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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply in view of newly found reference Shibata being used in the current rejection. Also, a new 103 rejection using references Sicora in view of He is added in the current rejection.
Furthermore, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Sicora was used to teach how the social media platform providing a GUI for creating social media posts and tagging a product in a content stream, Crossley was used to teach how the location of the trending content is updated over time, and Yong was used to teach how trending content is sorted and provided to the viewer based on the priority. Together, they render obviousness of the claim(s).
Furthermore, newly added limitations to claims 1 and 11-12 now invoke 112(a) rejection.
See the new rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11-12 recite limitations “the user comment matching at least one leading trending comment that…has not yet been presented on the user interface of the live stream”, the examiner is unable to find support for this limitation in the originally filed spec paragraphs (0029-0030, 0033-0034) and/or drawings. Nowhere in the spec and/or drawing discloses the leading comment has not yet been presented on the user interface. Application fails to provide adequate support required by 112(a) or the first paragraph of 35 USC 112 for above mentioned negative limitation in the detailed description. Applicant to provide support for this limitation.
Claims 2-9 and 13-20 are rejected due to their dependency on the independent claims 1 and 11, respectively.
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 1-4, 6, 11-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10,684,738 to Sicora (“Sicora”) in view of US PG Pub 2022/0337918 to Shibata (“Shibata”).
Regarding claim 1, “A method for live streaming” reads on the social media platform and system providing a GUI for creating social media posts and tagging a product in a content stream (abstract) disclosed by Sicora and represented in Fig. 3. Sicora further discloses (45:39-67) that the post includes a live streaming.
As to “comprising: determining whether a number of the user comments received in the live stream reaches a threshold number, the user comments matching at least one leading trending comment that is preconfigured for the live stream…” Sicora discloses (29:62-30:8) that the system identifies if a threshold number of comments having been reached for the particular post; (9:32-48) the system further determines if the particular emojis that appear in the comments satisfies one or more criteria such as the particular emojis occurring at least a threshold number of times in the comments; (10:1-10; 68:27-56) particular keywords/hashtags/emojis (trending comment) appear in the comments as represented in Fig. 3; (71:2-4; 107:34-35) the server system maintains pre-determined cached trending information in the database.
As to “in response to the number of the matching user comments reaching the threshold number, presenting the at least one leading trending comment at a predetermined location on a user interface of the live stream” Sicora discloses (46:20-49; 47:40-45; 72:58-73:7) that the top emoji response to the post is displayed on the GUI as represented in Figs. 3 and 19; (75:20-30) the GUI display section can include other types of content other than emojis such as keywords, hashtags, or other tags.
Sicora meets all the limitations of the claim except “presenting, in a comment area on a user interface of a live stream, received user comments;…at least one leading trending comment…has not yet been presented on the user interface of the live stream.” However, Shibata discloses (¶0093-¶0097) that during the live distribution, the distributor’s screen displays multiple areas where the one comment display area is an area for displaying the user comments input by the viewer and the other tag display area displays hashtags content as represented in Fig. 15 (elements 73, 731, 74, 741); (¶0103-¶0104) when the newer hashtag/tag object is detected, it is added to the tag display area as represented in Fig. 16. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sicora’s system by presenting received user comments in one area and determining trending comment has not yet been presented on the interface as taught by Shibata in order to clearly distinguish between user comments and trending content.
Regarding claim 2, The method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to a first duration of presenting the at least one leading trending comment exceeding a first threshold duration, hiding the at least one leading trending comment” Sicora (72:49-57; 73:8-36) that the comments/top emojis associated with the post dynamically changes/replaces based on the user comments as represented in Fig. 19.
Regarding claim 3, “The method of claim 1, wherein presenting the at least one leading trending comment comprises: in response to the number of the matching user comments reaching the threshold number, determining a second duration elapsed from a previous leading trending comment was displayed; and in response to the second duration exceeding a second threshold duration, presenting the at least one leading trending comment” Sicora (72:49-57; 73:8-36) that the comments/top emojis associated with the post dynamically changes/replaces based on the user comments as represented in Fig. 19.
Regarding claim 4, “The method of claim 1, further comprising: after presenting the at least one leading trending comment, presenting a real-time number of user comments matching the at least one leading trending comment on the user interface” Sicora discloses (46:20-49) that the comment section includes a summary that identifies one or more top responses based on number of instances each emoji appearing in the comments, a number of users using each emoji in the comments (counting users using a particular emoji instead of a number of times the particular emoji is used by each user), where the number of comments associated with the top emoji response is displayed as represented in Fig. 20F.
Regarding claim 6, “The method of claim 1, wherein live streaming content of the live stream relates to a first party and a second party, wherein presenting the at least one leading trending comment comprises: presenting a first leading trending comment associated with the first party at a first location on the user interface; and presenting a second leading trending comment associated with the second party at a second location on the user interface” Sicora discloses (72:27-32) that the metric can be, for example, a frequency with which each of the responses A-N (1868a-n) occur for each of the content elements A-C (1872-1876); other metrics are also possible, such as weighted frequencies, number of comments with an occurrence of each response, and/or other metrics as represented in Fig. 18; (147:6-34) the sentiment analytics section includes example histograms that compare a number of instances in which particular user responses are provided with regard to the posts; the responses can be, for example, different enumerated reactions that users can register to a content element (e.g., social post); the responses can also include reactions that users enter through comments for a content element and/or tagged product element, such as emojis, tags (e.g., hashtags), keywords, links, animated media elements (e.g., animaged GIFs), and/or other reactions; the post histogram for Response A indicates a number of instances of the Response A in posts and/or in reactions/comments to posts as represented in Fig. 42.
Regarding claim 11, see rejection similar to claim 1. Furthermore, Sicora discloses (157:43-57) that the computer program is stored on the computer readable medium with a processor that executes the program.
Regarding claim 12, see rejection similar to claim 1. Furthermore, Sicora discloses (157:43-57) that the computer program is stored on the computer readable medium with a processor that executes the program.
Regarding claim 13, see rejection similar to claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection similar to claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, see rejection similar to claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, see rejection similar to claim 6.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicora in view of Shibata, and further in view of US PG Pub 2016/0277802 to Bernstein (“Bernstein”).
Regarding claim 5, combination of Sicora and Shibata meets all the limitations of the claim except “The method of claim 1, further comprising: presenting, at a second predetermined location on the user interface, a tag associated with the at least one leading trending comment; generating a user comment in response to a receipt of a predetermined operation on the tag, content of the generated user comment matching the leading trending comment; and presenting the generated user comment in the live stream.” However, Bernstein discloses (¶0060) that the user interface provides the live video stream on the display, where (¶0062) a control/comment object/icon is displayed which enables the viewer to provide his/her comments as represented in Fig. 3B (element 320); (¶0063) when the user begins to write/edit the comment, the user is provided with the suggestions/tags to include in the comments as represented in Fig. 3C (element 340). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sicora and Shibata’s systems by presenting keywords/tags during user typing comments as taught by Bernstein so such features can encourage certain types of user activity which ultimately enhances user engagement with a video-based system.
Regarding claim 16, see rejection similar to claim 5.
Claims 7-8 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicora in view of Shibata, and further in view of US PG Pub 2017/0220612 to Crossley (“Crossley”).
Regarding claim 7, combination of Sicora and Shibata meets all the limitations of the claim except “The method of claim 6, wherein a relative location relationship of the first location and the second location depends on a comparison of a first number of user comments matching the first leading trending comment and a second number of user comments matching the second leading trending comment.” However, Crossley discloses (¶0055-¶0056) that the right panel of the monitor displays the top ten most currently viewed article, where at the point in time represented by FIG. 4A, the most viewed article was a women's-section article about road safety 430. By contrast, 24 second later, as shown in FIG. 4B, the most viewed article is a weather-section article about the death of a girl during a windstorm 432 as represented in Fig. 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sicora and Shibata’s systems by displaying first leading trending content and second leading trending content at the location depending on a comparison of the content as taught by Crossley in order to handle the enormous data volumes generated by the devices and to provide data-processing functionalities to use the volumes of data for analytics and real-time control (Crossley - ¶0005).
Regarding claim 8, “The method of claim 7, further comprising: in response to a change in a result of the comparison of the first number and the second number, adjusting the relative location relationship between the first location and the second location” Crossley discloses (¶0055-¶0056) that the right panel of the monitor displays the top ten most currently viewed article, where at the point in time represented by FIG. 4A, the most viewed article was a women's-section article about road safety 430. By contrast, 24 second later, as shown in FIG. 4B, the most viewed article is a weather-section article about the death of a girl during a windstorm 432 as represented in Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection similar to claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, see rejection similar to claim 8.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicora in view of Shibata and Crossley as applied to claims 7 and 18 above, and further in view of US Patent 10,798,043 to Yong (“Yong”).
Regarding claim 9, combination of Sicora, Shibata, and Crossley meets all the limitations of the claim except “The method of claim 7, wherein live streaming content of the first party and live streaming content of the second party in the live stream are at least partially of an adversarial nature, the first leading trending comment comprises a tendency comment for the first party, the second leading trending comment comprises a tendency comment for the second party, and wherein presenting the first leading trending comment and the second leading trending comment comprises: in response to a determination whether the number of user comments matching a third leading trending comment reaches a threshold number and the third leading trending comment does not have a tendency to the first party or to the second party, presenting the first leading trending comment and the second leading trending comment with a higher priority than a priority of the third leading trending comment.” However, Yong discloses (19:24-66; 24:63-25:30) that to generate the trending-topic interface, the social-networking system identifies one or more search results that match the trending topic. These search results are categorized into one or more search-result modules. Examples of search-result modules include “Photos & Videos,” “Top Posts,” “Posts from Friends and Groups,” “Public Posts,” and “Live.” In response to the search query from the first user, the social-networking system returns one or more search results comprising content objects (e.g., user posts, photos, videos, news articles) that match the search query. These search results may be organized and categorized into different search-result modules based on their type. For example, the search results for the search query “iceland” is organized into the following search-result modules: “Posts from Friends and Groups,” “Top Posts,” “Public Posts,” and “Live.” These categories may be ranked on a search results page according to various criteria (e.g., user interaction data). As an example, the module “Posts from Friends and Groups” is typically ranked higher than the module “Public Posts”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sicora, Shibata, and Crossley’s systems by prioritizing content associated with selected categories over non-associated content as taught by Yong in order to improve relevance and user engagement.
Regarding claim 20, see rejection similar to claim 9.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicora in view of US PG Pub 2023/0328330 to He (“He”).
Regarding claim 1, “A method for live streaming” reads on the social media platform and system providing a GUI for creating social media posts and tagging a product in a content stream (abstract) disclosed by Sicora and represented in Fig. 3. Sicora further discloses (45:39-67) that the post includes a live streaming.
As to “comprising: determining whether a number of the user comments received in the live stream reaches a threshold number, the user comments matching at least one leading trending comment that is preconfigured for the live stream…” Sicora discloses (29:62-30:8) that the system identifies if a threshold number of comments having been reached for the particular post; (9:32-48) the system further determines if the particular emojis that appear in the comments satisfies one or more criteria such as the particular emojis occurring at least a threshold number of times in the comments; (10:1-10; 68:27-56) particular keywords/hashtags/emojis (trending comment) appear in the comments as represented in Fig. 3; (71:2-4; 107:34-35) the server system maintains pre-determined cached trending information in the database.
As to “in response to the number of the matching user comments reaching the threshold number, presenting the at least one leading trending comment at a predetermined location on a user interface of the live stream” Sicora discloses (46:20-49; 47:40-45; 72:58-73:7) that the top emoji response to the post is displayed on the GUI as represented in Figs. 3 and 19; (75:20-30) the GUI display section can include other types of content other than emojis such as keywords, hashtags, or other tags.
Sicora meets all the limitations of the claim except “presenting, in a comment area on a user interface of a live stream, received user comments;…at least one leading trending comment…has not yet been presented on the user interface of the live stream.” However, He discloses (¶0043, ¶0048) that the popular comment content is displayed on top vs real-time comments which are displayed on the bottom as represented in Figs. 5 and 6; (¶0029) the newer comments provided by the user are added to the display according to the time as represented in Figs. 2-3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sicora’s system by presenting received user comments in one area and determining trending comment has not yet been presented on the interface as taught by He in order to clearly distinguish between user comments and trending content.
Regarding claim 2, The method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to a first duration of presenting the at least one leading trending comment exceeding a first threshold duration, hiding the at least one leading trending comment” Sicora (72:49-57; 73:8-36) that the comments/top emojis associated with the post dynamically changes/replaces based on the user comments as represented in Fig. 19.
Regarding claim 3, “The method of claim 1, wherein presenting the at least one leading trending comment comprises: in response to the number of the matching user comments reaching the threshold number, determining a second duration elapsed from a previous leading trending comment was displayed; and in response to the second duration exceeding a second threshold duration, presenting the at least one leading trending comment” Sicora (72:49-57; 73:8-36) that the comments/top emojis associated with the post dynamically changes/replaces based on the user comments as represented in Fig. 19.
Regarding claim 4, “The method of claim 1, further comprising: after presenting the at least one leading trending comment, presenting a real-time number of user comments matching the at least one leading trending comment on the user interface” Sicora discloses (46:20-49) that the comment section includes a summary that identifies one or more top responses based on number of instances each emoji appearing in the comments, a number of users using each emoji in the comments (counting users using a particular emoji instead of a number of times the particular emoji is used by each user), where the number of comments associated with the top emoji response is displayed as represented in Fig. 20F.
Regarding claim 6, “The method of claim 1, wherein live streaming content of the live stream relates to a first party and a second party, wherein presenting the at least one leading trending comment comprises: presenting a first leading trending comment associated with the first party at a first location on the user interface; and presenting a second leading trending comment associated with the second party at a second location on the user interface” Sicora discloses (72:27-32) that the metric can be, for example, a frequency with which each of the responses A-N (1868a-n) occur for each of the content elements A-C (1872-1876); other metrics are also possible, such as weighted frequencies, number of comments with an occurrence of each response, and/or other metrics as represented in Fig. 18; (147:6-34) the sentiment analytics section includes example histograms that compare a number of instances in which particular user responses are provided with regard to the posts; the responses can be, for example, different enumerated reactions that users can register to a content element (e.g., social post); the responses can also include reactions that users enter through comments for a content element and/or tagged product element, such as emojis, tags (e.g., hashtags), keywords, links, animated media elements (e.g., animaged GIFs), and/or other reactions; the post histogram for Response A indicates a number of instances of the Response A in posts and/or in reactions/comments to posts as represented in Fig. 42.
Regarding claim 11, see rejection similar to claim 1. Furthermore, Sicora discloses (157:43-57) that the computer program is stored on the computer readable medium with a processor that executes the program.
Regarding claim 12, see rejection similar to claim 1. Furthermore, Sicora discloses (157:43-57) that the computer program is stored on the computer readable medium with a processor that executes the program.
Regarding claim 13, see rejection similar to claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection similar to claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, see rejection similar to claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, see rejection similar to claim 6.
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 PINKAL R CHOKSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, BRIAN T PENDLETON can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/PINKAL R CHOKSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights