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 .
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.
Claims 8-11, 13, 15, 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh, US 2014/0229998 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Oh discloses: a method for multi-screen video display, comprising:
detecting, by a master playing terminal, whether all the slave playing terminals and the
master playing terminal have decoded and stored a preset number of video frames (See figure 6, steps 1651-1671, “Ready Signal” follows sending of content (video frames) to each display group in step 1640.);
after detecting that all the slave playing terminals and the master playing terminal have
decoded and stored the preset number of video frames, notifying, by the master playing terminal,
all the slave playing terminals to start playing (See steps 1653—1673 in figure 6, Sync Master send sync signal to clients for rendering.”).
Regarding claim 9, Oh discloses: the method for multi-screen video display according to claim 8, further comprising:
sending, by the master playing terminal, information of a frame to be displayed on the master playing terminal to all slave playing terminals (See step 1620, “assigning a role for each display” comprises assigning frames to each display based on frame location ), to enable that each of all the slave playing terminals determines whether its own playing progress is synchronized with a playing progress of the master playing terminal according to the information of the frame to be displayed on the master playing terminal.
Regarding claim 10, Oh discloses: the method for multi-screen video display according to claim 8, wherein,
detecting, by the master playing terminal, whether all the slave playing terminals have decoded and stored the preset number of video frames by detecting whether the master playing terminal has received ready signals of all the slave playing terminals (See figure 6, steps 1651-1671, “Sync Master waits Display Ready Signal”);
notifying, by the master playing terminal, all the slave playing terminals to start playing by
sending a playing initiation signal to all the slave playing terminals (See steps 1653—1673 in figure 16, Sync Master send sync signal to clients for rendering.”).
Regarding claim 13, Oh discloses: the method for multi-screen video display according to claim 8, before the method, further comprising:
establishing, by the master playing terminal, communication connections with all the slave
playing terminals (See “registration process” in step 1610 of figure 16.).
Regarding claim 15, Oh discloses: a playing terminal, comprising a memory (See memory 513 in figure 18.), and a processor coupled to the memory (See processor 511 in figure 18.), wherein the processor is configured to perform steps of the method for multi-screen video display according to claim 8 based on instructions stored in the memory (See description in [0117].).
Regarding claim 16, Oh discloses: a non-volatile storage medium, stored thereon a computer
program, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, the method for
multi-screen video display according to claim 8 is implemented (See [0121]).
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 1, 4, 6-7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, US 2024/0298059 A1, in view of Oh, US 2014/0229998 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Cho A method for multi-screen video display, comprising:
receiving, by the slave playing terminal, a playing start notification from the master playing terminal (See “playback delay time list” as disclosed in [0118], and in step 650 of figure 4. The master device transmits this list), and starting playing video frames;
receiving, by the slave playing terminal, information of a frame to be displayed on the master playing terminal, and calculating an adaptive synchronization threshold range according to the information of the frame to be displayed on the master playing terminal (See [0063], which discloses, and [0069], calculating a playback delay time correction amount, for each slave device, based on an average value of the playback delay time differences.);
comparing, by the slave playing terminal, a presentation time stamp of a frame to be displayed on the slave playing terminal with the calculated adaptive synchronization threshold range, to determine whether a playing progress of the slave playing terminal is synchronize with a playing progress of the master playing terminal (See [0069], which discloses determining whether each device’s local clock playback delay time correction amount is outside of playback duty cycle, the delay correction amount is corrected to fall within the duty cycle, as shown in figure 2.).
Cho does not disclose: decoding and storing, by a slave playing terminal, a preset number of video frames, and sending a ready signal to a master playing terminal
However, this limitation is disclosed in an analogous art by Oh, directed to distributed rendering synchronization control for display clustering:
decoding and storing, by a slave playing terminal, a preset number of video frames, and sending a ready signal to a master playing terminal (See step 1640 in figure 16, which discloses a super master feeds content (i.e. a predetermined number of frames) to each display group. Subsequently, at step 1651, “super/sync master waits for display ready signal from clients in the same content group.” Descriptions are found in [0105]-[0106] for these steps.);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate into Cho the steps of sending frame content from the master device to a slave device, and subsequently waiting for a ready signal from a slave device, as disclosed in Oh, in order to facilitate synchronization between the slave devices and master device, and to ensure the display timings are synced. Incorporating this feature would have merely entailed combining the elements respectively disclosed in Cho and in Oh, without changing their respective functions or intended use, and the resulting combination would have had predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.I.A
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Cho in view of Oh discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 4. This combination, specifically Cho, further discloses: the method for multi-screen video display according to claim 1, wherein, when the presentation time stamp of the frame to be displayed on the slave playing terminal is outside the calculated adaptive synchronization threshold range, the slave playing terminal adjusts its own playing progress (See [0069], which discloses: “It can be seen that when the playback delay time correction amount 235 of the third
salve local clock 230 is out of the playback duty cycle, the playback delay time correction amount 235 is adjusted to be included in the playback duty cycle range.”), or, the slave playing terminal displays or sends alarm information.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cho in view of Oh discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 6. This combination, specifically Cho, further discloses: a playing terminal, comprising a memory, and a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to perform acts of the method for multi-screen video display according to claim 1 based on instructions stored in the memory (See [0124], “The " ... unit" may also be configured to be included in an addressable storage medium and may be configured to reproduce one or more processors.”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Cho in view of Oh discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 7. This combination, specifically Cho, further discloses: a non-volatile storage medium, stored thereon a computer program, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor (See [0125], which discloses “the foregoing functions may be performed
by a processor, such as a microprocessor, a controller, a micro-controller, and an ASIC, according to software or a program code coded”), the method for multi-screen video display according to claim 1 is implemented.
Regarding claim 17, Cho discloses: a method for multi-screen video display, comprising:
sending, by the master playing terminal, information of a frame to be displayed on the
master playing terminal to all the slave playing terminals;
receiving, by each slave playing terminal, the information of the frame to be displayed on
the master playing terminal, and calculating an adaptive synchronization threshold range according to the information of the frame to be displayed on the master playing terminal (See [0063], which discloses, and [0069], calculating a playback delay time correction amount, for each slave device, based on an average value of the playback delay time differences); and
comparing a presentation time stamp of its own frame to be displayed with the calculated adaptive synchronization threshold range, to determine whether its own playing progress is synchronized with a playing progress of the master playing terminal (See [0069], which discloses determining whether each device’s local clock playback delay time correction amount is outside of playback duty cycle, the delay correction amount is corrected to fall within the duty cycle, as shown in figure 2.).
Cho does not disclose: detecting, by a master playing terminal, whether all slave playing terminals and the master playing terminal have decoded and stored a preset number of video frames;
after detecting that all the slave playing terminals and the master playing terminal have
decoded and stored the preset number of video frames, notifying, by the master playing terminal,
all the slave playing terminals to start playing (See steps 1653—1673 in figure 6, Sync Master send sync signal to clients for rendering.”);
However, these limitations are disclosed in an analogous art by Oh, directed to distributed rendering synchronization control for display clustering:
decoding and storing, by a slave playing terminal, a preset number of video frames, and sending a ready signal to a master playing terminal (See step 1640 in figure 16, which discloses a super master feeds content (i.e. a predetermined number of frames) to each display group. Subsequently, at step 1651, “super/sync master waits for display ready signal from clients in the same content group.” Descriptions are found in [0105]-[0106] for these steps.);
after detecting that all the slave playing terminals and the master playing terminal have
decoded and stored the preset number of video frames, notifying, by the master playing terminal,
all the slave playing terminals to start playing (See steps 1653—1673 in figure 6, Sync Master send sync signal to clients for rendering.”);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate into Cho the steps of sending frame content from the master device to a slave device, and subsequently waiting for a ready signal from a slave device, as disclosed in Oh, in order to facilitate synchronization between the slave devices and master device, and to ensure the display timings are synced. Incorporating this feature would have merely entailed combining the elements respectively disclosed in Cho and in Oh, without changing their respective functions or intended use, and the resulting combination would have had predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.I.A.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, in view of Oh, in view of Ali, US 2015/095512 A1.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Cho in view of Oh discloses the limitations of claim 4, upon which claim 5 depends. This combination does not disclose: the method for multi-screen video display according to claim 4, wherein, adjusting, by the slave playing terminal, its own playing progress when the presentation time stamp of the frame to be displayed on the slave playing terminal is outside the calculated adaptive synchronization threshold range, comprises:
when the presentation time stamp of the frame to be displayed on the slave playing terminal is less than a minimum value in the adaptive synchronization threshold range, playing, by the slave playing terminal, a video frame picture of a skipped frame;
when the presentation time stamp of the frame to be displayed on the slave playing terminal is greater than a maximum value in the adaptive synchronization threshold range, maintaining, by the slave playing terminal, a video frame picture currently being played.
However, Ali discloses these limitations in an analogous art directed to network synchronized media playback. Ali discloses in [0034] that a NetSync control application monitors synchronization drift between frame time stamps of a group of slave media players and a master media player. When media playback is slower for a given slave media player than for the master media player, the slave media player may be instructed to skip a frame using a “skip forward” command. When media playback is faster at a client than at the master media player, the client device may be instructed to repeat a frame, using a “skip backward” command, i.e. “maintain a video frame picture currently being played.”
While Cho discloses correcting a timestamp information based on a playback time correction amount sent from a master device, as disclosed in [0063]-[0064], it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to further incorporate the feature disclosed in Ali of performing a correction using “skip forward” and “skip backward” commands to correct synchronization drift. Doing so would have entailed only combining the elements respectively disclosed in the prior art with no changes to their respective functions, and the results would have been predictable for one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.I.A.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh, in view of Epstein, US 2021/0344993 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Oh discloses the limitations of claim 8, upon which depends claim 12. Oh does not disclose: the method for multi-screen video display according to claim 8, when the frame to be displayed on the master playing terminal is an I frame, the method further comprises:
sending, by the master playing terminal, a connection confirmation signal to all the slave playing terminals, and receiving feedback confirmation signals from all the slave playing terminals.
However, these limitations are disclosed in an analogous art by Epstein. See [0047], which discloses with respect to figure synchronizing media playback between first remote device 130 and second remote device 132, in which, according to figure 6, “As shown in FIG. 6, in step 610, data indicating a point in a play of media content (e.g., frame number, I-frame, time stamp, embedded tic mark, etc.) is received on a first remote media play device 130.” This is a confirmation signal of receipt of an I-frame.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the feature, disclosed in Epstein, of providing a confirmation receipt signal upon receipt of an I-frame, in order to ensure session synchronization of media devices; it was known in the art that, because I-frames often mark the beginning of a new scene or sequence of media data, and because they contain data for prediction of subsequent frames, I-frame receipt is particularly important for ensuring session synchronization. See Epstein [0040].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Oh, in view Wang, US 2021/0044778 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Oh discloses the limitations of claim 8, upon which depends claim 14. Oh does not disclose: the method for multi-screen video display according to claim 8, wherein
when a video currently being played ends, the method further comprises:
sending, by the master playing terminal, a playing termination signal to all the slave playing terminals, and receiving feedback termination signals from all the slave playing terminals.
See [0133] in Wang, disclosing, “If all of the acquired video frames are submitted, the process 800 may proceed to 860 to terminate the display control process 800.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the feature, disclosed in Wang, of sending a display control termination signal to all slave playing devices, upon submission of all acquired video frames, as disclosed in Wang, in order to end display control when needed. Incorporating this feature would have merely entailed combining the prior art elements respectively disclosed in Wang and in Oh, without changing their respective functioning or intended use. See MPEP 2143.01.A.
Claims 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh, in view of Cho.
Regarding claim 18, Oh discloses: system for multi-screen video display, comprising a plurality of playing terminals, wherein the playing terminals comprise one master playing terminal
according to claim 15 and one or more slave playing terminals, wherein:
Oh does not disclose: a slave playing terminal is configured to receive the information of the frame to be displayed on the master playing terminal, and calculate an adaptive synchronization threshold range according to the information of the frame to be displayed on the master playing terminal, and compare a presentation time stamp of its own frame to be displayed with the calculated
adaptive synchronization threshold range, to determine whether its own playing progress is
synchronized with a playing progress of the master playing terminal.
However, Cho discloses in an analogous art directed to display synchronization performing a delay correction amount a slave playing terminal is configured to receive the information of the frame to be displayed on the master playing terminal (See step 530 in figure 5, “Receive playback delay time list for each playback duty cycle.), and calculate an adaptive synchronization threshold range according to the information of the frame to be displayed on the master playing terminal, and compare a presentation time stamp of its own frame to be displayed with the calculated adaptive synchronization threshold range, to determine whether its own playing progress is synchronized with a playing progress of the master playing terminal (See [0069], which discloses determining whether each device’s local clock playback delay time correction amount is outside of playback duty cycle, and in response to the local playback delay time correction amount falling outside of the duty cycle it is corrected to fall within the duty cycle, as shown in figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate a display time correction mechanism for each slave terminal, into the display synchronizations system of Oh, as disclosed in Cho, in order to account for clock drift, and varying and limited machine resource specifications among various slave devices. See Cho [0002]-[0003], and [0007]-[0008].
Regarding claim 19, This combination of Oh in view of Cho discloses the limitations of claim 18, upon which depends claim 19. This combination, specifically Oh, further discloses: the system for multi-screen video display according to claim 18, wherein the master playing terminal is elected from the plurality of playing terminals, and the election rule comprises any one of the followings:
a playing terminal that first communicates with a server terminal is the master playing terminal, and the other playing terminals are the slave playing terminals (See [0101], “one embodiment, the assignment of the super master synchronization display device role is defaulted
to a particular display device based on connection (e.g., order of connectivity from/to a connection for receiving the content from a source),);
a playing terminal with the best hardware performance is the master playing terminal, and
the other playing terminals are the slave playing terminals (See [0101]: “automatically selected based on processing overhead or bandwidth, automatically selected based on hardware availability (e.g., available memory, processing speed, etc.),); and
This combination, specifically Oh, further discloses: a playing terminal with the shortest average connection time with all other playing terminals is the master playing terminal, and the other playing terminals are the slave playing terminals (See [0054] in Oh: selecting the virtual master device which minimizes the sum of the difference in the playback delay time between the respective devices, and in this case,).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh, in view of Cho, in further view of Abe, US 2020/0389646 A1.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Cho in view of Oh discloses the limitations of claim 18, upon which claim 20 depends. This combination does not disclose: the system for multi-screen video display according to claim 18, further comprising a server terminal, wherein:
the server terminal is configured to perform real-time differentiation processing on video
content and provide processed video bit stream to the plurality of playing terminals, wherein the
differentiation processing comprises video attribute change and video content variation.
However, in an analogous art directed to video encoding in a client-server model, Abe discloses that a server “performs recognition processing based on the raw data or encoded data, such as capture error processing, scene search processing, meaning analysis, and/or object prompted or automatically—edits the content, examples of which include: correction such as focus and/or motion blur correction; removing low-priority scenes such as scenes that are low in brightness compared to other pictures, or out of focus; object edge adjustment; and color tone adjustment.” See [0709] in Abe. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate a content analysis at a master device/server, as disclosed in Abe, in order to reduce the processing load on the slave terminals. See [0681] in Abbe.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, and 11 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art does not disclose or make obvious:
The method for multi-screen video display according to claim 1, wherein the adaptive synchronization threshold range = a presentation time stamp of a frame to be displayed on the master playing terminal + an average network transmission delay of the slave playing terminal + a frame type threshold range;
when the frame to be displayed on the master playing terminal is a non-I frame, the frame type threshold range is a first threshold range; and when the frame to be displayed on the master playing terminal is an I frame, the frame type threshold range is a second threshold range,
wherein the first threshold range is less than the second threshold range.
The closest prior art, Cho, US 2024/0298059 A1, discloses, calculating a playback delay time correction amount based on a difference between a playback delay time of a virtual master device and the playback delay time of each slave device by selecting the virtual master device which minimizes the sum of the difference in the playback delay time between the respective devices. See [0054]. However, there is no disclosure or suggestion to adjust the playback delay time correction amount based on the frame type.
Regarding claim 11, the method for multi-screen video display according to claim 8, wherein the information of the frame to be displayed sent by the master playing terminal comprises a frame type and a presentation time stamp, and the frame type comprises an I frame, a P frame and a B frame.
The prior nowhere discloses or suggest providing both frame type and timestamp information for a frame to be displayed by a master playing terminal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/KYLE M LOTFI/Examiner, Art Unit 2425