DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 9-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 6-9 of U.S. Patent No. US 12177510 B1 to Baldi (Baldi’510) in view of Pub. No. US 2018/0255332 A1 to HEUSSER (HEUSSER’332).
Claim 4 of Baldi’510 lacks:
receiving livestream videos from a plurality of content capture devices at a live event as the live event is occurring, each of the livestream videos recorded using a non-native livestream software application executed by each respective content capture device;
On the other hand, HEUSSER’332 teaches:
receiving livestream videos from a plurality of content capture devices at a live event as the live event is occurring, each of the livestream videos recorded using a non-native livestream software application executed by each respective content capture device (see paragraph [0114]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baldi’510 with the teaching as taught by HEUSSER’332 in order to facilitate syncing live and/or non-live videos, as well as videos contributed directly to a mobile or computer-hosted application, as well as videos posted on external API's. Multi-angle videos, live or non-live, can be played in a mobile or computer-hosted application or on a website.
Claim 2 correspond to patent claim 6.
Claim 3 correspond to patent claim 4.
Claim 5 correspond to patent claim 7.
Claim 6 correspond to patent claim 8.
Claim 9 correspond to patent claim 4.
Claim 10 correspond to patent claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HEUSSER Pub. No.: US 2018/0255332 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as “HEUSSER”).
Regarding Claim 1, HEUSSER discloses a method, executed by an online video production server, for improving video production technology associated with the creation of multi-view, online presentations (see abstract), comprising:
receiving livestream videos from a plurality of content capture devices at a live event as the live event is occurring, each of the livestream videos recorded using a non-native livestream software application executed by each respective content capture device (see paragraph [0114]);
creating an online video-on-demand presentation of the live event comprising a plurality of livestream video clips, each of the livestream video clips derived from the livestream videos, respectively (see paragraph [0118]);
after creating the online video-on-demand presentation, receiving a natively-recorded video clip from a spectator who was present at the live event, the natively-recorded video clip recorded using a native functionality of a first content capture device (see paragraphs [0095-0096]);
determining that the natively-recorded video clip is associated with the live event (see paragraph [0110]); and
adding the natively-recorded video clip to the video-on-demand presentation with the livestream video clips, resulting in an updated video-on-demand presentation comprising both the livestream video clips and the natively-recorded video clip (see paragraphs [0094-0095]).
Regarding Claim 2, HEUSSER discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. HEUSSER further discloses wherein determining that the natively-recorded video clip is associated with the live event comprises: determining timing information associated with a time that the natively-recorded video clip was recorded (see paragraph [0096]); determining a location where the natively-recorded video clip was recorded (see paragraph [0096]); comparing the time and location associated with the natively-recorded video clip to times and locations of live events stored in a memory (see paragraphs [0067, 0075, 0118]); and determining that the natively-recorded video clip is associated with the live event when the time and location associated with the natively-recorded video clip substantially matches a time and date of the live event (see paragraph [0118]).
Regarding Claim 3, HEUSSER discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. HEUSSER further discloses prior to adding the naively-recorded video clip to the video-on-demand presentation, determining whether a gap in coverage of the live event exists in the video-on-demand presentation (see paragraphs [0063] and [0117]); and inserting the natively-recorded video clip into the gap in coverage (see paragraph [0089]).
Regarding Claim 4, HEUSSER discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. HEUSSER further discloses timing information associated with each of the livestream videos coverage (see paragraph [0060]); wherein determining whether a gap in coverage of the live event exists in the video-on-demand presentation comprises: analyzing the timing information of each of the livestream videos to determine when at least a portion of the live event is not represented by at least one of the livestream video clips coverage (see paragraphs [0107 and 0108]).
Regarding Claim 5, HEUSSER discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. HEUSSER further discloses prior to adding the natively-recorded video clip to the video-on-demand presentation, determining a fist vantage point where the natively-recorded video clip was recorded (see paragraph [0086]); prior to adding the natively-recorded video clip to the video-on-demand presentation, determining whether a gap in coverage of the live event exists in the video-on-demand presentation at the first vantage point (see paragraphs [0063] and [0117]); and adding the natively-recorded video clip to the video-on-demand presentation only when the gap in the coverage of the live event exists at the first vantage point presentation (see paragraph [0089]).
Regarding Claim 6, HEUSSER discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 5. HEUSSER further discloses determining timing information and a second vantage point provided by the livestream software application in association with each of the livestream videos (see paragraph [0096]); storing the timing information and the second vantage point of each of the livestream videos in association with a corresponding livestream video clip, respectively (see paragraphs [0067, 0075, 0118]); wherein determining whether a gap in coverage of the live event exists in the video-on- demand presentation at the first vantage point associated with the natively-recorded video clip comprises: identifying livestream video clips that were recorded at the first vantage point from the second vantage point information stored in the memory (see paragraphs [0067, 0075, 0118]); and evaluating the timing information of each of the livestream video clips that were recorded at the first vantage point to determine when a discontinuation of coverage of the live event occurred at the first vantage point (see paragraph [0086]).
Regarding Claim 7, HEUSSER discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. HEUSSER further discloses determining an overlap between the natively-recorded video clip and the gap in coverage (see paragraphs [0016 and 0017]); and adding the natively-recorded video clip by inserting the natively-recorded video clip between a first livestream video clip and a second livestream video clip that defines the gap in coverage when the natively-recorded video clip overlaps at least some of the duration of the gap in coverage (see paragraphs [0016 and 0017]).
Regarding Claim 9, HEUSSER discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. HEUSSER further discloses determining a fist vantage point where the natively-recorded video clip was recorded see paragraphs [0067, 0075, 0118]);; determining that a gap in coverage exists in the video-on-demand presentation at a second vantage point (see paragraphs [0067, 0075, 0118]); and adding the natively-recorded video clip by inserting the natively-recorded video clip into the gap in coverage of the video-on-demand presentation at the second vantage point (see paragraph [0089]).
Regarding Claim 11, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, 18 and 20 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alazar Tilahun whose telephone number is (571)270-5712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, From 9:00 AM-6:00 PM.
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.
/ALAZAR TILAHUN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/A.T/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424