DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 8, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection necessitated due to claim amendments.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 15-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balagurunathan (U.S. Patent No. 11,586,344), and further in view of Xu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0242695).
Regarding claim 1, Balagurunathan teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, at the first computing device, content data, wherein the content data comprises a plurality of content feeds (col. 13 ll. 47-63, col. 18 ll. 44-49, ll. 63-65,, col. 19 ll. 1-19 mixing system receiving various feeds from different sources);
transmitting the content data from the first computing device to the second computing device in real time (col. 3 ll. 52-57, col. 10 ll. 41-46, col. 18 ll. 63-col. 19 ll. 1, col. 20 ll. 4-18);
receiving, at the first computing device and from the second computing device, a cue comprising: an indication of a subset of the content data, the subset of the content data indicating one or more content feeds to be included in a broadcast feed, and a time at which the broadcast feed is to begin including the subset of the content data (col. 3 ll. 57-col. 4 ll. 59, col. 5 ll. 1-22, col. 9 ll. 7-12, col. 20 ll. 56-col. 21 ll. 64, col. 24 ll. 8-27, col. 27 ll. 10-23 receiving broadcast plan/ schedule);
based on the received cue, the first computing device selecting the indicated subset of the content data for inclusion in a broadcast feed at the indicated time; transmitting the broadcast feed to one or more third computing devices associated with content consumers (col. 5 ll. 23-47, col. 6 ll. 19-23, ll. 46-49, ll. 61-65, col. 7 ll. 24-29, col. 9 ll. 12-18, col. 10 ll. 46-53, col. 13 ll. 33-36, col. 18 ll. 49-56, col. 19 ll. 54-64, col. 20 ll. 25-33, col. 22 ll. 8-58, col. 23 ll. 10-58, col. 25 ll. 5-col. 26 ll. 44, col. 28 ll. 24-33 transmitting to listeners according to broadcast plan/ schedule); and
dynamically, based on one or more operator inputs received at the second computing device during a live event, updating the cue such that the first computing device adjusts the broadcast feed to include a different subset of the content data and initiates said adjustment at a time indicated by the updated cue (col. 28 ll. 15-col. 29 ll. 32 interaction received from the creator and broadcast plan reconfigured for future delivery, “At box 645, data for presenting the content of the media program is transmitted to the computer systems of the listeners.”, and then “If an interaction with the user interface was received by the media system at box 650, however, then the process advances to box 660, where the media system reconfigures the media program in accordance with the interaction. For example, the media system may identify media content to be presented to listeners in accordance with the broadcast plan at a next period, or to identify sources of the media content.” (emphasis added)) (col. 3 ll. 11-col. 30 ll. 48 for complete details).
Balagurunathan does not teach synchronizing timing of a first computing device at a first geographic location and a second computing device at a second geographic location.
However, in the similar field, Xu teaches synchronizing timing of a first computing device at a first geographic location and a second computing device at a second geographic location (Paragraphs 0055-0058).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Balagurunathan to include synchronizing timing of a first computing device at a first geographic location and a second computing device at a second geographic location as taught by Xu in order to keep “the timers for all stations in the same infrastructure network synchronized” (Xu, Paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 6, Balagurunathan teaches receiving, from the second computing device and at the first computing device, a feed comprising content data for inclusion in the broadcast feed (col. 7 ll. 56-col. 8 ll. 28).
Regarding claim 7, Balagurunathan teaches the first computing device comprises a portable computing device (Figs. 1E, 1F, 1G item 115) configured for use at an event space, and wherein the second computing device (Figs. 1E, 1F, 1G item 182-1,….,182-n) is disposed remote from the event space.
Regarding claim 8, Balagurunathan teaches the content data included in the broadcast feed remains unchanged until a cue indicating a change to the broadcast feed is received (Figs. 1B-1D the program stays until time changed by the user). Xu teaches the content data included in the broadcast feed remains unchanged until a cue indicating a change to the broadcast feed is received (Paragraphs 0046, 0048 program stays same until changed by user).
Regarding claim 10, Balagurunathan teaches a system, comprising:
at least one device including a hardware processor; the system being configured to perform operations (Fig. 2A, 2B, col. 10 ll. 60-col. 18 ll. 6), comprising:
receiving, at the first computing device, content data, wherein the content data comprises a plurality of content feeds (col. 13 ll. 47-63, col. 18 ll. 44-49, ll. 63-65,, col. 19 ll. 1-19 mixing system receiving various feeds from different sources);
transmitting the content data from the first computing device to the second computing device in real time (col. 3 ll. 52-57, col. 10 ll. 41-46, col. 18 ll. 63-col. 19 ll. 1, col. 20 ll. 4-18);
receiving, from the second computing device, a cue comprising: an indication of a subset of the content data, the subset of the content data indicating one or more content feeds to be included in a broadcast feed, and a time at which the broadcast feed is to begin including the subset of the content data (col. 3 ll. 57-col. 4 ll. 59, col. 5 ll. 1-22, col. 9 ll. 7-12, col. 20 ll. 56-col. 21 ll. 64, col. 24 ll. 8-27, col. 27 ll. 10-23 receiving broadcast plan/ schedule);
based on the received cue, selecting the indicated subset of the content data for inclusion in a broadcast feed at the indicated time; transmitting the broadcast feed to one or more third computing devices associated with content consumers (col. 5 ll. 23-47, col. 6 ll. 19-23, ll. 46-49, ll. 61-65, col. 7 ll. 24-29, col. 9 ll. 12-18, col. 10 ll. 46-53, col. 13 ll. 33-36, col. 18 ll. 49-56, col. 19 ll. 54-64, col. 20 ll. 25-33, col. 22 ll. 8-58, col. 23 ll. 10-58, col. 25 ll. 5-col. 26 ll. 44, col. 28 ll. 24-33 transmitting to listeners according to broadcast plan/ schedule); and
dynamically, based on one or more operator inputs received at the second computing device during a live event, updating the cue such that the first computing device adjusts the broadcast feed to include a different subset of the content data and initiates said adjustment at a time indicated by the updated cue (col. 28 ll. 15-col. 29 ll. 32 interaction received from the creator and broadcast plan reconfigured for future delivery, “At box 645, data for presenting the content of the media program is transmitted to the computer systems of the listeners.”, and then “If an interaction with the user interface was received by the media system at box 650, however, then the process advances to box 660, where the media system reconfigures the media program in accordance with the interaction. For example, the media system may identify media content to be presented to listeners in accordance with the broadcast plan at a next period, or to identify sources of the media content.” (emphasis added)) (col. 3 ll. 11-col. 30 ll. 48 for complete details).
Balagurunathan does not teach synchronizing timing of a first computing device at a first geographic location and a second computing device at a second geographic location.
However, in the similar field, Xu teaches synchronizing timing of a first computing device at a first geographic location and a second computing device at a second geographic location (Paragraphs 0055-0058).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Balagurunathan to include synchronizing timing of a first computing device at a first geographic location and a second computing device at a second geographic location as taught by Xu in order to keep “the timers for all stations in the same infrastructure network synchronized” (Xu, Paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 15, Balagurunathan teaches receiving, from the second computing device and at the first computing device, a feed comprising content data for inclusion in the broadcast feed (col. 7 ll. 56-col. 8 ll. 28).
Regarding claim 16, Balagurunathan teaches the first computing device comprises a portable computing device (Figs. 1E, 1F, 1G item 115) configured for use at an event space, and wherein the second computing device (Figs. 1E, 1F, 1G item 182-1,….,182-n) is disposed remote from the event space.
Regarding claim 17, Balagurunathan teaches the content data included in the broadcast feed remains unchanged until a cue indicating a change to the broadcast feed is received (Figs. 1B-1D the program stays until time changed by the user). Xu teaches the content data included in the broadcast feed remains unchanged until a cue indicating a change to the broadcast feed is received (Paragraphs 0046, 0048 program stays same until changed by user).
Regarding claim 19, Balagurunathan teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, causes performance of operations (col. 10 ll. 60-col. 18 ll. 6) comprising:
receiving, at the first computing device, content data, wherein the content data comprises a plurality of content feeds (col. 13 ll. 47-63, col. 18 ll. 44-49, ll. 63-65,, col. 19 ll. 1-19 mixing system receiving various feeds from different sources);
transmitting the content data from the first computing device to the second computing device in real time (col. 3 ll. 52-57, col. 10 ll. 41-46, col. 18 ll. 63-col. 19 ll. 1, col. 20 ll. 4-18);
receiving, from the second computing device, a cue comprising: an indication of a subset of the content data, the subset of the content data indicating one or more content feeds to be included in a broadcast feed, and a time at which the broadcast feed is to begin including the subset of the content data (col. 3 ll. 57-col. 4 ll. 59, col. 5 ll. 1-22, col. 9 ll. 7-12, col. 20 ll. 56-col. 21 ll. 64, col. 24 ll. 8-27, col. 27 ll. 10-23 receiving broadcast plan/ schedule);
based on the received cue, selecting the indicated subset of the content data for inclusion in a broadcast feed at the indicated time; transmitting the broadcast feed to one or more third computing devices associated with content consumers (col. 5 ll. 23-47, col. 6 ll. 19-23, ll. 46-49, ll. 61-65, col. 7 ll. 24-29, col. 9 ll. 12-18, col. 10 ll. 46-53, col. 13 ll. 33-36, col. 18 ll. 49-56, col. 19 ll. 54-64, col. 20 ll. 25-33, col. 22 ll. 8-58, col. 23 ll. 10-58, col. 25 ll. 5-col. 26 ll. 44, col. 28 ll. 24-33 transmitting to listeners according to broadcast plan/ schedule); and
dynamically, based on one or more operator inputs received at the second computing device during a live event, updating the cue such that the first computing device adjusts the broadcast feed to include a different subset of the content data and initiates said adjustment at a time indicated by the updated cue (col. 28 ll. 15-col. 29 ll. 32 interaction received from the creator and broadcast plan reconfigured for future delivery, “At box 645, data for presenting the content of the media program is transmitted to the computer systems of the listeners.”, and then “If an interaction with the user interface was received by the media system at box 650, however, then the process advances to box 660, where the media system reconfigures the media program in accordance with the interaction. For example, the media system may identify media content to be presented to listeners in accordance with the broadcast plan at a next period, or to identify sources of the media content.” (emphasis added)) (col. 3 ll. 11-col. 30 ll. 48 for complete details).
Balagurunathan does not teach synchronizing timing of a first computing device at a first geographic location and a second computing device at a second geographic location.
However, in the similar field, Xu teaches synchronizing timing of a first computing device at a first geographic location and a second computing device at a second geographic location (Paragraphs 0055-0058).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Balagurunathan to include synchronizing timing of a first computing device at a first geographic location and a second computing device at a second geographic location as taught by Xu in order to keep “the timers for all stations in the same infrastructure network synchronized” (Xu, Paragraph 0055).
Claims 9, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balagurunathan and Xu as applied to claims 1, 10 above, and further in view of Sheen (U.S. Patent No. 11,758,214).
Regarding claim 9, Balagurunathan and Xu do not teach synchronizing the timing of the first computing device at the first geographic location and the second computing device at the second geographic location comprises using one or more of Network time protocol or Precision Time Protocol to synchronize the timing of the first computing device and the second computing device.
However, in the similar field, Sheen teaches synchronizing the timing of the first computing device at the first geographic location and the second computing device at the second geographic location comprises using one or more of Network time protocol or Precision Time Protocol to synchronize the timing of the first computing device and the second computing device (col. 2 ll. 47-col. 3 ll. 4, col. 3 ll. 51-col. 4 ll. 5, col. 26 ll. 57-col. 27 ll. 1, col. 27 ll. 14-18, col. 29 ll. 7-40).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Balagurunathan and Xu to include synchronizing the timing of the first computing device at the first geographic location and the second computing device at the second geographic location comprises using one or more of Network time protocol or Precision Time Protocol to synchronize the timing of the first computing device and the second computing device as taught by Sheen in order to enable “the local clock at each playback device in the playback group to (i) have the same absolute time and/or (ii) operate at the same clock rate” (Sheen, col. 2 ll. 49-52).
Regarding claim 18, Balagurunathan and Xu do not teach synchronizing the timing of the first computing device at the first geographic location and the second computing device at the second geographic location comprises using one or more of Network time protocol or Precision Time Protocol to synchronize the timing of the first computing device and the second computing device.
However, in the similar field, Sheen teaches synchronizing the timing of the first computing device at the first geographic location and the second computing device at the second geographic location comprises using one or more of Network time protocol or Precision Time Protocol to synchronize the timing of the first computing device and the second computing device (col. 2 ll. 47-col. 3 ll. 4, col. 3 ll. 51-col. 4 ll. 5, col. 26 ll. 57-col. 27 ll. 1, col. 27 ll. 14-18, col. 29 ll. 7-40).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Balagurunathan and Xu to include synchronizing the timing of the first computing device at the first geographic location and the second computing device at the second geographic location comprises using one or more of Network time protocol or Precision Time Protocol to synchronize the timing of the first computing device and the second computing device as taught by Sheen in order to enable “the local clock at each playback device in the playback group to (i) have the same absolute time and/or (ii) operate at the same clock rate” (Sheen, col. 2 ll. 49-52).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 11-14, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The above objection(s) is (are) based on the claim(s) as presently set forth in its (their) totality. It should not be interpreted as indicating that amended claim(s) broadly reciting certain limitations would be allowable. A more detailed reason(s) for allowance may be set forth in a subsequent Notice of Allowance if and when all claims in the application are put into a condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEMANT PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8620. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached at 571-272-7547. 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.
HEMANT PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2694
/HEMANT S PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694