Were given letterNotice 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/880,398 filed on 12/31/2024.
Claims 1 – 25 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/31/2024. The submission 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 Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because as recited “A non-transient computer-readable storage medium having instructions….” Which may be typographical error and likely intended to recite “A non-transitory computer-readable storage….”, also see para: 0094. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 10, 12 – 17, 19, 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being by Walker et al. (US 2017/0134830 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Walker discloses: “a system configured for transmitting multiple data streams over a communications network for remote inspection [see para: 0015; Multi-feed streaming, such as picture in picture and for providing leaderboard information for display on a mobile device along with a video of a live event presents challenges to network bandwidth demand], the system comprising:
one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions [see para: 0097; A processor may be any kind of computational or processing device capable of executing program instructions, codes, binary instructions and the like] to:
preprocess a plurality of video streams into a single synchronized frame [see para: 0022; The methods and systems described herein may include selectively displaying on a mobile device one or more time synchronized distinct video feeds transmitted in a single audio/video stream. The selection may be automatic and may be based on location of the mobile device. And see para: 0033; 0035 – 0038; 0060; 0086];
encode the single synchronized frame [see para: 0027; The methods and systems described herein may include accessing with a server a plurality of distinct video feeds. The method further includes accessing time stamp information for at least a portion of the plurality of distinct video feeds. The method further includes comparing each time stamp information to a reference clock to determine a relative order of, and a relative time difference among, the portion of the plurality of distinct video feeds. The method further includes determining a synchronizing point in each of the plurality of distinct video feeds at which each feed may be synchronized relative to the reference clock. The method further includes combining the plurality of distinct video feeds to form a single video stream comprising a plurality of synchronized distinct video feeds based on the synchronizing point; And see para: 0032- 0033];
packetize the encoded single synchronized frame as a multiplexed packet for transmission with multiple multiplexed packets over the communications network [see para: 0094; Combining the streams may be accomplished by, for example, creating a single stream that consists of packets from a plurality of other streams, such as by interleaving, multiplexing, or concatenating such packets and retaining information for managing or tracking the combined streams, by multiplexing or otherwise combining signals from different streams, or other techniques for combining data streams. One method of combining includes scaling each feed to a smaller representative image that can be displayed in a mosaic as depicted in at least FIG. 1 herein before combining the scaled feeds into a single video while retaining individual identifiers of each feed and its location in the mosaic by way of meta-data that is used by the device to manage a particular feed (e.g. allowing a user to select a feed)];
depacketize the multiplexed packet received over the communications network to produce the single synchronized frame [see para: 0048; A device receives the single stream and a single player decodes and presents the stream as a single video and audio presentation. This reduces network bandwidth demand by a factor roughly equivalent to the number of feeds that are combined into one stream and reduces device processing load by a similar amount (decoding one stream instead of decoding and arranging all of the separate streams in one display), reverse procedure packetization]; and
decode the synchronized frame into the plurality of video streams for remote inspection [see para: 0048; Instead of a mobile device needing to decode a separate stream for each of a plurality of video feeds at once to maintain a coherent display (and the network having to provide bandwidth for separate streams), a server ingests all relevant feeds and creates mobile-device compatible stream (e.g. a time synchronized stream) of a select subset of the ingested feeds for delivery over the mobile IP network. A device receives the single stream and a single player decodes and presents the stream as a single video and audio presentation. This reduces network bandwidth demand by a factor roughly equivalent to the number of feeds that are combined into one stream and reduces device processing load by a similar amount (decoding one stream instead of decoding and arranging all of the separate streams in one display)].
Regarding claim 2, Walker discloses: “wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to buffer the multiple multiplexed packets received over the communications network [see para: 0105; These devices may include, apart from other components, a storage medium such as a flash memory, buffer, RAM, ROM and one or more computing devices. The computing devices associated with mobile devices may be enabled to execute program codes, methods, and instructions stored thereon].
Regarding claim 3, Walker discloses: “wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to postprocess the buffered multiple multiplexed packets to produce a plurality of single synchronized frames for remote inspection [see para: 0096; Although references herein include scaling and/or combining feeds prior to encoding, an encoding engine may be adapted to receive multiple source feeds, scale each as needed for the desired mosaic display, and create a single encoded stream to be delivered to a mobile device. Likewise, combining could be performed post encoding by each feed being sent to an encoder where the feed would be scaled to accommodate a mosaic display and a content delivery engine would combine the scaled encoded outputs into a single stream for delivery to a user device. A video player/application on the device could receive the stream and generate the mosaic from the distinct feeds in
the stream. And see para: 0027].
Regarding claim 5, Walker discloses: “wherein postprocessing further comprises synchronizing frames [see para: 0028; The method may include combining the plurality of distinct feeds to form a single stream including a plurality of synchronized distinct feeds, based on the determined synchronizing point. In an example, a synchronization point may be a video frame. The method further includes encoding the single stream to form a composite mobile device compatible stream].
Regarding claim 6, Walker discloses: “wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to simultaneously display a plurality of channels on a single output device [see para: 0097; The threads may be executed simultaneously to enhance the performance of the processor and to facilitate simultaneous operations of the application].
Regarding claim 7, the Examiner takes Official Notice that “wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to encrypt the multiplexed packet prior to transmission over the communications network, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to decrypt the multiplexed packet received over the communications network”, is commonly known in the art and therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate what is known in the art the teaching of the Walker reference due to the fact that the combining would make the data transfer rate more efficient and less consumption of bandwidth or power. Decoding or decrypting is opposite of encoding or encryption method which is known or common in the art.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 1 but for non-transitory computer readable medium [see para: 0097; The methods and systems described herein may be deployed in part or in whole through a machine that executes computer software, program codes, and/or instructions on a processor].
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 2 but for non-transitory computer readable medium [see para: 0097; The methods and systems described herein may be deployed in part or in whole through a machine that executes computer software, program codes, and/or instructions on a processor].
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 3 but for non-transitory computer readable medium [see para: 0097; The methods and systems described herein may be deployed in part or in whole through a machine that executes computer software, program codes, and/or instructions on a processor].
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 5 but for non-transitory computer readable medium [see para: 0097; The methods and systems described herein may be deployed in part or in whole through a machine that executes computer software, program codes, and/or instructions on a processor].
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 6 but for non-transitory computer readable medium [see para: 0097; The methods and systems described herein may be deployed in part or in whole through a machine that executes computer software, program codes, and/or instructions on a processor].
Regarding claim 25, Walker discloses: “further comprising when a video packet is received, splitting the video packet back out into separate streams so that the user can view any of the video streams on any output device with only a single instance of decoding [see para: 0089; Multi-feed single-stream video and audio may be compatible with existing IP protocols such as HLS, and future standards such as DASH, and the like. DASH and the like may facilitate enhanced live video adaptive streaming such as providing streams in chunks of time (e.g. 10 seconds). These chunks may be further processed by the methods and systems herein, including enhancements to mobile device stream players to split these chunks into the individual feeds and some contextual information that the player recognizes].
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.
Claim 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US 2017/0134830 A1) in view of Maehashi (US 2021/0075989 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Walker disclose all the limitation of claim 3 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Walker does not explicitly disclose: “wherein postprocessing further comprises counting frames”.
However, Maehashi, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein postprocessing further comprises counting frames [see para: 0042; Alternatively, the counting unit 180 may perform multiple times of counting during one frame, and the post-processing unit 182 may perform a calculation process such as calculation of a mean value, calculation of a median value, a filtering process, or the like on the count result on a counting period basis].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the synchronizing multiple data feeds for optimized transmission and presentation on a mobile device disclosed by Walker to add the teachings of Maehashi as above, in order to provide a means for improving processing efficiency, post processing unit can count the number of frames during a specific time period [Maehashi see para: 0042].
Regarding claim 11 and 18, claim 11 and 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 4.
Claim 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US 2017/0134830 A1) in view of Luccin (US 2018/0191963 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Walker disclose all the limitation of claim 15 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Walker does not explicitly disclose: “further comprising remote video encoding and transmission via a data transmission protocol that combines a number of video channels and manipulating video data to be issued over a network by combining and compressing data packets for transport as a single frame for transmission over a limited bandwidth connection via a regular node stream encode/decode technique”.
However, Luccin, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “further comprising remote video encoding and transmission via a data transmission protocol that combines a number of video channels and manipulating video data to be issued over a network by combining and compressing data packets for transport as a single frame for transmission over a limited bandwidth connection via a regular node stream encode/decode technique [see para: 0027; FIG. 3 shows a schematic representation of the resizing algorithm 94 in an example embodiment in which two video streams are combined. And para: 0041; The processor 12 may also compress at least one of the panels using a data compression algorithm 92. The processor 12 may use different data compression algorithms 92 for the different panels, and may determine what data compression algorithm 92 to use for a panel based at least in part on the stream priority data 98. For example, when the processor 12 receives stream priority data 98 indicating that the priority of the first panel 32 has decreased and the priority of the second panel 34 has increased, the processor 12 may perform a data compression algorithm 92 on the first panel 32 that produces a first compressed panel 132 with a lower resolution than the second compressed panel 134. The processor 12 may then transmit the compressed frame 130 over a network 90 for output on the display device 20].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the synchronizing multiple data feeds for optimized transmission and presentation on a mobile device disclosed by Walker to add the teachings of Maehashi as above, in order to provide a means for improving processing efficiency, processor may uses different data compression algorithms for the different frames, and may determine data compression technique for transmitting frames over the available bandwidth based on stream priority data using common path or nodes [Luccin see para: 0027].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 - 24 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van et al (US 20190208234 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Masum Billah whose telephone number is (571)270-0701. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 - 5 PM 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, Jamie J. Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
/MASUM BILLAH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486