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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/8/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10, 12, 14-15, 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) in view of Mitchell (US PG Publication 2014/0300733).
Regarding Claim 1, Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) discloses a method … for video production (video highlight creator 380 [0061]) for a sports event (sporting event [0067]) based on an off-the-shelf (applicant admitted prior art) video camera (broadcasting device 102a includes a camera [0034]), the method comprising:
receiving, from an off-the-shelf camera, a footage of video image frames (video broadcast stream 364 [0062]) containing a scene of a sport event (sporting event [0067]);
uploading the footage to a computing device (video highlight creator 380 may obtain a video broadcast stream 364 [0062]).
Quennesson does not disclose, but Mitchell (US PG Publication 2014/0300733) teaches a method of processing a video feed (video analysis [0030]) … comprising:
analyzing, by the computing device (video analysis performed by the app [0030]; the app to calculate [0031]), at least a portion of the video image frames being captured (video [0028]) by the off-the-shelf camera ( any electronic device having a camera capable of recording videos, such as phone, tablet, computer, PDA [0017]) to evaluate a position ( calculate the camera's position relative to the court [0031]) of the off-the-shelf camera with respect to the playing field (sports court, Abstract); and
generating, only in a case that the off-the-shelf camera is improperly positioned (when the two circles are concentric, the camera is in the desired position [0032]; i.e., the two circles are non-concentric only when the camera is improperly positioned, inferred), instructions concerning the proper positioning of the off-the-shelf camera (guide the user to position the camera in the desired shooting angle, use a video overlay guiding grid 332… limiting the shooting angle(s) to known good ones [0032]) based on the analysis of the video frame images (detected reference points may be used by the app to calculate the camera's position relative to the court [0031]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to modify Quennesson to advise the operator on proper positioning of the camera, as in Mitchell, because Mitchell teaches that users/consumers desire a system that can automatically track the performance of athletes because manual camera adjustment is time consuming and subject to error [0004].
Regarding Claim 2, Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising generating the video production (create the video highlights 381 [0061]) by creating combinations and reductions of at least a portion the video frame images of the footage (determining the start and end of a video segment of the video highlights 381 [0070]; decide to include those video segments in the video highlights 381 [0073]).
Regarding Claim 3, Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising pushing the video production to a user or a group of users (interactive streaming application 432 may provide a selection of play highlights 482 on a user interface 470 [0075]).
Regarding Claim 5, Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) discloses the method of claim 1.
Quennesson does not disclose, but Mitchell (US PG Publication 2014/0300733) teaches further comprising:
alerting a user in the case of an improper position of the off-the-shelf camera with respect to the playing field (when the two circles are concentric, the camera is in the desired position [0032]; i.e., the two circles are non-concentric only when the camera is improperly positioned, inferred).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to modify Quennesson to advise the operator on proper positioning of the camera, as in Mitchell, because Mitchell teaches that users/consumers desire a system that can automatically track the performance of athletes because manual camera adjustment is time consuming and subject to error [0004].
Regarding Claim 10, Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving user tag data comprising tags of the footage made by the user (tags [0063]);
and generating the video production (video highlight creator 380 [0062] automatically create the video highlights 381 [0065]) at least partly based on the user tag data (based on engagements 312 [0065], which include tags [[0063]) so as to include in the video production portions of the footage that have been tagged by the user (which then can be used to automatically create the video highlights 381 [0065]).
Regarding Claim 12, Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising generating the video production to include a footage of a moving camera view of the sport event (create the video highlights 381 [0061]).
Regarding Claim 14, Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising generating the video production to include a highlight footage of the sport event (create the video highlights 381 [0061]).
Regarding Claim 15, Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising generating the video production to include a player highlight footage (create the video highlights 381 [0061]).
Regarding Claim 18, the claim is rejected on the grounds provide in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim is rejected on the grounds provide in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is rejected on the grounds provide in Claim 3.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) in view of Mitchell (US PG Publication 2014/0300733) and Baughman (US 20200092610 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising: uploading the footage during (video broadcast streams 364 shared by the interactive video broadcasting service 101 [0061]) the sporting event (sporting event [0067]).
Quennesson does not disclose, but Baughman (US 20200092610 A1) teaches streaming the video production substantially in real-time (the video editing server 60 receives a streaming video from a content provider 62 and edits the streaming video in real-time during distribution to one or more user computer devices 61 [0045]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to use the live-video-editing of Baughman in the highlight generator of Quennesson because Baughman teaches that it enables user-based customization of content by tailoring the edited feed based on user preferences, improving the viewing experience of all users [0018].
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) in view of Mitchell (US PG Publication 2014/0300733) and Fehr (US 20040006422 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) discloses the method of claim 1.
Quennesson does not disclose, but Fehr (US 20040006422 A1) teaches further comprising:
determining that the off-the-shelf camera is not recording the footage (camera 160 cannot detect its initialization cues 170 [0053]) during a predefined time interval (initialization routine [0053]) after poisoning of the off-the-shelf camera has been complete (initialization [0053]);
and generating the respective notification to the user (The message instructs the user to verify that the cameras 160 are turned on [0053]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to modify Quennesson to ensure that the cameras have been turned on because a person of ordinary skill in the art knows that a camera cannot capture images if it is not on.
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) in view of Mitchell (US PG Publication 2014/0300733) and Kennedy (US 20010031067 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) discloses the method of claim 1.
Quennesson does not disclose, but Kennedy (US 20010031067 A1) teaches further comprising:
receiving a sport event related information comprising at least one of a type of the sport event, a size of the playing field, a distance of the off-the-shelf camera from the playing field (distance from camera to soccer field center circle is known [0047]);
and generating a calibration data (compute the camera pan, tilt and image distance [0053]) based on at least a portion of the sport event related information (based on physical dimensions of the radius of the central circle r, and the distance D from camera stand to circle center in the field [0053]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to properly calibrate the pose of the camera of Quennesson as taught by Kennedy because Kennedy suggests that calibration results in superior tracking of the players and the ball being recorded by the imaging system [0007]-[0015], improving the automatic video complication of Quenneson.
Regarding Claim 9, Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) discloses the method of claim 8.
Quennesson does not disclose, but Kennedy (US 20010031067 A1) teaches further comprising calibrating the footage (compute the camera pan, tilt and image distance [0053]) based on points contained within the scene included in the video image frames of the footage (landmark tracking utilize features extracted from the projection of the center field circle on to the plane of the image [0033]), wherein the points comprise at least one of corners of the playing field and crossings of two field lines (circle with a radius of 9.15 m (10 yds) centered on the mid-point of the halfway line [0032]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to properly calibrate the pose of the camera of Quennesson as taught by Kennedy because Kennedy suggests that calibration results in superior tracking of the players and the ball being recorded by the imaging system [0007]-[0015], improving the automatic video complication of Quenneson.
Claims (s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) in view of Mitchell (US PG Publication 2014/0300733) and Van Dusen (US 20170353748 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) discloses the method of claim 1
Quennesson does not disclose, but Van Dusen (US 20170353748 A1) teaches further comprising optimizing the uploading of the footage to the computing device based on an available network bandwidth (optimize the image quality while maintaining the output video stream under the output bandwidth limit [0026]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to optimize the video quality of Quennesson given the bandwidth, as taught by Van Dusen, because it improves the quality of experience for the viewer who will be able to view the uninterrupted broadcast at the highest available quality.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) in view of Mitchell (US PG Publication 2014/0300733) and Asayama (US 11625816 B2).
Regarding Claim 13, Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising of a generating the video production to include a footage of the sport event or a portion thereof (create the video highlights 381 [0061]).
Quennesson does not disclose, but Asayama (US 11625816 B2) teaches wide panoramic view (the wide angle-of-view image generation section 28 generates the target wide angle-of-view image 50 according to the target intermediate image 48, which has been input in the process indicated in S405, and outputs the target wide angle-of-view image 50 (S406), Column 17 lines 25-30).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to include wide-angle images of Asayama in the sports broadcast of Quennesson because it enables viewing the whole stadium at once, pleasing viewers.
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) in view of Mitchell (US PG Publication 2014/0300733) and Levine (US 20100180297 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) discloses the method of claim 1.
Quennesson does not disclose, but Levine (US 20100180297 A1) teaches further comprising fusing graphic content into the video production (the template 132 may include instructions executable by the production engine 102 for generating a graphic display showing the information in the data stream. For example, the graphic display may take the form of a scoreboard [0045]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to include a graphic overlay of the score of the game in the broadcast of Quennesson because it enables viewers to see the score while watching the game, increasing the enjoyment of watching.
Regarding Claim 17, Quennesson (US 20180025078 A1) discloses the method of claim 16.
Quennesson does not disclose, but Levine (US 20100180297 A1) teaches wherein the graphic content comprises at least one of: a scoreboard or advertisement content (the template 132 may include instructions executable by the production engine 102 for generating a graphic display showing the information in the data stream. For example, the graphic display may take the form of a scoreboard [0045]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to include a graphic overlay of the score of the game in the broadcast of Quennesson because it enables viewers to see the score while watching the game, increasing the enjoyment of watching.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 10/8/2025 have been considered. Applicant’s remarks regarding the amended limitations are moot in light of the new reference relied upon in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170238055 A1
KR 102184379 B1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADAN E HAGHANI whose telephone number is (571)270-5631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
/SHADAN E HAGHANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights