the user more control over what they see and customize the system to their likings.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R MARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-7 ET flex.
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, Nathan J Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/JAMES R MARANDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights