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 Date
This Office Action is in response to applicant's response filed on October 10, 2025
from Non-Final Office Action mailed out on May 21, 2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4 and 9-16 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the
Application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remark, filed 10/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 15-20 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wu et a. Pub. No.: US 12401851 (Hereinafter “Wu”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu et a. Pub. No.: US 12401851 (Hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding Claim 16, Wu disclose a playback device, comprising:
a display (see figs. 2 and 3);
a processor (see figs.10 and 11); and
a non-transitory computer-readable comprising computer readable code executable by the processor to (see fig. 11)
receive a stream of information comprising a presentation feed for an event (see fig.2 and col.5, lines 30-35);
obtain one or more live media streams based on one or more directives of the presentation feed (see col.2, lines 28-61); and
display the one or more live media streams on the display based on the one or more directives of the presentation feed (see col. 7, lines 30-53).
Regarding Claim 17, Wu discloses the playback device as discussed in the rejection of claim 16. Wu further discloses, wherein each of the one or more live media streams represent a different camera view of the event (see col.3, lines 35-44).
Regarding Claim 18, Wu discloses the playback device as discussed in the rejection of claim 16. Wu further discloses, wherein the presentation feed comprises dynamic metadata (see col.3, lines 60-65).
Regarding Claim 19, Wu discloses the playback device as discussed in the rejection of claim 16. Wu further discloses, wherein the stream of information includes one or more production selections related to the one or more live media streams (see fig.7).
Regarding Claim 20, Wu discloses the playback device as discussed in the rejection of claim 19. Wu further discloses, wherein the one or more production selections are rendered by the playback device (see fig.7).
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) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEYER Pub. No.: US 2018/0220166 (Hereinafter “Meyer”) in view of Wu et a. Pub. No.: US 12401851 (Hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding Claim 1, Meyer discloses a method for broadcasting an event (see abstract and fig.4B) comprising:
receiving one or more data feeds comprising audiovisual information of the event captured by one or more image sensors (see fig.4B and paragraph [0004]);
presenting, on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computing device, representations of each of the one or more data feeds of the event (see abstract and paragraph [0034]);
receiving one or more selections related to the one or more data feeds of the event from a user (see paragraph [0033]);
generating a presentation feed based on the received one or more selections (see paragraphs [0033]-[0034]); and
transmitting the presentation feed to one or more receivers (see paragraphs [0014] and [0047]).
Meyer fails to disclose:
wherein each of the one or more playback devices performs playback using the presentation feed and the one or more data feeds.
In analogous art, Wu teaches:
wherein each of the one or more playback devices performs playback using the presentation feed and the one or more data feeds (see fig.3 and col.7, lines 31-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Meyer with the
teaching as taught by Wu in order to improve the functioning of a computer-implemented method and a user (e.g., client) device by allowing a user to perceive a time synchronized switch across live feeds (e.g., live streams) without any action taken by the user to do so, for example, without manually adjusting a current location in the second stream (e.g., without manipulating a playback bar in the media player that keeps track of the current location in the duration of the stream).
Regarding Claim 2, Meyer in view of Wu disclose the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Meyer further discloses wherein the one or more data feeds are received in a first resolution (see paragraphs [0032] and [0034] - [0036]), the method further comprising: downscaling the one or more data feeds to a second resolution (see paragraphs [0032] and [0034] - [0036]).
Regarding Claim 3, Meyer in view of Wu disclose the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Wu further discloses wherein the presentation feed includes one or more directives for displaying the event on a display device (see fig.3 and col.7, lines 31-53).
Regarding Claim 4, Meyer in view of Wu disclose the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Wu further discloses wherein the presentation feed includes one or more directives to obtain at least one of the one or more data feeds, wherein each of the one or more directives includes a timestamp to process the one or more directive (see col.6, lines 33-53, col.6, lines 64-69 - col.7, lines 1-16).
Regarding Claim 5, Meyer in view of Wu disclose the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Meyer further discloses wherein the one or more image sensors are comprised in one or more camera devices (see figs. 4A-4B).
Regarding Claim 6, Meyer in view of Wu disclose the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Wu further discloses receiving, during the event, subsequent selections from the user of the computing device (see col.6, lines 33-53); and dynamically updating the presentation feed based on the subsequent selections (see col.9, lines 61-69 – col.10, lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 7, Meyer in view of Wu disclose the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 6. Wu further discloses wherein the presentation feed is dynamically updated in real-time (see col.9, lines 61-69 – col.10, lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 8, Meyer in view of Wu disclose the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 6. Wu further discloses wherein the subsequent selections include one or more of: modifying presentation of audiovisual information of the one or more data feeds, switching between a first and a second image sensor of the one or more image sensors, selecting one or more graphic overlays to be presented over the one or more data feeds, selecting more than one of the one or more data feeds to be presented simultaneously, and selecting at least one saved media item for display during the event (see figs. 3 and 7).
Claim(s) 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavelle Patent No. US 9270941 (Hereinafter “Lavelle”) in view of MEYER Pub. No.: US 2018/0220166 (Hereinafter “Meyer”) further in view of Wu et a. Pub. No.: US 12401851 (Hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding Claim 9, Lavelle discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code for content capture, the computer readable code executable by one or more processors to (see col.15, lines 64-67 – col. 16, lines 1-16)
cause a plurality of image sensors to capture live stream video data from a plurality of image sensors in a first resolution (see include, but not limited to col.3, lines 35-39);
downscale the captured live stream video data to a second resolution to obtain downscaled live stream video data (see col.3, lines 20-25);
generate, based on the downscaled live stream video data, a presentation feed (see col.12, lines 27-34)
Lavelle fails to disclose:
generate, a presentation feed comprising metadata associated with production directives for the captured live stream video data; and
transmit the presentation feed to one or more playback devices, wherein each of the one or more playback devices performs playback using the presentation feed and the one or more data feeds.
In analogous art, Wu teaches:
generate, a presentation feed comprising metadata associated with production directives for the captured live stream video data (see col.6, lines 33-53, col.6, lines 64-69 - col.7, lines 1-16); and
transmit the presentation feed to one or more playback devices, wherein each of the one or more playback devices performs playback using the presentation feed and the one or more data feeds (see fig.3 and col.7, lines 31-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-transitory computer readable medium of Meyer with the teaching as taught by Wu in order to improve the functioning of a computer-implemented method and a user (e.g., client) device by allowing a user to perceive a time synchronized switch across live feeds (e.g., live streams) without any action taken by the user to do so, for example, without manually adjusting a current location in the second stream (e.g., without manipulating a playback bar in the media player that keeps track of the current location in the duration of the stream).
Regarding Claim 10, Lavelle in view of Wu disclose the non-transitory computer readable as discussed in the rejection of claim 9. Lavelle further discloses wherein the first resolution is Ultra HD or 4K (see col. 10, lines 51-52).
Regarding Claim 11, Lavelle in view of Wu disclose the non-transitory computer readable as discussed in the rejection of claim 9. Wu further discloses wherein the presentation feed includes dynamic metadata (see col.9, lines 61-69 – col.10, lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 12, Lavelle in view of Wu disclose the non-transitory computer readable as discussed in the rejection of claim 9. Lavelle further discloses wherein the presentation feed includes static metadata (see col.10, lines 40-45).
Regarding Claim 13, Lavelle in view of Wu disclose the non-transitory computer readable as discussed in the rejection of claim 9. Meyer further discloses wherein the presentation feed is generated based on one or more selections related to one or more of the plurality of image sensors from a user selections (see col.9, lines 61-69 – col.10, lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 14, Lavelle in view of Wu disclose the non-transitory computer readable as discussed in the rejection of claim 9. Wu further discloses wherein the presentation feed is generated based on one or more selections related to one or more production selections related to the captured live stream video data (see col.9, lines 61-69 – col.10, lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 15, Lavelle in view of Wu disclose the non-transitory computer readable as discussed in the rejection of claim 14. Wu further discloses wherein the one or more production selections comprises one or more of scene transitions, pre-recorded video clips, animations, or a combination thereof (see col.8, lines 45-65).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alazar Tilahun whose telephone number is (571)270-5712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, From 9:00 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALAZAR TILAHUN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/A.T/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424