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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Concerning claims 9 and 20,
The limitation “first device comprises another client device” is considered indefinite. It is unclear how a single device can comprise of another device. It would require for the first device to be at least two devices. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to be that the first device is a client device. For the aforementioned reason, claims 9 and 20 do not establish clear metes and bounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication 2022/0116436 A1 to Hartnett et al. (hereinafter Hartnett).
Concerning claim 1,
Hartnett discloses live streaming platform server comprising: a processor (0361-0362); and
a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the processor following an occurrence of a community game triggering event, an occurrence of a first community game participant selection event associated with a first user of a first device, and an occurrence of a second community game participant selection event associated with a second, different user of a second, different device (0042, 0230, 0282, 0284, wherein a participation trigger is considered a participation selection event and the setup/creation of the participation trigger is considered a community game triggering event), cause the processor to:
responsive to a receipt, from the first device, of data associated with first content captured of the first user, communicate, to a client device and at least partially based on the data associated with the first content, data associated with a first portion of a live stream (0226, 0230, Figure 14-15, wherein participants device are considered to be first/second devices and viewer devices viewing the public live stream are considered to be a client device), and
responsive to a receipt, from the second, different device, of data associated with second, different content captured of the second, different user, communicate, to the client device and at least partially based on the data associated with the second, different content, data associated with a second portion of the live stream (0226, 0230, Figure 14-15).
Concerning claim 2,
Hartnett discloses the first portion of the live stream and the second portion of the live stream occur at different points in time of the live stream (0042).
Concerning claim 3,
Hartnett discloses the first content captured of the first user comprises audio/video data of the first user (0060, 0226, 0230, Figure 14-15).
Concerning claim 4,
Hartnett discloses the first content captured of the first user comprises chat data (element 328) inputted by the first user (0060, 0103, Figure 3B).
Concerning claim 5,
Hartnett discloses the first content captured of the first user and the second, different content captured of the second, different user are each associated with a community game lobby (element 404) (0060, 0110-0112, Figure 4).
Concerning claim 6,
Hartnett discloses in association with the community game lobby, the first device and the second, different device each operate as a streaming device (0060, 0110-0112, Figure 4).
Concerning claim 8,
Hartnett discloses the first content captured of the first user is associated with a community game participated in by the first user and the second, different user (0046, 0284-0285).
Concerning claim 9,
Hartnett discloses the first device comprises another client device (0036).
Concerning claim 10,
Hartnett discloses a system comprising: a processor; and a memory device that stores a plurality of instructions (0361-0362) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
enable a first user of a first device selected to participate in a multiple participant event to interact with a second user of a second, different device selected to participate in the multiple participant event (0060, 0110-0112, Figure 4),
cause the first device to capture first audio/video data of the first user interacting with the second user (0060, 0110-0112, Figure 4) ,
enable the second user of the second, different device to interact with the first user of the first device (0060, 0110-0112, Figure 4),
cause the second, different device to capture second audio/video data of the second user interacting with the first user (0060, 0110-0112, Figure 4), and
responsive to a receipt of at least one of the first audio/video data and the second audio/video data, cause a client device to display a live stream comprising the at least one of the first audio/video data and the second audio/video data in association with the multiple participant event (0060, 0110-0112, Figure 4).
Concerning claim 11,
Hartnett discloses at least one of the first audio/video data and the second audio/video data is associated with a lobby prior to an initiation of the multiple participant event (0060, 0110-0112, Figure 4).
Concerning claim 12-20, see the rejections of claims 1-9 respectively.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2022/0116436 A1 to Hartnett et al. in view of US Publication 2023/0034686 A1 to Zheng (hereinafter Zheng).
Concerning claim 7,
Hartnett discloses combined streaming, but does not disclose streaming in a sequential manner.
Zheng teaches the operation as the streaming device is sequential (0070-0073).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the social streaming apparatus of Hartnett with the multi-user live streaming apparatus of Zheng as both concern video streaming with multiple participants. Altering the combined live stream of Hartnett to display the users sequentially as taught in Zheng would allow for there to be greater focus on an individual user during streaming.
Concerning claim 18, see the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights