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, see Remarks pages 1-3, filed 07/09/2026, with respect to Yadav and Skrypniak have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Final Rejection of claims 1-6 and 15-26 has been withdrawn.
Examiner does not fully agree with applicant’s arguments; however, in order to expedite prosecution, new ground(s) of rejection is presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haot et al. (hereinafter ‘Haot’, WO2006/096713).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Haot teaches a method (with corresponding tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium), comprising computer- readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to:
ingest, in real time, a content stream into a location at a video storage platform ([0048]; [0050]; [0055], which as the content/stream is being recorded an instant edit can be performed by producers. In order to do so, different cache sections are utilized along with repository 103, Fig. 6);
receive a request from a post-production workgroup to record a copy of the content stream (any proxy editor player 128 on any device 127 can request to edit the content being recorded even if not fully recorded, [0026]; [0036]-[0039]); and
in response to receiving the request and in real time as the content stream is ingested, provide metadata that provides an indication of the location to the post-production workgroup in lieu of the copy of the content stream (in response to the edit request, while the content is being recorded, a temporary index that represents/indicates the cache/video portion of the content being edited is transmitted to the proxy editor on the developers/producers devices, [0017]-[0019]; [0069]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 2, Haot teaches comprising computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to:
receive a second request, from a second post-production workgroup to record a second copy of the content stream ([0046]; [0054]-[0056];, where the stream being recorded can be accessed by different producers asynchronously, [0073]; [0076]; [0077]); and
in response to receiving the second request and in real time as the content stream is ingested, provide the metadata that provides the indication of the location to the post-production workgroup in lieu of the second copy of the content stream (in response to the edit request, while the content is being recorded, a temporary index that represents/indicates the cache/video portion of the content being edited is transmitted to the proxy editor on the developers/producers devices, [0017]-[0019]; [0069]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 3, Haot teaches comprising computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to:
ingest a second content stream into a second location at the video storage platform; wherein a first source for the content stream and a second source of the second content stream are different from one another (servers 105 and 129, Fig. 1; are used for ingesting content into the platform, where the content can be received from different sources, 107, 109, 111, Fig.1).
Regarding claim 4, Haot teaches wherein:
the first source comprises an encoder associated with a broadcast control room, a broadcast satellite, or both (sources, 107, 109, 111, Fig.1; i.e. [0055]); and
the second source comprises a cloud provider, camera, phone, or any combination thereof (content can be uploaded from users’ devices, [0041]; [0048]).
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) 5, 15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haot et al. (hereinafter ‘Haot’, WO2006/096713) in view of Hodecker (WO 2007/021279).
Regarding claims 5, 15 and 21, Haot teaches a system (Media services platform 101, Fig. 1), comprising:
an ingest system (video servers 105 and 129, Fig. 1; are used for ingesting content into the platform; sources, 107, 109, 111, Fig.1; i.e. [0055] and user devices that allow ingesting/uploading content, [0041]; [0048]), comprising:
a video storage platform (103 and intelligent cache system 601, Fig. 6);
one or more ingest encoders (301, 303, 305 server modules Fig. 3; 503, Fig. 5A; [0056]-[0059]);
an ingest gateway (servers 105, 129 serve as gateways since they interface between the ingesting sources and the repository, user interfaces, and the rest of the elements for delivery); and
one or more outbound encoders (edited content transcoders, 207, Fig. 2; [0034]; [0038]; [0050]),
wherein the ingest system is configured to:
ingest, in real time, a content stream into a location at a video storage platform ([0048]; [0050]; [0055], which as the content/stream is being recorded an instant edit can be performed by producers. In order to do so, different cache sections are utilized along with repository 103, Fig. 6), by:
receiving the content stream at the one or more ingest encoders in a first format; encoding the content stream based on a transfer format via the one or more ingest encoders to generate an encoded content ([0057]-[0059]);
receive a request from a post-production workgroup to record a copy of the content stream (any proxy editor player 128 on any device 127 can request to edit the content being recorded even if not fully recorded, [0026]; [0036]-[0039]); and
in response to receiving the request and in real time as the content stream is ingested, provide metadata that provides an indication of the location to the post-production workgroup in lieu of the copy of the content stream (in response to the edit request, while the content is being recorded, a temporary index that represents/indicates the cache/video portion of the content being edited is transmitted to the proxy editor on the developers/producers devices, [0017]-[0019]; [0069]-[0077]).
On the other hand, Haot does not explicitly teach
transferring the encoded content over a network to the ingest gateway;
receiving and re-encoding the encoded content from the ingest gateway into an editing format suitable for editing via post-production workgroups to generate the content stream in the editing format; and
storing the content stream in the editing format at a location of the video storage platform.
However, in an analogous art, Hodecker teaches a system for ingestion, encoding and further distribution on the required format. Hodecker teaches that the content is recorded from different sources (cameras at events, production studios, etc.). The content can be transmitted on a first format (i.e. raw) and then encoded (with corresponding encoders) to a different required second format. Once the content is encoded, it’s transmitted to CDN (distribution networks) (page 4 lines 1-24; page 14 lines 1-6; page 18 line 16 to page 21 line 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haot’s invention with Hodecker’s feature of receiving, encoding the ingested content to a second format for distribution for the benefit of interconnection and compatibility of video content.
Claim(s) 6 , 20 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haot et al. (hereinafter ‘Haot’, WO2006/096713) in view of view of Hodecker (WO 2007/021279) in further view of Blair et al. (hereinafter ‘Blair’, WO 2023/194942).
Regarding claims 6, 20 and 26, Haot and Hodecker teach wherein the first format comprises a Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) 2110 format (Haot: [0058]), a Serial Data Interface (SDI) (Haot: [0058]), or both.
On the other hand, they do not explicitly teach the transfer format comprises a Secure Reliable Transport (SRT) format.
However, in an analogous art, Blair teaches a system of media processing and streaming. The system teaches converting the video feeds from professional feeds (SDI) to RTSP protocol (page 37 lines 10-17). Communication between elements is perform through any number of transmission protocols such as RTP, RTSP, SRT, SST, etc. (page 18 lines 1-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haot and Hodecker’s invention with Blair’s feature of using SDI and SRT formats for the benefit of using standard protocols to allow communication among different and multiple types of devices.
Claim(s) 16-19 and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haot et al. (hereinafter ‘Haot’, WO2006/096713) in view of Hodecker (WO 2007/021279) in further view of Yadav et al. (hereinafter ‘Yadav’, Pub. No. 2024/0314377).
Regarding claims 16 and 22, although Haot and Hodecker teach aggregating metadata to the edited content (Haot: [0034]; [0038]; [0042]; [0046]), they do not explicitly teach
a monitoring system, configured to: receive metric information associated with a post-production computing device from a plurality of metric sources;
aggregate the metric information from the plurality of metric sources; and
generate and store a metric record for the post-production computing device, comprising the aggregated metric information from the plurality of metric sources.
However, in an analogous art, Yadav teaches a video submission package system for going live on a video platform (Abstract). The platform receives package submission from post-production house entity where the package submission includes metadata including availability resource, etc. (202, 206, Fig. 2). Using said data, platform determines an error through an error operation (208, 210, Fig. 2). The data includes metric information associated with a post-production computing device from a plurality of metric sources ([0016]; [0018]; [0037]; [0038]). The system aggregates information from the plurality of metric sources; and generating and storing a metric record for the post-production computing device, comprising the aggregated metric information from the plurality of metric sources ([0016]; [0018]; [0037]; [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haot and Hodecker’s invention with Yadav’s feature of monitoring and aggregating metric data sources to the edited content for the benefit of monitoring and finding errors at the same time of providing metadata that helps the final user equipment.
Regarding claims 17 and 23, Haot, Hodecker and Yadav teach wherein the monitoring system is configured to:
identify a business unit name, sub function identifier, or both associated with use of the post-production computing device corresponding to the metric information; and associate the business unit name, sub function identifier, or both to the metric record (Yadav: [0016]; [0018]; [0033]; [0037]; [0038]).
Regarding claims 18 and 24, Haot, Hodecker and Yadav teach wherein the monitoring system is configured to generate a graphical user interface (GUI) that provides an indication of:
a bill back amount for the business unit name, sub function identifier, or both; resource utilization metrics for the business unit name, sub function identifier, or both; or both (Yadav: [0040]; [0061]).
Regarding claims 19 and 25, Haot, Hodecker and Yadav teach wherein the business unit name, sub function identifier, or both, indicates a particular show title of the content (Yadav: [0014]; [0016]; [0026]; [0033]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR S PARRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Mostly 10-6PM.
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 571-2721915. 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.
/OMAR S PARRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
