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) 1-6 and 15-26 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (hereinafter ‘Yadav’, Pub. No. 2024/0314377) in view of Skrypniak (EP 3073741).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Yadav 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 content into a location at a video storage platform ([0012]; [0014]; [0015]; [0018]);
receive a request, from a post-production workgroup to record a copy of the content ([0016]; [0018]); and
in response to receiving the request, provide metadata that provides an indication of the location to the post-production workgroup in lieu of the copy of the content ([0037]-[040]).
On the other hand, Yadav does not explicitly teach to in real time, while ingesting a content stream, provide metadata.
However, in an analogous art, Skrypniak teaches a system that dynamically, in synchronization, ingesting content stream and provide content metadata (graphics/texts, timestamps, etc.) to dynamically modify the stream, while being recorded (Abstract; [0018]; [0019]; [0025]-[0032]).
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 Yadav’s invention with Skrypniak’s feature of synchronized ingesting and metadata content provision for the benefit of dynamically editing/timestamping content while being received to save processing time and avoiding delays.
Regarding claim 2, Yadav and Skrypniak teach 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; and in response to receiving the second request and in real time as the content is ingested (Skrypniak: [0018]; [0019]; [0025]-[0032]), provide the metadata that provides the indication of the location to the post-production workgroup in lieu of the second copy of the content (Yadav: [0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Yadav and Skrypniak teach 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 are different from one another (Yadav: [0013]; [0016]; [0018]; [0040]; [0053], where the system is intended, inherently, to work for different and multiple assets. Additionally, any PPH can request package submission for storage).
Regarding claim 22, Yadav and Skrypniak teach comprising:
receiving metric information associated with a post-production computing device from a plurality of metric sources (Yadav: package submission that includes MMC data, [0016]; [0037]; [0038]);
aggregating the metric 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 (Yadav: [0016]; [0018]; [0037]; [0038]).
Regarding claim 23, Yadav and Skrypniak teach comprising:
identifying a business unit name, sub function identifier, or both associated with use of the post-production computing device corresponding to the metric information; and associating the business unit name, sub function identifier, or both to the metric record (Yadav: [0016]; [0018]; [0033]; [0037]; [0038]).
Regarding claim 24, Yadav and Skrypniak 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 claim 25, Yadav and Skrypniak teach wherein the business unit name, sub function identifier, or both, indicates a particular show title of the content (Yadav: [0014]; [0016]; [0026]; [0033]).
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (hereinafter ‘Yadav’, Pub. No. 2024/0314377) in view of Skrypniak (EP 3073741) in further view of Hodecker (WO 2007/021279).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Yadav teaches a system (100, Fig. 1), comprising:
an ingest system (102, Fig. 1), comprising:
a video storage platform (122, Fig. 1);
an ingest gateway (102, Fig. 1); and
ingest content into a location at a video storage platform ([0012]; [0014]; [0015]; [0018]), by:
receive a request, from a post-production workgroup to record a copy of the content ([0016]; [0018]); and
in response to receiving the request, provide metadata that provides an indication of the location to the post-production workgroup in lieu of the copy of the content ([0037]-[040]).
On the other hand, Yadav does not explicitly teach Yadav does not explicitly teach to in real time, while ingesting a content stream, provide metadata.
However, in an analogous art, Skrypniak teaches a system that dynamically, in synchronization, ingesting content stream and provide content metadata (graphics/texts, timestamps, etc.) to dynamically modify the stream, while being recorded (Abstract; [0018]; [0019]; [0025]-[0032]).
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 Yadav’s invention with Skrypniak’s feature of synchronized ingesting and metadata content provision for the benefit of dynamically editing/timestamping content while being received to save processing time and avoiding delays.
Additionally, Yadav and Skrypniak do not explicitly teach
one or more ingest encoders;
receiving the content at the one or more ingest encoders in a first format;
encoding the content based on a transfer format via the one or more ingest encoders;
transferring the encoded content over a network to the ingest gateway;
receiving and encoding the content from the ingest gateway into an editing format suitable for editing via post-production workgroups;
storing the content 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 Yadav and Skrypniak’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.
Regarding claim 4, Yadav and Skrypniak teach all the limitations of the claim it depends on. On the other hand, they do not explicitly teach wherein:
the first source comprises an encoder associated with a broadcast control room, a broadcast satellite, or both; and the second source comprises a cloud provider, camera, phone, or any combination thereof.
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., page 4 lines 8-24; page 18 lines 11-15). 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; page 25 lines 13-23).
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 Yadav and Skrypniak’s invention with Hodecker’s feature of having source to be satellite, production studios, etc. for the benefit of obtaining content from different sources.
Regarding claim 16, Yadav, Skrypniak and Hodecker teach comprising:
receiving metric information associated with a post-production computing device from a plurality of metric sources (Yadav: package submission that includes MMC data, [0016]; [0037]; [0038]);
aggregating the metric 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 (Yadav: [0016]; [0018]; [0037]; [0038]).
Regarding claim 17, Yadav, Skrypniak and Hodecker 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 claim 18, Yadav, Skrypniak and Hodecker 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 claim 19, Yadav, Skrypniak and Hodecker teach wherein the business unit name, sub function identifier, or both, indicates a particular show title of the content (Yadav: [0014]; [0016]; [0026]; [0033]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (hereinafter ‘Yadav’, Pub. No. 2024/0314377) in view of Skrypniak (EP 3073741) in further view of Blair et al. (hereinafter ‘Blair’, WO 2023/194942).
Regarding claim 6, Yadav and Skrypniak teach all the limitations of the claim it depends on. On the other hand, they do not explicitly teach wherein:
the first format comprises a Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) 2110 format, a Serial Data Interface (SDI), or both; and 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 Yadav and Skrypniak’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) 20 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (hereinafter ‘Yadav’, Pub. No. 2024/0314377) in view of Skrypniak (EP 3073741) in view of Hodecker (WO 2007/021279) in further view of Blair et al. (hereinafter ‘Blair’, WO 2023/194942).
Regarding claims 20 and 26, Yadav, Skrypniak and Hodecker teach all the limitations of the claim it depends on. On the other hand, they do not explicitly teach wherein:
the first format comprises a Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) 2110 format, a Serial Data Interface (SDI), or both; and 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 Yadav, Skrypniak 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights