Obviousness

I am unable to perform an obviousness analysis of US patent 11134316 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the following reasons:

1. Missing Claims: The provided patent text does not include the legally binding claims of US11134316. While "Embodiment" and "Aspect" descriptions are present, these describe features of the invention rather than defining the scope of protection as claims do. An obviousness analysis critically depends on the specific language of each independent and dependent claim to compare it against prior art.
2. Missing Specific Prior Art References: The "Prior art keywords" ("video," "user," "media," "interactive," "layer") and the "Prior art date" (2016-12-28) are provided, but no specific prior art documents (e.g., patent numbers, publication identifiers, academic papers) are listed. To conduct an obviousness analysis, specific prior art references are necessary to identify elements taught by each reference and to formulate a motivation to combine them.

Without the actual claims of the patent and specific prior art references, it is not possible to identify combinations of prior art that would render the claims obvious, nor to explain the motivation a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had to combine them.