DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s current amendment (dated 27 MARCH 2026), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 19-38 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference(s) and/or citations being used in the current 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 19-21, 25-28, and 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartnett et al., US 2022/0070504 in view of Chenier et al., US 10,192,553.
Regarding claim 19, Hartnett discloses a method for processing a live stream (with live streaming processing; page 2, paragraph 32), applied to a first client (with at least a first client; page 7, paragraph 79), comprising:
in response to a live connection operation directed to a second client, sending a live connection request for the second client (upon identification of particular participant(s) to join a combined live stream, can invite and request live streaming/permission from a particular client/participant; Fig. 17, elements 1708 and 1710, and page 24, paragraphs 253 and 255);
receiving a second live stream corresponding to the second client (server will receive the video stream(s) from the particular participant(s); Fig. 2, element 210, and page 8, paragraph 87, and Fig. 17, element 1714, and page 24, paragraph 257); and
in response to receiving a live connection permission message corresponding to the second client, playing a merged stream (upon receiving permission, can utilize the stream; page 24, paragraph 255, and this includes combining the live streams and providing the combined live video stream for playing/presentation; Fig. 17, elements 1716 and 1720, and pages 24-25, paragraph 258, and page 25, paragraph 259, and page 8, paragraph 88, and Figs. 7A-7C, and page 14, paragraph 147), wherein the merged stream is obtained according to the second live stream corresponding to the second client and a first live stream corresponding to the first client (combining the various, i.e. including at least the first client and second client, streams, to form a combined/merged live stream; Fig. 2, element 212, and page 8, paragraph 88, and Fig. 17, element 1716, and pages 24-25, paragraph 258, and page 24, paragraph 251, and page 28, paragraph 296), and the live connection permission message is a permission message for the live connection request (based on invite/request, can provide permission; page 24, paragraph 255, and page 26, paragraph 268).
While Hartnett again discloses the second live stream (the video stream(s) from the particular participant(s); Fig. 2, element 210, and page 8, paragraph 87, and Fig. 17, element 1714, and page 24, paragraph 257), the live connection request (can invite and request live streaming/permission from a particular client/participant; Fig. 17, elements 1708 and 1710, and page 24, paragraphs 253 and 255), and the live connection permission message (upon receiving permission, can utilize the stream; page 24, paragraph 255), as well as previously granting permissions (page 24, paragraph 255), Hartnett does not explicitly disclose wherein receiving of content corresponding to a second client is directly started upon sending a request directed to the second client, without waiting for a permission corresponding to the second client.
In a related art, Chenier does disclose wherein receiving of content corresponding to a second client is directly started upon sending a request directed to the second client, without waiting for a permission corresponding to the second client (based on one device initiating a communication request with another device, devices can immediately send/receive content, i.e. audio/video to/from one another, without waiting for approval; col. 2, lines 27-43, and col. 9, lines 38-67, and col. 12, lines 26-48, and col. 13, lines 9-13 and 35-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Hartnett and Chenier by allowing connections to occur without waiting for subsequent permission(s), as already alluded to in Harnett with its use of previous permission(s), in order to provide an improved system and method for performing communications between devices based at least in part on determined characteristic/presence information associated with an individual (Chenier; col. 1, line 64 – col. 2, line 8).
Regarding claim 20, Hartnett in view of Chenier discloses sending an stream obtaining request to a first server (Hartnett; can send request to server for additional participant(s) to join the stream, i.e. obtain, join, and process video from particular participant(s); Fig. 2, element 206, and page 8, paragraph 85), the stream obtaining request comprising a client identification of the second client (Hartnett; request for additional participant(s), including inviting, i.e. identification for invitation; Fig. 2, element 206, and page 8, paragraph 85, and wherein this includes identification of the participant(s); page 2, paragraph 34, and page 23, paragraph 241, and page 7, paragraph 76); and
the receiving the second live stream corresponding to the second client comprises: receiving the second live stream of the second client transmitted by the first server (Hartnett; server will receive the video stream(s) from the particular participant(s); Fig. 2, element 210, and page 8, paragraph 87, and will generate and send the stream(s) to particular device(s); Fig. 2, elements 212, 214, and 216, and page 8, paragraph 88 and 92-93).
Regarding claim 21, Hartnett in view of Chenier discloses before the playing the merged stream, the method comprises: performing merging processing on the second live stream corresponding to the second client and the first live stream corresponding to the first client to obtain the merged stream or sending a merging processing request to a second server, the merging processing request having therein carried the second live stream corresponding to the second client and the first live stream corresponding to the first client, and receiving the merged stream transmitted by the second server (Hartnett; before sending for display/playback, the system performs processing to combine the multiple streams; Fig. 2, element 212, and page 8, paragraph 88, and Fig. 17, element 1716, and pages 24-25, paragraph 258, and page 24, paragraph 251, and page 28, paragraph 296, and Examiner’s Note: the use of “or” in the claim language indicates that only one of the listed elements needs to be disclosed for the claim to be met/covered).
Regarding claim 25, Hartnett in view of Chenier discloses in response to receiving a connection cancellation message corresponding to the second client, stopping performing pushing of the first live stream of the first client to the first server (Hartnett; system can receive an end broadcast element/designation, wherein this will end the streaming and drop all connections of the video streams, i.e. including the at least first client stream; page 14, paragraph 150, and page 19, paragraph 205, including transmitting/pushing from the client(s) to the server(s); page 8, paragraph 87, and page 12, paragraph 126, and page 38, paragraph 394).
Claim 26, which discloses a method is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 19. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
applied to a second client (Hartnett; with at least a second client; page 7, paragraph 79, and Fig. 1, elements 108, 110, and 112), comprising: in response to a live connection request of a first client, receiving a first live stream corresponding to the first client (Hartnett; at least a first client can initiate a live connection request; page 7, paragraph 81, and Fig. 2, element 202, and wherein live video stream can be sent/received; page 7, paragraph 82, and Fig. 2, element 202); and
in response to a live connection confirmation operation, feeding back a live connection permission message, and playing a merged stream (Hartnett; responsive to accepting connection/invite(s) and granting permission, i.e. confirmation and permission message(s), combined/merged streaming; page 12, paragraph 128, and page 24, paragraph 255, and page 26, paragraph 268, and page 29, paragraphs 300-301), wherein the merged stream is obtained by performing merging processing according to the first live stream corresponding to the first client and a second live stream corresponding to the second client (Hartnett; combining the various, i.e. including at least the first client and second client, streams, to form a combined/merged live stream; Fig. 2, element 212, and page 8, paragraph 88, and Fig. 17, element 1716, and pages 24-25, paragraph 258, and page 24, paragraph 251, and page 28, paragraph 296), the live connection confirmation operation is a confirmation operation for the live connection request, and the live connection permission message is a permission message for the live connection request (Hartnett; accepting connection/invite(s) and granting permission, i.e. confirmation and permission message(s); page 12, paragraph 128, and page 24, paragraph 255, and page 26, paragraph 268, and page 29, paragraphs 300-301).
Regarding claim 27, Hartnett in view of Chenier in response to the live connection request, pushing the second live stream of the second client to a first server (Hartnett; can send request for additional participant(s) to join the stream, i.e. obtain, join, and process video from particular participant(s); Fig. 2, element 206, and page 8, paragraph 85, and server will receive the video stream(s), i.e. transmitted/pushed, from the particular participant(s); Fig. 2, element 210, and page 8, paragraph 87, and page 12, paragraph 126, and page 38, paragraph 394).
Claim 28 which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 21. Examiner’s Note: the citation(s) provided in claim 21 are interpreted to include similar operations with a second client as well as the first client.
Claim 30 which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 25. Examiner’s Note: the citation(s) provided in claim 25 are interpreted to include similar operations with a second client as well as the first client.
Claim 31, which discloses an electronic device, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 19. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
an electronic device (Hartnett; Fig. 23, element 2300, and page 35, paragraph 369), comprising: a processor (Hartnett; including a processor; Fig. 23, element 2302, and page 35, paragraph 369); and
a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor (Hartnett; including memory with processor executable instructions; Fig. 23, element 2304, and pages 35-36, paragraphs 369-370), the processor being configured to read the executable instructions from the memory, and execute the executable instructions (Hartnett; processor retrieves instructions from memory for execution; page 36, paragraph 370).
Claim 32, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 19. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having therein stored a computer program (Hartnett; non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions embodied thereon; pages 34-35, paragraph 360).
Claim 33, which discloses an electronic device, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 26. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
an electronic device (Hartnett; Fig. 23, element 2300, and page 35, paragraph 369), comprising: a processor (Hartnett; including a processor; Fig. 23, element 2302, and page 35, paragraph 369); and
a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor (Hartnett; including memory with processor executable instructions; Fig. 23, element 2304, and pages 35-36, paragraphs 369-370), the processor being configured to read the executable instructions from the memory, and execute the executable instructions (Hartnett; processor retrieves instructions from memory for execution; page 36, paragraph 370).
Claim 34, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 26. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having therein stored a computer program (Hartnett; non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions embodied thereon; pages 34-35, paragraph 360).
Claim 35, which discloses an electronic device, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 20.
Claim 36, which discloses an electronic device, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 21.
Claims 22-23, 29, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartnett et al., US 2022/0070504 in view of Chenier et al., US 10,192,553 and further in view of Henaire et al., US 2018/0192080.
Regarding claim 22, Hartnett in view of Chenier discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 21, as well as the performing merging processing on the second live stream corresponding to the second client and the first live stream corresponding to the first client to obtain the merged stream, comprises: determining a receiving time of the live connection permission message (Hartnett; upon receiving the grant/permission, i.e. receiving time, system can then utilize the stream(s) for processing and combining; page 24, paragraph 255, and page 26, paragraph 268), and merging video in the second live stream and the first live stream to obtain the merged stream (Hartnett; combining the various, i.e. including at least the first client and second client, streams, to form a combined/merged live stream; Fig. 2, element 212, and page 8, paragraph 88, and Fig. 17, element 1716, and pages 24-25, paragraph 258, and page 24, paragraph 251, and page 28, paragraph 296).
Hartnett in view of Chenier does not explicitly disclose determining a first live audio and video frame in a first live stream that corresponds to a time and a second live audio and video frame in a second live stream that corresponds to the time; and
by taking the first live audio and video frame and the second live audio and video frame as initial frames, processing corresponding audio and video frames in the second live stream and the first live stream to obtain a stream.
In a related art, Henaire does disclose determining a first live audio and video frame in a first live stream that corresponds to a time and a second live audio and video frame in a second live stream that corresponds to the time (can determine video frames and audio from the multiple streams that are to be played at particular time(s), i.e. such as t1; page 4, paragraph 40, and wherein for live streaming audio/video; page 2, paragraph 19); and
by taking the first live audio and video frame and the second live audio and video frame as initial frames, processing corresponding audio and video frames in the second live stream and the first live stream to obtain a stream (once the audio/video from the streams are aligned at the initial time t1, can then continue to evaluate remainder time points and generate the synchronized composite stream; page 1, paragraph 6, and page 4, paragraph 40, and page 5, paragraph 42, and page 6, paragraph 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Hartnett, Chenier, and Henaire by allowing timing information to be utilized for the synchronization already alluded to in Hartnett in view of Chenier, in order to provide an improved system and method for creating a composite stream derived from two or more individual streams to be transmitted to client devices, such that the viewing experience of viewers is not degraded (Henaire; page 1, paragraphs 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 23, Hartnett in view of Chenier and Henaire discloses the merging the corresponding audio and video frames in the second live stream and the first live stream to obtain the merged stream, comprises: during the merging, determining a first current audio and video frame in the first live stream and a second current audio and video frame in the second live stream (Hartnett; aligning the streams; page 8, paragraph 90, and page 31, paragraph 327, and Henaire; can determine video frames and audio from the multiple streams that are to be played at a particular time(s), i.e. such as t1; page 4, paragraph 40);
combining the first current audio and video frame and the second current audio and video frame to obtain a candidate combined audio and video frame (Hartnett; combining into preparation stream, i.e. candidate; page 13, paragraph 138-139, and Henaire; alignment during the composition phase of the streams, and again for the initial audio/video at time t1; page 4, paragraph 40);
obtaining a preset rendering parameter (Hartnett; system can determine layout, i.e. rendering parameter corresponding to the stream(s); page 13, paragraphs 138-139, and Fig. 6A, element 312, and Henaire; can determine particular presentation format; page 1, paragraph 6, and page 4, paragraph 36, and page 6, paragraph 50);
rendering a live connection display element in the candidate combined audio and video frame according to the rendering parameter to obtain a target combined audio and video frame (Hartnett; can provide combined streams in particular layout, and wherein this can also include visual elements corresponding to the particular layout, live broadcasting, countdowns, and/or other timing information; page 13, paragraph 142, and Fig. 6A, elements 312 and 610, and Henaire; can arrange and format the aligned frames into particular composite output format; page 4, paragraphs 36 and 38, and page 6, paragraph 50); and
obtaining the merged stream according to the target combined audio and video frame (Hartnett; can obtain the combined/merged stream based on the target frames/streams of the various clients/users; page 13, paragraph 142, and Henaire; composite stream with videos/frames arranged in the particular layout/formatting; page 4, paragraphs 36 and 38, and Fig. 3, elements 330 and 335).
Claim 29 which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 22. Examiner’s Note: the citation(s) provided in claim 22 are interpreted to include similar operations with a second client as well as the first client.
Claim 37, which discloses an electronic device, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 22.
Claim 38, which discloses an electronic device, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 23.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartnett et al., US 2022/0070504 in view of Chenier et al., US 10,192,553 and further in view of Liu et al., US 2017/0163761.
Regarding claim 24, Hartnett in view of Chenier discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 19, as well as deleting the received second live stream of the second client in response to an operation (Hartnett; can remove/drop, i.e. delete, live video stream of particular participant(s) responsive to a particular operation(s) being performed; page 13, paragraph 141, and page 14, paragraph 149, and wherein can remove participant stream based on a trigger relating to eligibility of participation; page 26, paragraphs 268-269).
While Hartnett in view of Chenier also discloses the live connection permission message (Hartnett; permission from client/participant; page 24, paragraph 255), Hartnett in view of Chenier does not explicitly disclose in response to that a permission message is not received, deleting.
In a related art, Liu does disclose in response to that a permission message is not received, deleting (can perform deletion based on not having permission, and not notifying about permission, i.e. not receiving a permission message; page 3, paragraphs 49-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Hartnett, Chenier, and Liu by allowing specific permission(s) to be utilized when determining whether to remove participant streams as already disclosed in Hartnett in view of Chenier, in order to provide an improved system and method for obtaining live video so as to solve the problem of overheavy load resulted from large number of user accesses to live video by deploying distributed resource servers (Liu; page 1, paragraph 5).
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 RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm ET.
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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights