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(s) February 18, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4, 6, 8-9, 12, 16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination Strandby et al. (US 2021/0321123), Harp et al. (US 2011/0055862), and Pugel (US 2010/0045875).
Regarding claim 1, Strandby teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a first decoding device, a first encoded video stream from a first encoded stream source ([0021], “A plurality of video surveillance cameras 110a, 110b, 110c send video data to the recording server 150.” [0023], “Video data is streamed from the recording server to the operator client 120 depending on which live streams or recorded streams are selected by an operator.” [0027], “The cameras 110a, 110b, 110c are configured to capture a video and encode the captured video by means of a video encoder.” Fig. 1);
decoding the first encoded video stream using a first decoder of the first decoding device to produce a first decoded video stream ([0032], “The recording server 150 or the operator client 120 will include a CPU, and video decoding can be carried out by software running on the CPU.”);
receiving, by the first decoding device, a second encoded video stream from a second encoded stream source ([0021], “A plurality of video surveillance cameras 110a, 110b, 110c send video data to the recording server 150.” [0027], “The cameras 110a, 110b, 110c are configured to capture a video and encode the captured video by means of a video encoder.” Fig. 1);
transmitting the second encoded video stream from a network interface to a second decoding device for decoding by a second decoder of the second decoding device ([0029], “In the system of FIG. 1, decoding of the video streams must be undertaken by several components of the system.” [0053], “For a process already running on a current decoder, step S500 determines whether load balancing should be attempted. If yes, then the load balancing steps described above are carried out on the process already running, which may result in the process being moved to another device, as described in more detail below with reference to FIG. 5.” [0054], “the purpose of this step is to look at any restrictions placed on which decoders can be used for the particular process, look at what decoders are available on the system and the rules applied in the load balancing process and determine whether it might be possible to move the decoding process to another device.”),
receiving a second decoded video stream from the second decoding device via the network interface, wherein the second decoded video stream is decoded from the second encoded video stream ([0029], “In the system of FIG. 1, decoding of the video streams must be undertaken by several components of the system. In particular, the operator client 120 must decode video data for display to the operator. The operator can select multiple cameras for display simultaneously on multiple screens or multiple windows in a single screen.” [0053], “For a process already running on a current decoder, step S500 determines whether load balancing should be attempted. If yes, then the load balancing steps described above are carried out on the process already running, which may result in the process being moved to another device, as described in more detail below with reference to FIG. 5.”); and
displaying the first decoded video stream decoded by the first decoding device and the second decoded video stream decoded by the second decoding device simultaneously on a user interface ([0029], “In particular, the operator client 120 must decode video data for display to the operator. The operator can select multiple cameras for display simultaneously on multiple screens or multiple windows in a single screen.” Fig. 1).
Strandby does not expressly teach that the decoding of the first encoded video stream is in response to the first encoded stream source being primary. While Strandby teaches moving a decoding process to another device ([0054]), Strandby does not expressly teach transmitting the second encoded video stream from a network interface of the first decoding device to the second decoding device. Strandby also does not expressly teach wherein the second decoded video stream is decoded from the second encoded video stream transmitted by the first decoding device. Strandby also does not expressly teach selecting the second encoded stream source as primary; and decoding the second encoded video stream at the first decoding device, and decoding the first encoded video stream at the second decoded device, in response to the second encoded stream source being selected as primary.
Harp teaches transmitting a video stream from a network interface of a device to a second device ([0011], “The residential gateway further includes a transmitter to transmit the media content wirelessly to the set-top box device when the authorization module determines that the set-top box device is authorized to receive the media content.” [0015], “The residential gateway 102 may transmit the media content 122 to the set-top box device 110 via the wireless transmission 124 when the set-top box device 110 is authorized to receive the media content 122 at a location 118 of the set-top box device 110.”).
In view of Harp’s teaching, 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 combination to include transmitting the second encoded video stream from a network interface of the first decoding device to the second decoding device, and wherein the second decoded video stream is decoded from the second encoded video stream transmitted by the first decoding device. The modification would serve to enhance the efficiency of system decoding processes.
The combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach that the decoding of the first encoded video stream is in response to the first encoded stream source being primary. The combination also does not expressly teach selecting the second encoded stream source as primary; and decoding the second encoded video stream at the first decoding device, and decoding the first encoded video stream at the second decoded device, in response to the second encoded stream source being selected as primary.
Pugel teaches:
decoding a first video stream is in response to the first stream source being primary ([0019], “According to a first operational state of the controller, the controller tunes the first tuner to a primary channel and the second tuner to a secondary channel. In a further aspect of the invention, the controller directs a primary channel output of the first tuner to a main decoder and a secondary channel output of the second tuner to a PIP decoder. In this way the first tuner provides primary channel output to the main decoder and the second tuner provides secondary channel output to the PIP decoder.”);
selecting a second stream source as primary; and decoding the second video stream at the first decoding device, and decoding the first video stream at the second device, in response to the second stream source being selected as primary ([0020], “In a second operational state of the controller, the controller tunes the first tuner to the secondary channel and the second tuner to the primary channel. In a further aspect of the invention, the controller directs the secondary channel output of the first tuner to the PIP decoder and the primary channel output of the second tuner to the main decoder. In this way the first tuner provides secondary channel output to the PIP decoder and the second tuner provides primary channel output to the main decoder. By controlling signal paths in relation to operational states, the system produces a superior combination of main image quality and PIP image quality when the signal of the secondary channel would otherwise be inadequate to provide an optimal PIP image.”).
In view of Pugel’s teaching, 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 combination to include decoding of the first encoded video stream is in response to the first encoded stream source being primary, selecting the second encoded stream source as primary; and decoding the second encoded video stream at the first decoding device, and decoding the first encoded video stream at the second decoded device, in response to the second encoded stream source being selected as primary. The modification would serve to enhance system functionality and flexibility with respect to the decoding of multiple content streams.
Regarding claim 4, the combination further teaches wherein the first encoded stream source comprises a video camera configured to transmit the first encoded video stream over a wireless local area network (Strandby: [0021], “A plurality of video surveillance cameras 110a, 110b, 110c send video data to the recording server 150.” [0023], “Video data is streamed from the recording server to the operator client 120 depending on which live streams or recorded streams are selected by an operator.” [0027], “The cameras 110a, 110b, 110c are configured to capture a video and encode the captured video by means of a video encoder.” Fig. 1. Harp: [0011], “The residential gateway further includes a transmitter to transmit the media content wirelessly to the set-top box device when the authorization module determines that the set-top box device is authorized to receive the media content.”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination further teaches further comprising transmitting one of the first decoded video stream and the second decoded video stream via the network interface in response to a user selection received via the user interface (Strandby: [0029], “In particular, the operator client 120 must decode video data for display to the operator. The operator can select multiple cameras for display simultaneously on multiple screens or multiple windows in a single screen.” [0030], “Furthermore, the operator can change the selection of recorded or live camera feeds for display whenever they choose,….”).
Regarding claim 8, Strandby teaches a video decoding device comprising:
an input configured to receive a first encoded video stream from a first encoded stream source and a second encoded video stream from a second encoded stream source ([0021], “A plurality of video surveillance cameras 110a, 110b, 110c send video data to the recording server 150.” [0023], “Video data is streamed from the recording server to the operator client 120 depending on which live streams or recorded streams are selected by an operator.” [0027], “The cameras 110a, 110b, 110c are configured to capture a video and encode the captured video by means of a video encoder.” Fig. 1);
a first decoder configured to generate a first decoded video stream by decoding the first encoded video stream ([0032], “The recording server 150 or the operator client 120 will include a CPU, and video decoding can be carried out by software running on the CPU.”);
wherein a second video decoding device is configured to decode the second encoded video stream to generate a second decoded video stream ([0029], “In the system of FIG. 1, decoding of the video streams must be undertaken by several components of the system. In particular, the operator client 120 must decode video data for display to the operator. The operator can select multiple cameras for display simultaneously on multiple screens or multiple windows in a single screen.” [0053], “For a process already running on a current decoder, step S500 determines whether load balancing should be attempted. If yes, then the load balancing steps described above are carried out on the process already running, which may result in the process being moved to another device, as described in more detail below with reference to FIG. 5.”);
a processor ([0032], “The recording server 150 or the operator client 120 will include a CPU….”)
configured to responsively receive from the second video decoding device the second decoded video stream ([0029], “In the system of FIG. 1, decoding of the video streams must be undertaken by several components of the system. In particular, the operator client 120 must decode video data for display to the operator. The operator can select multiple cameras for display simultaneously on multiple screens or multiple windows in a single screen.” [0053], “For a process already running on a current decoder, step S500 determines whether load balancing should be attempted. If yes, then the load balancing steps described above are carried out on the process already running, which may result in the process being moved to another device, as described in more detail below with reference to FIG. 5.”), and
configured to transmit the first decoded video stream and the second decoded video stream to a user interface for simultaneous display ([0029], “In particular, the operator client 120 must decode video data for display to the operator. The operator can select multiple cameras for display simultaneously on multiple screens or multiple windows in a single screen.” Fig. 1).
Strandby does not expressly teach the input configured to receive the first encoded video stream directly from the first encoded stream source and the second encoded video stream directly from the second encoded stream source. Strandby does not expressly teach decoding the first encoded video stream in response to the first encoded video stream being primary. Strandby also does not expressly teach a network interface configured to communicate with a second video decoding device over a network. Strandby also does not expressly teach wherein the second video decoding device is configured to stop decoding the second encoded video stream in response to the second encoded video stream being selected as primary, and wherein the first decoder is configured to begin decoding the second encoded video stream in response to the second encoded video stream being selected as primary. Strandby also does not expressly teach that the processor is configured to transmit the second encoded video stream to the second video decoding device via the network interface.
Harp teaches an input configured to receive video stream directly from a media server ([0014], “The media content server 108 may store media content 122 and send the media content 122 to the residential gateway 102 via the network 106. The media content 122 may include audio content, video content, video-on-demand content, other media content, or any combination thereof. For example, the video content may include television program content, movie content, video-on-demand content, and pay-per-view content.”). Harp also teaches a network interface configured to communicate with a second device over a network, and transmitting the a video stream to the second device via the network interface ([0011], “The residential gateway further includes a transmitter to transmit the media content wirelessly to the set-top box device when the authorization module determines that the set-top box device is authorized to receive the media content.” [0015], “The residential gateway 102 may transmit the media content 122 to the set-top box device 110 via the wireless transmission 124 when the set-top box device 110 is authorized to receive the media content 122 at a location 118 of the set-top box device 110.”).
In view of Harp’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Strandby wherein the input is configured to receive the first encoded video stream directly from the first camera and the second encoded video stream directly from the second camera, to include a network interface configured to communicate with a second video decoding device over a network, and such that the processor is configured to transmit the second encoded video stream to the second video decoding device via the network interface. The modification would serve to enhance the efficiency of system decoding processes.
The combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach decoding the first encoded video stream in response to the first encoded video stream being primary. The combination also does not expressly teach wherein the second video decoding device is configured to stop decoding the second encoded video stream in response to the second encoded video stream being selected as primary, and wherein the first decoder is configured to begin decoding the second encoded video stream in response to the second encoded video stream being selected as primary.
Pugel teaches:
decoding a firstvideo stream is in response to the first stream source being primary ([0019], “According to a first operational state of the controller, the controller tunes the first tuner to a primary channel and the second tuner to a secondary channel. In a further aspect of the invention, the controller directs a primary channel output of the first tuner to a main decoder and a secondary channel output of the second tuner to a PIP decoder. In this way the first tuner provides primary channel output to the main decoder and the second tuner provides secondary channel output to the PIP decoder.”);
wherein a second video decoding device is configured to stop decoding a second video stream in response to the second video stream being selected as primary, and wherein a first decoder is configured to begin decoding the second video stream in response to the second video stream being selected as primary ([0020], “In a second operational state of the controller, the controller tunes the first tuner to the secondary channel and the second tuner to the primary channel. In a further aspect of the invention, the controller directs the secondary channel output of the first tuner to the PIP decoder and the primary channel output of the second tuner to the main decoder. In this way the first tuner provides secondary channel output to the PIP decoder and the second tuner provides primary channel output to the main decoder. By controlling signal paths in relation to operational states, the system produces a superior combination of main image quality and PIP image quality when the signal of the secondary channel would otherwise be inadequate to provide an optimal PIP image.”).
In view of Pugel’s teaching, 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 combination to include decoding the first encoded video stream in response to the first encoded video stream being primary, wherein the second video decoding device is configured to stop decoding the second encoded video stream in response to the second encoded video stream being selected as primary, and wherein the first decoder is configured to begin decoding the second encoded video stream in response to the second encoded video stream being selected as primary. The modification would serve to enhance system functionality and flexibility with respect to the decoding of multiple content streams.
Regarding claim 9, the combination further teaches wherein the input is a wireless network interface and the first encoded video stream is received via the wireless network interface (Harp: [0011], “The residential gateway further includes a transmitter to transmit the media content wirelessly to the set-top box device when the authorization module determines that the set-top box device is authorized to receive the media content.” [0015], “The residential gateway 102 may transmit the media content 122 to the set-top box device 110 via the wireless transmission 124 when the set-top box device 110 is authorized to receive the media content 122 at a location 118 of the set-top box device 110.”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination further teaches further comprising a transmitter for transmitting the first decoded video stream to the user interface in response to a selection from the user interface (Strandby: [0029], “In particular, the operator client 120 must decode video data for display to the operator. The operator can select multiple cameras for display simultaneously on multiple screens or multiple windows in a single screen.” [0030], “Furthermore, the operator can change the selection of recorded or live camera feeds for display whenever they choose,….”).
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC §103 is similarly applied to claim 16.
Claim(s) 2, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Strandby, Harp, Pugel, and Arrobo Vidal et al. (US 2019/0223194, hereinafter “Arrobo”).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 17, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein the first decoded video stream and the second decoded video stream are transmitted via a wireless transmission channel to the user interface.
Arrobo teaches a video stream is transmitted via a wireless transmission channel to a user interface ([0047], “wireless communication device 102 may be capable of communicating content, data, information and/or signals via a wireless medium (WM) 103.” [0078], “device 102 may be configured to stream the video content from the video provider 150 to display device 140, for example, over WM 103.”).
In view of Arrobo’s teaching, 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 combination wherein the first decoded video stream and the second decoded video stream are transmitted via a wireless transmission channel to the user interface. The modification would serve to facilitate distribution and viewing of content for users.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 14, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Strandby, Harp, Pugel, and Cormack et al. (US 2005/0111819).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach including decoding a third encoded video stream using the first decoder in response to the first decoder having ceased decoding of the second encoded video stream.
Cormack teaches decoding a video stream using a decoder in response to the decoder having ceased decoding of another video stream ([0039], “Once resource manager 202 determines that the user has changed to a new channel, at processing block 304, resource manager 202 determines which tuner to assign to the channel's media stream. Here, a tuner may already be assigned to the channel's media stream if the User previously tuned to this channel. If not, there may be an available tuner that resource manager 202 assigns to the channel's media stream, or in the case where there is no available tuner (all of tuners 204, 206, 208 and 210 have been assigned to a channel's media stream), resource manager 202 must take a tuner away from a channel's media stream and give the tuner to the new channel's media stream.” Fig. 3).
In view of Cormack’s teaching, 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 combination to include decoding a third encoded video stream using the first decoder in response to the first decoder having ceased decoding of the second encoded video stream. The modification would serve to improve system efficiency.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach determining an availability of the first decoder in response to receiving the first encoded video stream.
Cormack teaches determining an availability of a decoder in response to receiving a video stream ([0039], “Once resource manager 202 determines that the user has changed to a new channel, at processing block 304, resource manager 202 determines which tuner to assign to the channel's media stream. Here, a tuner may already be assigned to the channel's media stream if the User previously tuned to this channel. If not, there may be an available tuner that resource manager 202 assigns to the channel's media stream, or in the case where there is no available tuner (all of tuners 204, 206, 208 and 210 have been assigned to a channel's media stream), resource manager 202 must take a tuner away from a channel's media stream and give the tuner to the new channel's media stream.” Fig. 3).
In view of Cormack’s teaching, 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 combination to include determining an availability of the first decoder in response to receiving the first encoded video stream. By identifying decoders available for processing, the modification would serve to improve the user experience by allowing time-shifted access to multiple programs.
Regarding claims 14 and 18, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein the first decoder is operative to decode a third encoded video stream in response to the first decoder becoming available.
Cormack teaches wherein a decoder is operative to decode a video stream in response to the decoder becoming available ([0039], “Once resource manager 202 determines that the user has changed to a new channel, at processing block 304, resource manager 202 determines which tuner to assign to the channel's media stream. Here, a tuner may already be assigned to the channel's media stream if the User previously tuned to this channel. If not, there may be an available tuner that resource manager 202 assigns to the channel's media stream, or in the case where there is no available tuner (all of tuners 204, 206, 208 and 210 have been assigned to a channel's media stream), resource manager 202 must take a tuner away from a channel's media stream and give the tuner to the new channel's media stream.” Fig. 3).
In view of Cormack’s teaching, 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 combination wherein the first decoder is operative to decode a third encoded video stream in response to the first decoder becoming available. By identifying decoders available for processing, the modification would serve to improve the user experience by allowing time-shifted access to multiple programs.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strandby, Harp, Pugel, and Ellis et al. (US 2008/0066111).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein the second decoded video stream has a lower resolution than the first decoded video stream in response to the first encoded stream source being selected as primary, and then the second decoded video stream has a higher resolution than the first decoded video stream in response to the second encoded stream source being selected as primary.
Ellis teaches wherein a second video stream has a lower resolution than a first video stream in response to the first stream source being selected as primary, and then the second video stream has a higher resolution than the first video stream in response to the second stream source being selected as primary ([0058], “For example, PIP windows may be dynamically resized by the user in real-time. In addition, graphics circuitry 210 may support the conversion from one output format or resolution to another output format or resolution. For example, a high-definition (HD) video output may be converted to a standard-definition (SD) output and vice versa.” [0080], “The active window may be the main window, PIP window, POP window, or either side window.”).
In view of Ellis’s teaching, 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 combination to wherein the second decoded video stream has a lower resolution than the first decoded video stream in response to the first encoded stream source being selected as primary, and then the second decoded video stream has a higher resolution than the first decoded video stream in response to the second encoded stream source being selected as primary. The modification would serve to enable high resolution presentation of user-preferred content. The modification would enhance the user experience.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Strandby, Harp, Pugel, and Manville et al. (US 2017/0345459).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein the second decoded video stream has a lower resolution than the first decoded video stream.
Manville teaches wherein a video stream has a lower resolution ([0048], “Furthermore, optionally as part of step 204, online content management system 112 can select a resolution for the low resolution version of the digital video based on one or more capabilities of client device 102. For example, upon determining that client device 102 is a mobile phone, online content management system 112 can select a compression amount or a resolution and then generate the low resolution version of the digital video at the selected resolution. Additional or alternative capabilities of client device upon which online content management system can select a resolution for the low resolution version of the digital video include a screen size, a processor, a graphics card, a version of video edit system 110, or other capabilities of client device.”).
In view of Manville’s teaching, 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 combination wherein the second decoded video stream has a lower resolution than the first decoded video stream. The modification would serve to reduce unnecessary bandwidth and processing usage.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Strandby, Harp, Pugel, and Jeong et al. (US 2013/0034146).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the limitations specified above, and teaches wherein the first encoded video stream is captured streamed wirelessly to the input (Harp: [0011], “The residential gateway further includes a transmitter to transmit the media content wirelessly to the set-top box device when the authorization module determines that the set-top box device is authorized to receive the media content.” [0015], “The residential gateway 102 may transmit the media content 122 to the set-top box device 110 via the wireless transmission 124 when the set-top box device 110 is authorized to receive the media content 122 at a location 118 of the set-top box device 110.”).
However, the combination does not expressly teach wherein the first encoded video stream is captured by the first encoded stream source of a smartphone.
Jeong teaches a video stream is captured by a smartphone ([0034], “FIG. 1 conceptually illustrates such a sending device 100 and a receiving device 105 that communicate through a network 110. In some embodiments, the devices 100 and 105 may be any sort of electronic device or system capable of encoding and/or decoding the encoded content (e.g., a laptop computer, desktop computer, tablet computer, smart phone, etc.). The sending device 100 includes a transceiver 115, an encoder and feature selector 120, and a set of encoders 125. The receiving device 105 includes a transceiver 130, a decoder selector 135, and a set of decoders 140. In some embodiments, some or all of these modules (e.g., the encoder and feature selector 120 and decoder selector 135) are part of videoconferencing applications operating on the devices.” [0059], [0078], “some devices (e.g., smart phones, some computers, some tablets) have built-in cameras,….”).
In view of Jeong’s teaching, 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 combination wherein the first encoded video stream is captured by the first encoded stream source of a smartphone. The modification would enhance system flexibility by enabling use of various client devices. The modification would thereby enhance the user experience.
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination as presently combined does not expressly teach wherein the first encoded video stream is received by the first decoding device directly from a video camera configured to transmit the first encoded video stream over a wireless local area network.
Harp teaches an wherein a video stream is received by a device directly from a media server, and transmitting the video stream over a wireless local area network ([0014], “The media content server 108 may store media content 122 and send the media content 122 to the residential gateway 102 via the network 106. The media content 122 may include audio content, video content, video-on-demand content, other media content, or any combination thereof. For example, the video content may include television program content, movie content, video-on-demand content, and pay-per-view content.” [0011], “The residential gateway further includes a transmitter to transmit the media content wirelessly to the set-top box device when the authorization module determines that the set-top box device is authorized to receive the media content.” [0015], “The residential gateway 102 may transmit the media content 122 to the set-top box device 110 via the wireless transmission 124 when the set-top box device 110 is authorized to receive the media content 122 at a location 118 of the set-top box device 110.”).
In view of Jeong’s teaching, 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 combination wherein the first encoded video stream is received by the first decoding device directly from a video camera configured to transmit the first encoded video stream over a wireless local area network. The modification would serve to enhance the efficiency of system decoding processes.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Strandby, Harp, Pugel, and Gavade et al. (US 2015/0229989).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach further teaches further comprising: an encoder configured to encode the first decoded video stream and generate a re-encoded video stream; and a transmitter configured to transmit the re-encoded video stream.
Gavade teaches an encoder configured to encode a video stream and generate an encoded video stream, and a transmitter configured to transmit the encoded video stream ([0014], “Techniques described herein may provide for the encoding of content, such as audio and/or video content, using encoders that are installed at encoding devices of customers of a telecommunications provider. In one implementation, customers of a telecommunication provider may use set-top boxes (STBs) to provide television channels to a television. The STBs may include encoders that may be used to encode content such as video. Content that should be encoded may be delivered to the STBs over a wired network (e.g., over a fiber optic network), encoded by the STBs, and transmitted back to the network for eventual storage at content delivery servers. Users, such as users associated with computing devices connected to the wired network or to other networks (e.g., a cellular wireless network) may later request the encoded content from the content delivery servers.”).
In view of Gavade’s teaching, 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 combination to include an encoder configured to encode the first decoded video stream and generate a re-encoded video stream; and a transmitter configured to transmit the re-encoded video stream. The modification would enable a means for transcoding content into different formats. The modification would serve to improve system interoperability.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Strandby, Harp, Pugel, Jeong, and Cormack.
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach transmitting a third encoded video stream to the second decoding device in response to a control signal from the user interface.
Cormack teaches transmitting a video stream to a decoding device in response to a control signal from a user ([0039], “Once resource manager 202 determines that the user has changed to a new channel, at processing block 304, resource manager 202 determines which tuner to assign to the channel's media stream. Here, a tuner may already be assigned to the channel's media stream if the User previously tuned to this channel. If not, there may be an available tuner that resource manager 202 assigns to the channel's media stream, or in the case where there is no available tuner (all of tuners 204, 206, 208 and 210 have been assigned to a channel's media stream), resource manager 202 must take a tuner away from a channel's media stream and give the tuner to the new channel's media stream.” Fig. 3).
In view of Cormack’s teaching, 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 combination transmitting a third encoded video stream to the second decoding device in response to a control signal from the user interface. By identifying decoders available for processing, the modification would serve to improve the user experience by allowing time-shifted access to multiple programs.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL R TELAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5940. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at (571) 272-4195. 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.
/MICHAEL R TELAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426