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 .
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 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.
Examiner Notes
(1) In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121 (b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131 (b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
(2) Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Remarks
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment file on 01/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome 101 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/22/2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection (See new reference of Taylor).
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 14, it is unclear as to what is “a dynamic manner”?.
Claims 11 and 20 are being rejected for similar reasons.
Dependent claims are being rejected as depending from rejection of parent claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-13, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dagan (U.S. Patent No. 9,459,942 B2) in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0103298 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dagan teaches a method of data reviewing, comprising: presenting, in a data page, a first page element for locating a point of time in a timeline corresponding to an event (col. 7, line 21-25, displaying monitored metrics and associated data; the GUI can display monitored metrics or various data regarding to monitor metrics);
presenting, in the data page, a plurality of second page elements for presenting a plurality types of analysis data associated with the event (Fig. 2-3, displaying monitored metrics and associated data is shown which includes a displayed metric 240 and associated baseline sleeve along a time line in display area; the displayed metric or graph of metric in the display area of FIG. 3 corresponds with the metric Response Time located in Paris and monitored by data collector RUM);
and in response to detecting, by the electronic device, an interaction on the first page element to locate a first point of time in the timeline, presenting, in the plurality of second page elements, respective types of analysis data collected at the first point of time (col. 9, line 1-29, when a desired view of the graph is displayed in display area, an administrator can select a time interval via the GUI, where the time interval represent a time during which metric performance data will be compared with and correlated against performance data of other metric; the GUI can include an icon which when clicked prompt the administrator to select a start and end time for the time frame; also see col. 9, line 40-50, when a time frame is selected on the graph in the display area, the correlation window can display the name of the metric from which the time frame is selected, as well as a preview of the selection; the preview can include the same preview graph as shown in fig. 2).
Dagan does not explicitly disclose: in response to receiving, from a user, an operation triggering a data review for an event associated with online activities, launching a data page, on an interface presented by the electronic device, presenting content of the event associated with the online activities; in response to detecting, by the electronic device, a trigger on a playback control, presenting, in a dynamic manner and in the plurality of second page elements, the respective types of analysis data corresponding to each point of time starting from the first point of time.
Taylor teaches: in response to receiving, from a user, an operation triggering a data review for an event associated with online activities, launching a data page, on an interface presented by the electronic device, presenting content of the event associated with the online activities (Fig. 1A, paragraph [0017], the user interface may also include a shopping interface; the shopping interface may be rendered as a panel or may be rendered as an overlay on top of portion of the live video stream; the shopping interface includes information about items currently being discussed within a segment of the live video stream; this information may include an item image, an item title, an item price, a quantity remaining indication, and/or other information; also see paragraph [0045], to begin, a user launch a content access application and accesses a uniform resource locator (URL) associated with live video stream with an interactive shopping interface);
in response to detecting, by the electronic device, a trigger on a playback control, presenting, in a dynamic manner and in the plurality of second page elements, the respective types of analysis data corresponding to each point of time starting from the first point of time (paragraph [0018], for each item, a selectable item component may be provided such that when the selectable component item is selected, an interaction action related to the item is performed; such as an interactive action may include adding the item to a shopping cart, initiating an order or purchase of an item, etc.; paragraph [0024], various user statistics may be shown to provide hosts and/or producers with real-time feedback on who is watching the live video stream; for example, the user statistics may indicate how many users are streaming the live video feed, engagement statistics such as how many orders have been placed for a currently featured item or how many times the current featured item has been added to a shopping list, how many units of the current item remain in stock, demographic information for reviewers, and/or other audience information; also see paragraph [0049], the items may be associated with scheduled start times and expiration times; noted, detecting user action of adding item to the shopping cart, or initiating purchasing item; presenting statistic with real-time feedback in regards to those interactive actions by showing engagement statistics such as how many orders have been placed for a currently featured item or how many times the current featured item has been added to a shopping list starting from the start time of the live video stream session, which reads on as claimed; also see paragraph [0017], [0056])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include in response to receiving, from a user, an operation triggering a data review for an event associated with online activities, launching a data page, on an interface presented by the electronic device, presenting content of the event associated with the online activities; in response to detecting, by the electronic device, a trigger on a playback control, presenting, in a dynamic manner and in the plurality of second page elements, the respective types of analysis data corresponding to each point of time starting from the first point of time into timeline data analysis of Dagan.
Motivation to do so would be to include in response to receiving, from a user, an operation triggering a data review for an event associated with online activities, launching a data page, on an interface presented by the electronic device, presenting content of the event associated with the online activities; in response to detecting, by the electronic device, a trigger on a playback control, presenting, in a dynamic manner and in the plurality of second page elements, the respective types of analysis data corresponding to each point of time starting from the first point of time for managing an interactive shopping experience in conjunction with live video streams that discuss items offered for order (Taylor, paragraph [0012], line 2-4).
Regarding claim 2, Dagan as modified by Taylor teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the event is a historical event, and the timeline indicates a first time range from a start of the event to an end of the event, or wherein the event is an ongoing event, and the timeline indicates a second time range from the start of the event to a current time of the event (Dagan, col. 9, line 1-29, when a desired view of the graph is displayed in display area, an administrator can select a time interval via the GUI, where the time interval represent a time during which metric performance data will be compared with and correlated against performance data of other metric; the GUI can include an icon which when clicked prompt the administrator to select a start and end time for the time frame; also see col. 9, line 40-50, when a time frame is selected on the graph in the display area, the correlation window can display the name of the metric from which the time frame is selected, as well as a preview of the selection; the preview can include the same preview graph as shown in fig. 2; also see col. 8, line 3-14, the problem marker can provide a clear indication of where problematic or abnormal metric operation performance began and/or a clear indication of where in time and for period of time problematic or abnormal metric operation performance existed; also see col. 7, line 40-46, an abnormal start time can include both a date and time of when the abnormal operation performance began; the GUI can also display other time information such as when the abnormal operation performance ended, or how long the abnormal performance continued).
Regarding claim 3, Dagan as modified by Taylor teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the first page element comprises the playback control configured to: in response to the trigger on the playback control, locate a point of time in the timeline corresponding to the trigger, and cause the plurality of second page elements to present respective types of the analysis data collected at the located point of time (Dagan, col. 9, line 1-29, when a desired view of the graph is displayed in display area, an administrator can select a time interval via the GUI, where the time interval represent a time during which metric performance data will be compared with and correlated against performance data of other metric; the GUI can include an icon which when clicked prompt the administrator to select a start and end time for the time frame; also see col. 9, line 40-50, when a time frame is selected on the graph in the display area, the correlation window can display the name of the metric from which the time frame is selected, as well as a preview of the selection; the preview can include the same preview graph as shown in fig. 2; while Taylor, paragraph [0018], teaches for each item, a selectable item component may be provided such that when the selectable component item is selected, an interaction action related to the item is performed; such as an interactive action may include adding the item to a shopping cart, initiating an order or purchase of an item, etc.; paragraph [0024], various user statistics may be shown to provide hosts and/or producers with real-time feedback on who is watching the live video stream; for example, the user statistics may indicate how many users are streaming the live video feed, engagement statistics such as how many orders have been placed for a currently featured item or how many times the current featured item has been added to a shopping list, how many units of the current item remain in stock, demographic information for reviewers, and/or other audience information; also see paragraph [0049], the items may be associated with scheduled start times and expiration times).
Regarding claim 7, Dagan as modified by Taylor teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the first page element is pinned at a predetermined position in the data page (Dagan, Fig. 3 illustrates page element representing timeline is pinned at the bottom in the data page).
Regarding claim 9, Dagan as modified by Taylor teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach in response to a further interaction on the first page element to locate a second point of time in the timeline, presenting, in the plurality of second page elements, respective types of second analysis data collected at the second point of time (Dagan, col. 9, line 1-29, when a desired view of the graph is displayed in display area, an administrator can select a time interval via the GUI, where the time interval represent a time during which metric performance data will be compared with and correlated against performance data of other metric; the GUI can include an icon which when clicked prompt the administrator to select a start and end time for the time frame; also see col. 9, line 40-50, when a time frame is selected on the graph in the display area, the correlation window can display the name of the metric from which the time frame is selected, as well as a preview of the selection; the preview can include the same preview graph as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Dagan as modified by Taylor teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, further teach wherein the plurality of second page elements comprise respective information cards for presenting respective types of analysis data associated with the event (Dagan, col. 9, line 1-29, when a desired view of the graph is displayed in display area, an administrator can select a time interval via the GUI, where the time interval represent a time during which metric performance data will be compared with and correlated against performance data of other metric; the GUI can include an icon which when clicked prompt the administrator to select a start and end time for the time frame; also see col. 9, line 40-50, when a time frame is selected on the graph in the display area, the correlation window can display the name of the metric from which the time frame is selected, as well as a preview of the selection; the preview can include the same preview graph as shown in fig. 2; also see Fig. 5, col. 9, line 33-39, the correlation window may comprise a tab selectable from a plurality of tabs, each configured to provide a different display of metric related information and/or operations performable by the system on the metrics).
As per claims 11-13, these claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claims 1-3 respectively and are similarly rejected.
As per claim 17, this claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 19, this claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claim 9 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 20, this claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dagan (U.S. Patent No. 9,459,942 B2) in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0103298 A1), further in view of Pelloin (U.S. Patent No. 11,416,504 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Dagan as modified by Taylor teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein the first page element further comprises a chart element to present a trend of a predetermined metric corresponding to the event along the timeline.
Pelloin teaches: wherein the first page element further comprises a chart element to present a trend of a predetermined metric corresponding to the event along the timeline (Fig. 5-7, col. 23, line 27-67, Fig. 5, the user interface display a timeline where an anomaly is selected; Fig. 6 is a graph of higher level of periodicity details showing the periodic trends associated with the evolution of the number of impacted subscribers and the eventual associated prediction; the user interface can display the event, its periodicity, and the x-axis can be the number of subscribers impacted; on the left side in Fig. 7, an event, is displayed on a timeline; note, the display includes a duration, a number of impacted subscribers, and an indication has determined this is event is periodic, namely a label stating “periodic event”; clicking on the event on the timeline can display periodic trend details on the right side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to wherein the first page element further comprises a chart element to present a trend of a predetermined metric corresponding to the event along the timeline into timeline data analysis of Dagan.
Motivation to do so would be to include wherein the first page element further comprises a chart element to present a trend of a predetermined metric corresponding to the event along the timeline address a need for an adaptive system that can detect periodicities in real-time data for use in use identification (Pelloin, col. 2, line 22-24).
Regarding claim 5, Dagan as modified by Taylor and Pelloin teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 4, further teach: in response to a further interaction on the first page element, presenting a configuration control for configuring the predetermined metric corresponding to the event (Dagan, col. 9, line 1-29, when a desired view of the graph is displayed in display area, an administrator can select a time interval via the GUI, where the time interval represent a time during which metric performance data will be compared with and correlated against performance data of other metric; the GUI can include an icon which when clicked prompt the administrator to select a start and end time for the time frame; also see col. 9, line 40-50, when a time frame is selected on the graph in the display area, the correlation window can display the name of the metric from which the time frame is selected, as well as a preview of the selection; the preview can include the same preview graph as shown in fig. 2 while Pelloin, Fig. 5-7, col. 23, line 27-67, teaches: Fig. 5, the user interface display a timeline where an anomaly is selected; Fig. 6 is a graph of higher level of periodicity details showing the periodic trends associated with the evolution of the number of impacted subscribers and the eventual associated prediction; the user interface can display the event, its periodicity, and the x-axis can be the number of subscribers impacted; on the left side in Fig. 7, an event, is displayed on a timeline; note, the display includes a duration, a number of impacted subscribers, and an indication has determined this is event is periodic, namely a label stating “periodic event”; clicking on the event on the timeline can display periodic trend details on the right side).
Regarding claim 6, Dagan as modified by Taylor and Pelloin teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 5, further teach: wherein presenting the configuration control for configuring the predetermined metric corresponding to the event comprises: in response to a trigger on the configuration control, presenting a third page element to present a plurality of candidate metrics corresponding to the event; and in response to a selection of the predetermined metric from the plurality of candidate metrics, presenting, in the chart element of the first page element, the trend for the predetermined metric along the timeline (Pelloin, Fig. 5-7, col. 23, line 27-67, Fig. 5, the user interface display a timeline where an anomaly is selected; Fig. 6 is a graph of higher level of periodicity details showing the periodic trends associated with the evolution of the number of impacted subscribers and the eventual associated prediction; the user interface can display the event, its periodicity, and the x-axis can be the number of subscribers impacted; on the left side in Fig. 7, an event, is displayed on a timeline; note, the display includes a duration, a number of impacted subscribers, and an indication has determined this is event is periodic, namely a label stating “periodic event”; clicking on the event on the timeline can display periodic trend details on the right side).
As per claims 14-16, these claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claims 4-6 respectively and are similarly rejected.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dagan (U.S. Patent No. 9,459,942 B2) in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0103298 A1), further in view of Delserro et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0298072 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Dagan as modified by Taylor teach all claimed limitations as set forth in rejection of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose: wherein presenting the first page element in the data page comprises: in accordance with a determination that the event is completed, presenting the first page element in the data page.
Delserro teaches: wherein presenting the first page element in the data page comprises: in accordance with a determination that the event is completed, presenting the first page element in the data page (Fig. 7, paragraph [0052], after completion of live stream event, an additional graphical user interface view that includes the plurality of generalized metrics generated during the live stream event; through such a live stream summary, the presenter may be able to review the analytics associated with audience engagement and gain insights with respect to the live stream event that may facilitate improving future live stream events).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include wherein presenting the first page element in the data page comprises: in accordance with a determination that the event is completed, presenting the first page element in the data page into timeline data analysis of Dagan.
Motivation to do so would be to include wherein presenting the first page element in the data page comprises: in accordance with a determination that the event is completed, presenting the first page element in the data page for improvement in implementing streaming technologies (Delserro, paragraph [0001], line 13-14).
As per claim 18, this claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the same rationales given above for rejected claim 8 and is similarly rejected.
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 KEN HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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.
/KEN HOANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights