DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 12/05/2024. Claims 1-21 have been examined.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for foreign application No. CN: 202211129092.4 filed on 09/16/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2025 and 12/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, 11-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2022/0210486) in view of Gault (US 2025/0056083).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses the following claim limitations: a method for transmitting a plurality of data streams, comprising: obtaining, at a first device, a plurality of data streams to be transmitted; the transmission resolution being greater than a sum of resolutions of the plurality of data streams; and transmitting, to a second device, the merged data stream (Chen, paragraph 34-35 and 41 discloses the first signal sources 110 start capturing images of the performance stage, and transmitting the captured images to the array server 151 in manner of video streaming or streaming media… in a condition that each of the resolutions of the first video streamings generated by the signal sources (111˜126) is 960*540, and the signal sources (111˜126) transmit the first video streamings to the array server 151 through NDI protocol… the array server 151 can combine the video streamings, outputted from the signal source, to form a multi-source streaming having a higher resolution and including all video streamings, and the streaming server 153 transmits the multi-source streaming to the client end 160 i.e. second device).
Chen does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations: merging the plurality of data streams based on a transmission resolution to generate a merged data stream.
However, in the same field of endeavor Gault discloses more explicitly the following:
merging the plurality of data streams based on a transmission resolution to generate a merged data stream (Gault, paragraph 83 discloses the plurality of obtained video streams may be combined based on video stream resolution and a target resolution).
It would have been obvious to one the ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Chen with Gault to create a streaming service with combining video streams based on video stream resolution.
The reasoning being is to provide a system for rendering video stream and audio corresponding to a media stream from amongst a plurality of media streams on a video display system to reduce computational cost (Gault, paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 8, Chen and Gault discloses the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of data streams is an image data stream, or at least one of the plurality of data streams is captured by an image capturing device at the first device (Chen, fig. 1 illustrates the claimed language).
Regarding claim 9, Chen and Gault discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first device is a virtual live streaming or a virtual meeting client device, and the second device is a cloud rendering device (Chen, paragraph 5 discloses live broadcaster or the live broadcast unit can send video and audio signals to a streaming server, and a client end can receive the video steaming (streaming media) that contains the video and audio signals sent by the streaming server, so as to play the live broadcast content of the live broadcaster or the live broadcast unit. If the live broadcast unit provides live images from different view angles, the live broadcast unit can transmit multiple video signals to a streaming server, and the streaming server can transmit the video streaming under the viewing angle which is requested, to the client end).
With regard to claim 11, claim 11 lists all the same elements and features to claim 1 as outlined above. Therefore, the same rationale that was utilized in claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 11. In addition, Gault in paragraph 48 discloses a memory and processor.
With regard to claim 12, claim 12 lists all the same elements and features to claim 1 as outlined above. Therefore, the same rationale that was utilized in claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 12. In addition, Gault in paragraph 48 discloses a memory and processor.
Regarding claim 19, Chen and Gault discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein at least one of the plurality of data streams is an image data stream, or at least one of the plurality of data streams is captured by an image capturing device at the first device (Chen, fig. 1 illustrates the claimed language).
Regarding claim 20, Chen and Gault discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the first device is a virtual live streaming or a virtual meeting client device, and the second device is a cloud rendering device (Chen, paragraph 5 discloses live broadcaster or the live broadcast unit can send video and audio signals to a streaming server, and a client end can receive the video steaming (streaming media) that contains the video and audio signals sent by the streaming server, so as to play the live broadcast content of the live broadcaster or the live broadcast unit. If the live broadcast unit provides live images from different view angles, the live broadcast unit can transmit multiple video signals to a streaming server, and the streaming server can transmit the video streaming under the viewing angle which is requested, to the client end).
Claim(s) 2-7, 13-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2022/0210486) in view of Gault (US 2025/0056083) and in further view of Araki (US 2022/0084282).
Regarding claim 2, Chen and Gault discloses the claimed invention as outlined above in claim 1.
Chen and Gault do not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations “wherein the transmission resolution is determined based on: a maximum resolution among respective resolutions of the plurality of data streams; and a number of the plurality of data streams”.
However, in the same field of endeavor Araki discloses more explicitly the following: wherein the transmission resolution is determined based on: a maximum resolution among respective resolutions of the plurality of data streams; and a number of the plurality of data streams (Araki, paragraph 296 discloses In a case where three or more resolutions are prepared, packing images with the maximum resolution that can be transmitted in the current network band is selected).
It would have been obvious to one the ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Chen and Gault with Araki to create the system of Chen and Gault as outlined above with transmitting maximum resolution.
The reasoning being is to make it possible to adapt to real-time processing while reducing the amount of data (Araki, paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 3, Chen, Gault and Araki discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of data streams comprise: a first data stream, the first data stream having a first color encoding format; and a second data stream, the second data stream being associated with transparency information (Araki, paragraph 76 discloses In the format corresponding to view-dependent rendering in which the texture image captured by each imaging device 53 is transmitted as color information; paragraph 296 discloses In a case where three or more resolutions are prepared, packing images with the maximum resolution that can be transmitted in the current network band is selected). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Chen, Gault and Araki discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the second data stream is obtained by cropping the first data stream, or the second data stream is associated with transparency information of the first data stream (Araki, paragraph 313 discloses the image selecting device 24 (selection unit) selects one of the plurality of types of packing images and outputs the packing image that has been selected to the reproduction side. The object image here is a cropped image obtained by extracting only the object area from a texture image, or a cropped image obtained by extracting only the object area from a depth image). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Chen, Gault and Araki discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the plurality of data streams comprises: preferentially merging the first data stream with other data streams as comparative to with the second data stream (Gault, paragraph 83 discloses the plurality of obtained video streams may be combined based on video stream resolution and a target resolution).
Regarding claim 6, Chen, Gault and Araki discloses the method of claim 1, wherein merging the plurality of data streams comprises: performing color encoding format conversion on at least one of the plurality of data streams to reduce a number of color encoding channels; and merging the at least one data stream that has undergone the color encoding format conversion with other data streams (Araki, paragraph 76 discloses In the format corresponding to view-dependent rendering in which the texture image captured by each imaging device 53 is transmitted as color information; paragraph 296 discloses In a case where three or more resolutions are prepared, packing images with the maximum resolution that can be transmitted in the current network band is selected; Gault, paragraph 83 discloses the plurality of obtained video streams may be combined based on video stream resolution and a target resolution). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 6
Regarding claim 7, Chen, Gault and Araki discloses the method of claim 1, wherein merging the plurality of data streams to be transmitted into the merged data stream comprises: if color encoding formats of the plurality of data streams are all single-channel formats, converting the plurality of data streams into a first group of data streams having a first color encoding format; converting the first group of data streams into a second group of data streams having a second color encoding format, both the first color encoding format and the second color encoding format being multi-channel formats; and merging the second group of data streams (Examiner’s note the term “if” is a conditional statement which does not require the claim functionality to occur, but merely indicates that the function may or may not be performed if something occurs. Examiner advises Applicant to amend the claim to explicitly require the claim to perform the claimed functionality; Gault, paragraph 83 discloses the plurality of obtained video streams may be combined based on video stream resolution and a target resolution; in addition Araki, paragraph 76 discloses In the format corresponding to view-dependent rendering in which the texture image captured by each imaging device 53 is transmitted as color information). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 7.
Regarding claim 13, Chen, Gault and Araki discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the transmission resolution is determined based on: a maximum resolution among respective resolutions of the plurality of data streams; and a number of the plurality of data streams (Araki, paragraph 296 discloses In a case where three or more resolutions are prepared, packing images with the maximum resolution that can be transmitted in the current network band is selected). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Chen, Gault and Araki discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the plurality of data streams comprise: a first data stream, the first data stream having a first color encoding format; and a second data stream, the second data stream being associated with transparency information (Araki, paragraph 76 discloses In the format corresponding to view-dependent rendering in which the texture image captured by each imaging device 53 is transmitted as color information). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Chen, Gault and Araki discloses the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the second data stream is obtained by cropping the first data stream, or the second data stream is associated with transparency information of the first data stream (Araki, paragraph 313 discloses the image selecting device 24 (selection unit) selects one of the plurality of types of packing images and outputs the packing image that has been selected to the reproduction side. The object image here is a cropped image obtained by extracting only the object area from a texture image, or a cropped image obtained by extracting only the object area from a depth image). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Chen, Gault and Araki discloses the electronic device of claim 14, wherein merging the plurality of data streams comprises: preferentially merging the first data stream with other data streams as comparative to with the second data stream (Gault, paragraph 83 discloses the plurality of obtained video streams may be combined based on video stream resolution and a target resolution). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Chen, Gault and Araki discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein merging the plurality of data streams comprises: performing color encoding format conversion on at least one of the plurality of data streams to reduce a number of color encoding channels; and merging the at least one data stream that has undergone the color encoding format conversion with other data streams (Araki, paragraph 76 discloses In the format corresponding to view-dependent rendering in which the texture image captured by each imaging device 53 is transmitted as color information; paragraph 296 discloses In a case where three or more resolutions are prepared, packing images with the maximum resolution that can be transmitted in the current network band is selected; Gault, paragraph 83 discloses the plurality of obtained video streams may be combined based on video stream resolution and a target resolution). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Chen, Gault and Araki discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein merging the plurality of data streams to be transmitted into the merged data stream comprises: if color encoding formats of the plurality of data streams are all single-channel formats, converting the plurality of data streams into a first group of data streams having a first color encoding format; converting the first group of data streams into a second group of data streams having a second color encoding format, both the first color encoding format and the second color encoding format being multi-channel formats; and merging the second group of data streams (Examiner’s note the term “if” is a conditional statement which does not require the claim functionality to occur, but merely indicates that the function may or may not be performed if something occurs. Examiner advises Applicant to amend the claim to explicitly require the claim to perform the claimed functionality; Gault, paragraph 83 discloses the plurality of obtained video streams may be combined based on video stream resolution and a target resolution; in addition Araki, paragraph 76 discloses In the format corresponding to view-dependent rendering in which the texture image captured by each imaging device 53 is transmitted as color information). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 18.
Regarding claim 21, Chen, Gault and Araki discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 11, wherein the transmission resolution is determined based on: a maximum resolution among respective resolutions of the plurality of data streams; and a number of the plurality of data streams (Araki, paragraph 296 discloses In a case where three or more resolutions are prepared, packing images with the maximum resolution that can be transmitted in the current network band is selected). The same motivation that was utilized in claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY T JEAN BAPTISTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5PM EST.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/JERRY T JEAN BAPTISTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights