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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lythcott-Haims does not teach the newly added limitations “identified, within a live production and playout pipeline of a live playout…” and “by resolving manifest-addressable references of the one or more media segments based on (i) a publish time of the one or more media segments and (ii) a reference time provided by a reference clock to which the live production and playout pipeline is synchronized”. To this the examiner respectfully disagrees. Identifying the start and end times of the highlights that are to be included in the stream playout (paragraph 373-378), meeting the claim language. Lythcott-Haims also teaches reconciling timing issues (paragraph 154-155, 211 and 366-378), partially meeting the claim language. The reference clock used to synchronize is taught by the newly found reference to Hegar as cited in the office action.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Lythcott-Haims et al., US 2024/0163532 in view of Hegar et al., US 10,862,944.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Lythcott-Haims discloses a system comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to:
identify, within a live production and playout pipeline of a live playout, start and stop times of one or more key events that occurred prior to a current live point of the live playout (paragraph 373-378);
associate one or more media segments of the live playout with the start and stop times by resolving manifest-addressable references of the one or more media segments based on (i) a publish time of the one or more media segments and (ii) a reference time to which the live production and playout pipeline is synchronized (paragraph 154-155, 211 and 366-378);
generate a catch-up schedule comprising the manifest-addressable references to the one or more media segments corresponding to the one or more key events (paragraph 157-161); and
transmit the catch-up schedule (paragraph 157-161).
Lythcott-Haims is silent about reference clock.
In an analogous art, Hegar discloses a reference time provided by a reference clock to which the live production and playout pipeline is synchronized (col. 8, lines 15-30 and col. 12, lines 30-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lythcott-Haims’ system with the teachings of Hegar. This is standard in the art. The motivation would have been to synchronize the media for the benefit of providing quality content.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Lythcott-Haims and Hegar disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the catch-up schedule is transmitted for publishing in a disparate live media output stream manifest (Lythcott-Haims paragraph 157-161).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Lythcott-Haims and Hegar disclose the system of claim 2, wherein the catch-up schedule is transmitted for publishing in the disparate live media output stream manifest such that a client of the disparate live media output stream retrieves the referenced one or more media segments of the live playout for catch-up playback prior to joining the current live point (Lythcott-Haims paragraph 154-161 and 366-371).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 18, Lythcott-Haims and Hegar disclose the system of claim 1, wherein each key event of the one or more key events is associated with a rating (Lythcott-Haims paragraph 299-323).
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 19, Lythcott-Haims and Hegar disclose the system of claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: include only those key events of the one or more key events in the catch-up schedule having a rating exceeding a threshold rating (Lythcott-Haims paragraph 299-323).
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 20, Lythcott-Haims and Hegar disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: limit a number of the one or more key events for inclusion in the catch-up schedule based on a maximum time threshold (Lythcott-Haims paragraph 185, 198-199 and 375).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Lythcott-Haims and Hegar disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: update the catch-up schedule based on logging new key events (Lythcott-Haims paragraph 299-323).
Regarding claim 8, Lythcott-Haims and Hegar disclose the system of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: update a ranking of a key event of the one or more key events (Lythcott-Haims paragraph 299-323).
Regarding claim 16, Lythcott-Haims and Hegar disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further caused to: update a ranking of a key event of the one or more key events (Lythcott-Haims paragraph 299-323).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421