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
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 21-40 are rejected as they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to “an interface” where the interface, as claimed, at best is a series of labels indicative of the content of information with no functional or structural relations and or association with the physical substrate, therefore, considered “printed matter”, and cannot be given patentable weight. Furthermore, they are not process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, therefore, non-statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-40 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.
Claim 1 recites “Successful execution of the script”. It is not clear as to what constitute success. Is it the display of the script that could be considered success, or the reading of the script by the creator. There is not sufficient disclosure to indicate how the reading of the script is conveyed, confirmed, and/or measured to indicate success.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as they depend on claim 1.
Claim 2 is further rejected as it recites “whether or not … completed successfully”. It is not clear as to what constitutes successful completion! It is further not clear as to the relation of success/ execution/ completion in claim 2 and claim 1.
Claim 4 is further rejected as it recites “… to accept the advertisement...”. It is not clear as to relation and measure of acceptance in claim 4 and selection in claim 1.
Claim 7 is further rejected as it recites “displaying an earnings per live viewer monetary amount”. It is not clear what this sentence means. “…live viewer monetary amount” based on what and by whom? Whose earnings are being measured here and on what basis?
Claims 10-40 suffer similar deficiencies as those of claims 1-9, therefore, rejected the same.
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 1-4, 7-13, 16-19, 21-26, 29-35, 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Athsani et al., USPGPUB 2014/0108158 (hereinafter “Athsani”).
Regarding claim 1, Athsani discloses a method of offering advertisement opportunities to content creators during a live stream video (Abstract, Figs. 1, 8, 10-20) comprising:
providing an interface that displays a live stream video in real time to a content creator (Figs. 1, 10; ¶¶ [53], [92]-[97]);
displaying a plurality of advertisement opportunities to the content creator simultaneously on the interface with the live stream video (Figs. 1, 11-14; ¶¶ [54]-[57], [97]-[103]), wherein each advertisement opportunity includes a script the content creator must read during the live stream video (Scripts such as the advertiser, associated pricing, and linkages that are presented to the creator, and read by the creator, otherwise how can the creator know what it is that they are selecting!);
receiving a selection from the content creator of an advertisement opportunity from the plurality of advertisement opportunities and causing the script to be displayed to the content creator (Fig. 12, ¶¶ [97]-[104]); and
monitoring the live stream video for successful execution of the script (¶¶ [12]-[13], [55]-[57]. The system monitors the ad usage/ viewing/ impressions and based on monetization agreements/ models presents the total revenue to the creator/ producer).
Regarding claim 2, Athsani discloses providing feedback to the content creator regarding whether or not the advertisement opportunity selected by the content creator was completed successfully (¶¶ [12]-[13], [55]-[57]. The system monitors the ad usage/ viewing/ impressions and based on monetization agreements/ models presents the total revenue to the creator/ producer).
.
Regarding claim 3, Athsani discloses wherein the feedback includes a dollar amount earned by the content creator during the live stream video (¶¶ [12]-[13], [55]-[57]. The system monitors the ad usage/ viewing/ impressions and based on monetization agreements/ models presents the total revenue to the creator/ producer).
Regarding claim 4, Athsani discloses wherein each advertisement opportunity in the plurality of advertisement opportunities includes an interface design to allow the content creator to accept the advertisement opportunity (As analyzed with respect to claim 1; Figs. 10-14 and corresponding descriptions).
Regarding claim 7, Athsani discloses displaying an earnings per live viewer monetary amount to the content creator for each advertisement opportunity in the plurality of advertisement opportunities (¶¶ [12]-[13], [55]-[57]. The system monitors the ad usage/ viewing/ impressions and based on monetization agreements/ models presents the total revenue to the creator/ producer. Also see Figs. 11, 12, and corresponding descriptions).
Regarding claim 8, Athsani discloses displaying an advertisement opportunity owner to the content creator for each advertisement opportunity in the plurality of advertisement opportunities (Figs. 11, 12, and corresponding descriptions, e.g. Advertiser A, B, etc.…).
Regarding claim 9, Athsani discloses displaying an interface to owners of the plurality of advertisement opportunities that allows the owners to create the plurality of advertisement opportunities for display to the content creators (¶¶ [108]-[112]).
The method of claims 10-13 and 16-18 recite similar features as those of the methods of claims 1-4 and 7-9, respectively, therefore, are rejected by the same analysis.
The method of claim 19 recites similar features as those of the methods of claims 1-3 and 8, therefore, are rejected by the same analysis.
The interface claims 21-26 and 29-30 recite similar features as the methods of claims 1-4 and 7-8, effectuated by the same, therefore, are rejected by the same analysis.
The interface claims 31-35 and 38-39 recite similar features as the methods of claims 1-4 and 7-8, effectuated by the same, therefore, are rejected by the same analysis.
The interface claim 40 recites similar features as the methods of claims 1 and 8, effectuated by 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 5, 14, 20, 27, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athsani, in view of Gabriel, USPN 7,593,965 (hereinafter “Gabriel”).
Regarding claims 5, 14, 20, 27, and 36 Athsani is not explicit in causing a hyperlink associated with an owner of the advertisement opportunity selected by the content creator to be added to the live stream video in real time when the content creator selects the advertisement opportunity.
However, Gabriel discloses a method, computer program code product, and system for customizing and presenting content by content creators and selection of advertisement (Abstract, Fig. 4 and corresponding descriptions) by causing a hyperlink associated with an owner of the advertisement opportunity selected by the content creator to be added to the live stream video in real time when the content creator selects the advertisement opportunity (Fig. 4, and corresponding descriptions. Also see Col. 4, lines 56-65).
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 Athsani with Gabriel’s teachings in order to provide for ease of navigation using well know internet conventions such as hyperlinks/ URLs.
Claims 6, 15, 28, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athsani, in view of Gabriel, further in view of Zarom, USPGPUB 2010/0138746 (hereinafter “Zarom”).
Regarding claims 6, 15, 28, and 37, the system of Athsani and Gabriel is not explicit in wherein the hyperlink is added in a live chat interface simultaneously displayed with the live video stream.
However, Zarom discloses a method and system for synchronized content sharing by content creators wherein the hyperlink is added in a live chat interface simultaneously displayed with the live video stream (¶¶ [3], [5], [51]; Fig. 4 and corresponding descriptions).
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 Athsani and Gabriel with Zarom’s teachings in order to provide for ease of collaboration and communication amongst users.
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