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 Arguments
Claims 14-15, 17, 19-21, 24-25, 27, 29-31, and 33 have been amended.
Claims 14-33 are presently pending.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 over Yang and Chang (see Remarks, pgs. 7-10), the Examiner disagrees. With respect to the Chang reference, Applicant argues that the multi-perspective video streams of Chang are ‘related to a plurality of video source of video streams rather than a single source or video stream’ rather than switching to a second live stream corresponding to the first source (see Remarks, pg. 9). The Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is noted that the Yang reference teaches wherein some live stream anchor/host may provide a live stream comprising some target live video that is provided by some live broadcast server (i.e. first video provided by a first source) combined with live video of the anchor/host captured by the host’s terminal (i.e., second content from a second source). See Non-Final Rejection mailed out 10 December 2025 (hereinafter the Non-Final), pg. 3. Chang [0073] discloses that a live broadcasting system may provide to a user viewing some live event (such as the target live video of Yang) recommendations of different streaming broadcasts that the system may receive related to the same live event. As the term ‘first source’ is not specifically defined in the claims, under BRI, these different streaming broadcasts that are all provided by the multi-perspective sharing engine of Chang would reasonably read on providing different live streams corresponding to a first source (i.e., different live stream reporting from various live streamers from different perspectives). Thus, the recommendations of Chang would comprise entries of at least a second live stream that corresponding to a first source.
.Applicant further argues that Chang fails to teach ‘an entry being configured to access the live stream’ or ‘a second live streaming interface of the second live stream being configured to provide a third video content corresponding to the first source’ (see Remarks, pgs. 9-10). Chang [0070] specifically recites: “In other examples, the user may select which video streams to view. For example, the user may be able to select a live video stream from one of the possible choices via the user interface, and the multi-perspective video sharing engine 202 provides that broadcasted video stream to the viewing device 250.” As before, Chang’s recommendations constitute entries corresponding to different live streams (i.e., different live perspectives of a live event) that are provided via a multi-perspective sharing platform directed to a particular live event (i.e., first source). It would be inferably obvious that such recommendations while viewing a broadcast stream could therefore be selected to view a particular broadcast stream, and where such recommendations could be repeated on every such selected broadcast stream (see MPEP 2144.01). As such the combined teachings of Yang and Chang disclose and teach the limitations of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, with respect to the Claims 21 and 31, it is noted that the Examiner took Official Notice that providing/presenting description information of live-streamers is widely understood to be known in the art. As Applicant has failed to traverse the Official Notice in a timely manner, the Official Notice is taken to be admitted prior art, and the Official Notice is made final. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 14, 20-21, 24, 30-31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 112470482 A) (as provided by the IDS submitted on 22 April 2025, hereinafter Yang), in view of Chang et al. (US 2016/0286244 A1) (hereinafter Chang).
Regarding Claim 14, Yang discloses a method for live streaming, comprising:
receiving an access request for a first live stream, the first live stream corresponding to a first live streaming party; [Figs. 1, 3, 9; 0054-56: audience terminal may choose to enter a live room of some anchor/host] and
presenting a first live streaming interface of the first live stream, the first live streaming interface being configured to provide a first video content and a second video content, [Figs. 1, 3, 9; 0019-20, 0056-61, 0070-72: responsive to entering live room, live video stream corresponding to the live room is displayed (second video content), and additionally host-selected target video (first video content) may be inserted to be displayed alongside live video stream]
the first video content corresponding to a first source, [Figs. 1, 3, 9; 0028, 0058-60: target video is pulled from video server 120]
the second video content corresponding to a second source associated with the first live streaming party. [Figs. 1, 3, 9; 0028, 0048-53, 0060: live stream data may be captured at anchor/host terminal and transmitted via live broadcast server 130]
Yang fails to explicitly disclose the first live streaming interface further comprising an entry associated with a second live stream corresponding to the first source, the entry being configured to access the second live stream, a second live streaming interface of the second live stream being configured to provide a third video content corresponding to the first source.
Chang, in analogous art, teaches the first live streaming interface further comprising an entry associated with a second live stream corresponding to the first source, [Figs. 1, 3; 0005, 0071-73: while viewing a broadcast stream from a broadcaster (i.e., first live streaming room of Yang above), system may recommend other related broadcasts from other broadcasters of the same event (i.e., second live streaming room corresponding to the first source – such as the target video source of Yang above)], the entry being configured to access the second live stream, [Figs. 1, 3; 0070: muti-perspective video sharing engine allows users to select a live video stream from one of a plurality of choices via the user interface to view on the viewing device, or alternatively select multiple streams to be concurrently displayed;]
a second live streaming interface of the second live stream being configured to provide a third video content corresponding to the first source. [Figs. 1, 3; 0005, 0071-73: while viewing a broadcast stream from a broadcaster (i.e., first live streaming room of Yang above), system may recommend other related broadcasts from other broadcasters of the same event (i.e., second live streaming room corresponding to the first source – such as the target video source of Yang above – where it would be inferably obvious that that system may be repeated for each broadcaster stream. See MPEP 2144.01.)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Yang with the teachings of Chang to include an entry associated with a second live stream corresponding to the first source in order to provide multi-perspective views of correlated video streams of the same event so that viewers can obtain a more enhanced viewing experience. [Chang – 0005, 0073]
Regarding Claim 20, Yang and Chang disclose all of the limitations of Claim 14 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Yang and Chang disclose in response to a selection of the entry:
presenting the second live streaming interface of the second live stream. [Chang – Figs. 1, 3; 0005, 0071-73: while viewing a broadcast stream from a broadcaster, system may recommend other related broadcasts from other broadcasters of the same event to allow switching to a different broadcaster; 0070: muti-perspective video sharing engine allows users to select a live video stream from one of a plurality of choices via the user interface to view on the viewing device, or alternatively select multiple streams to be concurrently displayed]
Regarding Claim 21, Yang and Chang disclose all of the limitations of Claim 20 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Yang and Chang disclose wherein live streaming systems may provide user accounts and social media features. [Yang – 0053, 0079: system may provide user names as well as identification of live rooms corresponding to accounts; Chang – 0039: interactive streaming may include social media features]
Yang and Chang fail to explicitly disclose presenting description information associated with the second live stream; and wherein the description information comprises a live streaming party description of a second live streaming party corresponding to the second live stream.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that providing description information of live streamers has been well-known and utilized in the art for purposes of providing audience members information regarding particular streamers and topics/subjects of interest covered by those streamers on their respective channels.
Regarding Claim 24, Claim 24 recites an apparatus that performs the functions of the method of Claim 14. As such, Claim 24 is analyzed and rejected similarly as Claim 14 above, mutatis mutandis. (see also, Yang [Fig. 15-16]; [0025-26] and [0172-174])
Regarding Claim 30, Yang and Chang disclose all of the limitations of Claim 24 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 30 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 20 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 31, Yang and Chang disclose all of the limitations of Claim 30 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 31 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 21 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 33, Claim 33 recites a CRM storing a program that performs the functions of the method of Claim 14. As such, Claim 33 is analyzed and rejected similarly as Claim 14 above, mutatis mutandis. (see also, Yang [Fig. 15-16]; [0025-26] and [0172-174])
Claim(s) 15 & 17-19, and 25 & 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Chang as applied to claims 15 and 25, respectively above, and further in view of Tremblay (US 2015/0245079 A1) (hereinafter Tremblay).
Regarding Claim 15, Yang and Chang disclose all of the limitations of Claim 14 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Yang discloses wherein presenting the first live streaming interface of the first live stream comprises:
receiving live stream data associated with the first live stream; [Yang – Figs. 1, 3-4, 9; 0019-20, 0056-61: live server 130 may send a merged broadcast comprising live video stream from host terminal (live stream) and target video from video server 120 (second video content)]
presenting the first live streaming interface based on layout information associated with the first live streaming interface, such that the first video content and the second video content are displayed in the first live streaming interface based on the layout information. [Yang – Figs. 1, 3, 8-9; 0019-20, 0056-61, 0070-72, : live server 130 may send a merged broadcast comprising live video stream from host terminal (live stream) and target video from video server 120 (second video content) and mixing the live video stream and target video according to some layout; 0096-101: live screen with video images may be positioned according to a default position and sizes or according to locations/sizes set by the anchor/host]
Yang and Chang fail to explicitly disclose parsing the first video content and the second video content from the live stream data.
Tremblay, in analogous art, teaches parsing the first video content and the second video content from the live stream data. [Figs. 11a-c; 0060, 0079: wherein live broadcast streaming servers (such as those of Yang and Chang above) may provide main streams (first video content) and related live webcam streams (second video contents) together to client devices as a multiplexed stream]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Yang and Chang with the teachings of Tremblay to specify that the first and second video contents are parsed from the live stream data as it is understood that separate video feeds (such as the first and second video contents of Yang and Chang above) may be distributed as separate multiplexed streamed to be received by other viewing terminals (where it would be implicitly understood that multiplexed streams comprise a plurality of separate streams of data that would be parsed for the individual constituent data. See MPEP 2144.01). [Tremblay – 0060, 0079]
Regarding Claim 17, Yang, Chang, and Tremblay disclose all of the limitations of Claim 15 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Yang discloses wherein the layout information is based on: live streaming configuration information associated with the first live stream; and/or orientation information of a display device for presenting the first live streaming interface. [Yang – 0096-101: live screen with video images may be positioned according to a default position and sizes or according to locations/sizes set by the anchor/host]
Regarding Claim 18, Yang, Chang, and Tremblay disclose all of the limitations of Claim 17 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Yang discloses wherein the live streaming configuration information comprise predetermined configuration information, or the live streaming configuration information is generated based on a live streaming setting of the first live streaming party. [Yang – 0096-101: live screen with video images may be positioned according to a default position and sizes or according to locations/sizes set by the anchor/host]
Regarding Claim 19, Yang, Chang, and Tremblay disclose all of the limitations of Claim 15 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Yang and Tremblay disclose wherein the live stream data is generated based on a merging of first live stream data originating from the first source and second live stream data originating from the second source. [Yang – Figs. 1, 3, 9; 0019-20, 0056-61, 0070-72: live server 130 may send a merged broadcast comprising live video stream from host terminal (live stream) and target video from video server 120 (second video content) and mixing the live video stream and target video according to some layout; Tremblay – Figs. 11a-c; 0060, 0079: wherein live broadcast streaming servers may provide main streams and related live webcam streams together to client devices as a multiplexed stream]]
Regarding Claim 25, Yang and Chang disclose all of the limitations of Claim 24 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 25 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 15 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 27, Yang, Chang, and Tremblay disclose all of the limitations of Claim 25 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 27 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 17 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 28, Yang, Chang, and Tremblay disclose all of the limitations of Claim 27 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 28 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 18 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 29, Yang, Chang, and Tremblay disclose all of the limitations of Claim 25 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 29 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 19 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Claim(s) 16 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Chang, and Tremblay as applied to claims 15 and 25, respectively above, and further in view of Epari et al. (US 2022/0286741 A1) (hereinafter Epari).
Regarding Claim 16, Yang, Chang, and Tremblay disclose all of the limitations of Claim 15 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Yang, Chang, and Tremblay fail to explicitly disclose wherein the layout information indicate that the first video content or the second video content is presented in the first live streaming interface with a higher priority.
Epari, in analogous art, teaches wherein the layout information indicate that the first video content or the second video content is presented in the first live streaming interface with a higher priority. [Figs. 6-7; 0012-13, 0076-77, 0061, 0063: content may have a priority hierarchy that may be user provided for content that is to be presented in a main window or PIP window]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Yang and Chang with the teachings of Epari to specify layout information indicating a content to be presented with a higher priority in order to automatically present content of higher interest/priority to be focused on a main window of a display. [Epari – 0063-65]
Regarding Claim 26, Yang, Chang, and Tremblay disclose all of the limitations of Claim 25 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 26 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 16 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Claim(s) 22-23 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Chang as applied to claims 14 and 24, respectively above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2008/0260351 A1) (hereinafter Li)
Regarding Claim 22, Yang and Chang disclose all of the limitations of Claim 14 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Yang and Chang disclose wherein the first source is managed by a live streaming platform, [Yang – Fig. 1; 0057-60: wherein video server 120 may provide target video to live broadcast server 130; Chang – Figs. 1-3; 0049, 0052 interactive broadcasting service 101 that may provide multiple video streams of a same event; (see also MPEP 2144.04(V)-(VI))] the first live streaming party being a target user of the live streaming platform. [Yang – 0051-53: live server 103 may store accounts of anchors and viewers, etc.; Chang – 0039, 0053: interactive streaming may include social media features including various account details of broadcasters]
Yang and Chang fail to explicitly disclose the target user having a reference permission to the first source.
Li, in analogous art, teaches the target user having a reference permission to the first source. [0018-22, 0040: broadcast signals for content may have specific rights to specific people dictating whether they have access to content, or rights to further share the content with others]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Yang and Chang with the teachings of Li to specify that target users have reference permissions to sources in order to provide rights protecting of content and limit rights to certain users to share the content with other users. [Li – 0008-10]
Regarding Claim 23, Yang and Chang disclose all of the limitations of Claim 14 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Yang discloses to present an entry for adding the first source as a live stream material. [Yang – Figs. 4-7; 0062-65: video selection interface provided to anchor account to select target video to add to live stream]
Yang and Chang fail to explicitly disclose wherein, in response to a predetermined live streaming party having a reference permission to the first source, a live streaming management interface of the predetermined live streaming party being configured to present an entry for adding the first source as a live stream material.
Li, in analogous art, teaches wherein, in response to a predetermined live streaming party having a reference permission to the first source, a live streaming management interface of the predetermined live streaming party being configured to present an entry for adding the first source as a live stream material. [0018-22, 0040: broadcast signals for content may have specific rights to specific people dictating whether they have access to content, or rights to further share the content with others, where only users with rights have access to the content and know the existence of the content (i.e., you are presented with the option for the content if you have rights)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Yang and Chang with the teachings of Li to specify that specific users have reference permissions to sources and in order to provide rights protecting of content and limit rights to certain users to share the content with other users. [Li – 0008-10]
Regarding Claim 32, Yang and Chang disclose all of the limitations of Claim 24 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 32 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 22 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Panchaksharaiah, et al. (US 2023/0300396 A1) teaches a video interface where entries related live streams associated with a specific event (i.e., common source) may be overlaid over a primary stream, where such entries are user-selectable to switch the primary stream to the selected stream.
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 WILLIAM J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/WILLIAM J KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409