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
This Office action is made in response to Amendment, filed 10 August 2026 (“Reply”). Applicant has amended Claims 1 and 9-10 and cancelled Claims 4-7. As amended, Claims 1-3 and 8-10 are presented for examination.
In Office action of 11 May 2026 (“Office Action”):
The specification was objected to because the title of the invention was not descriptive
Claims 1-3, 7, and 9-10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li, US Pub. 2021/0314639 A1
Claims 4-6 and 8 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, US Pub. 2021/0314639 A1 in view of Barlaskar et al., US Pub. 2019/0163752 A1 (hereinafter Barlaskar)
Response to Arguments – Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as presented below.
Response to Arguments – Specification
Applicant has amended the title of the invention to be descriptive. Therefore, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
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.
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) 1-3 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, US Pub. 2021/0314639 A1 in view of Tang, US Pub. 2022/0417566 A1 (hereinafter Tang), and further in view of Chang et al., US Pub. 10721499 B2 (hereinafter Chang).
In regards to Claim 1, Li discloses a method for recommendation, executed by a server (Li: [0005], a method and an apparatus for recommending a live streaming room), comprising: detecting a change of an interaction parameter occurring by multiple viewers in a live stream (Li: [0048], where the number of bullet screen comments from all friends for each live streaming rooms may be sorted; a weighted score, for example for 0-50 bullet screen comments, a score of 10 is granted, for 50-100 bullet screen comments, a score of 20 is granted (a threshold-crossing change in an interaction metric); [0040]-[0042], where interaction data is confirmed to be aggregated from each associated user account (multiple viewers)); determining the change to have met a predetermined criterion (Li: [0046], where a candidate live streaming room satisfying a predetermined condition is selected as the target live streaming room and the predetermined condition includes a recommendation index ranked within a predetermined ranking range); and recommending the live stream to a user within a time period of the determining the change to have met the predetermined criterion through sending a recommending notification to the user (Li: [0049], [0053], Fig. 3 (blocks 303-307), where recommendation information is generated and displayed to the target once it is determined that the condition is satisfied). However, Li fails to explicitly disclose providing a notification to all viewers currently in the live stream.
Tang from a similar endeavor teaches providing a notification to all viewers currently in the live stream (Tang: [0037]-[0038], “sending trigger information to an anchor and an audience in the live room in response to detecting that amount of interaction data in the live room exceeds a preset threshold”, “the server may generate the trigger information and send the trigger information to the anchor and all the audiences in the live room”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li’s method of sending a recommending notification to further include Tang’s notification to all current viewers because it enhances engagement and awareness of increased room activity for all users that may be interested in the stream. However, Li in view of Tang fails to explicitly disclose determining a topic in the live stream; and determining the user to have input a content related to the topic in another live stream different from the live stream, wherein the content was input by the user within a predetermined time span before or after the determining the topic in the live stream.
Chang from a similar endeavor teaches determining a topic in the live stream (Chang: Col. 11, lines 33-36, “the system may change the icon…based on a topic identified in the content of comment”); and determining the user to have input a content related to the topic in another live stream different from the live stream, wherein the content was input by the user within a predetermined time span before or after the determining the topic in the live stream (Chang: Col. 16, lines 23-36, where the video discovery engine 174 may be in communication with the first social media platform and may identify topics the user has recently posted and may give any real-time video streams that include the topic in the comments (e.g., use the same or similar hashtag) a position of prominence in a list of suggested real-time video streams for that user…the video discovery engine 174 may determine a topic, e.g., related to one or more hashtags, that is trending, or in other words being used by many different users of the first social media platform. Any real-time video streams that also include comments with that topic may be listed in a position of prominence in a list of suggested real-time video streams for users of the interactive streaming application 132). 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 combined teachings of Li and Tang with Chang’s topic matching technique because it improves recommendations by correlating the candidate live stream’s topic with content the user has shown interest in elsewhere. Although Chang’s content is posted on a social media platform rather than a second live stream, the same concept applies: a user’s own interest in a topic shown through content they posted elsewhere signals relevance regardless of the specific venue where that content was posted. Therefore, applying this cross-platform matching to live streams specifically, rather than general social media posts, would have been a predictable result. Additionally, it would have been obvious to bound that matching to a predetermined time span. Li already uses defined time windows to assess user interaction and interest data (Li: [0042], “a predetermined time period”), so narrowing Chang’s broader “recently posted” matching into a defined window is an application of a known technique to achieve the predictable result of capturing current interest.
Regarding Claim 2, the combined teaching of Li, Tang, and Chang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the interaction parameter is related to a number of viewers in the live stream, a number of comments in the live stream, a number of emojis in the live stream, a number of gifts in the live stream, or a total value of gifts in the live stream (Li: [0042], where the interaction data includes at least…behavior data of the associated user account in each candidate live streaming room and interactive information between the associated user account and a host account of each candidate live streaming room; Li: [0063], where the behavior statistical database may further include the interaction data, such as the number of bullet screen comments issued in each live streaming room and the number of gifts for each live streaming room).
Regarding Claim 3, the combined teaching of Li, Tang, and Chang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the change is related to an increase rate change of the interaction parameter, and the determining the change to have met the predetermined criterion includes determining the change to have met a predetermined threshold (Li: [0100] and [0101], where at 303, the server determines a recommendation index of each candidate live streaming room based on interaction data of each associated user account, and at 304, the server selects a candidate live streaming room satisfying a predetermined condition as a target live streaming room).
Regarding Claim 8, the combined teaching of Li, Tang, and Chang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the notification is sent to the user when the user is in another live stream (Li: [0052], where the recommendation information on the target live streaming room may be displayed to the target user account in many ways).
In regards to Claim 9, Li discloses a system for recommendation, comprising one or a plurality of processors, wherein the one or plurality of processors execute a machine-readable instruction (Li: 0011], where the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to implement the method for recommending a live streaming room) to perform: all of the claimed limitations (see rejection of Claim 1 for details).
In regards to Claim 10, Li discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium including a program for recommendation, wherein the program causes one or a plurality of computers (Li: [0013], where a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a terminal, cause the terminal to perform the method for recommending a live streaming room) to execute: all of the claimed limitations (see rejection of Claim 1 for details).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chandrashekar et al., US Pub. 2023/0011793 A1 teach identifying the topic of a live stream based on a frame, and sending a notification to a user that the streamer is live
Bernstein et al., US Pub. 2020/0007941 A1 teach a live streaming method where notifications are sent to target viewers and engagement indications are received by the streaming application
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANNA CHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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 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.
/HANNA CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2421 /NATHAN J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2421
