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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent Nos. (12,192,592), (11,917,264), (11,588,675), and (11,240,569) in the chain of continuity. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below with respect to the exemplary analysis of instant system claims 1-11 and USPN 12,192,592: (The differences in claims have been shown in bold letters)
Instant Claims
USPN 12,192,592
A system of video enhancement, comprising:
a server platform in network communication with at least one input capture device for a first event and at least one user device;
wherein the at least one input capture device is operable to collect and transmit input data relating to the first event to the server platform;
wherein the server platform is operable to access historical data from at least one historical event;
wherein the server platform is operable to overlay a graphical element representing an element for comparison on video images of an element of interest in the first event;
wherein the at least one user device is operable to display the graphical element on the video images of the element of interest; and
wherein the data relating to the first event and the at least one historical event is synchronized.
A system of video enhancement for event broadcasting, comprising:
a server platform in network communication with at least one input capture device for a first event and at least one user device;
wherein the at least one input capture device is operable to collect and transmit input data relating to the first event to the server platform;
wherein the sever platform is operable to analyze the input data, thereby creating analyzed data;
wherein the server platform is operable to access historical data from at least one historical event;
wherein the server platform is operable to overlay a graphical element representing an element for comparison on video images of an element of interest in the first event;
wherein the at least one user device is operable to display the graphical element on the video images of the element of interest via an interactive graphical user interface (GUI); and
wherein the data relating to the first event and the at least one historical event is synchronized from the beginning of both events.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the server platform is cloud-based.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the server platform is cloud-based.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the input data comprises video data for the first event.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the input data comprises video data for the first event.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the server platform is operable to update a line based on changes in position of the element of interest.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the server platform is operable to update a line based on changes in position of the element of interest.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the input data is associated with time codes, and wherein the server platform is operable to synchronize the input data along a timeline.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the input data is associated with time codes, and wherein the server platform is operable to synchronize the input data along a timeline.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the element for comparison is an element different from the element of interest in the at least one historical event.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the element for comparison is an element different from the element of interest in the at least one historical event.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the element for comparison is the element of interest in the at least one historical event.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the element for comparison is the element of interest in the at least one historical event.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one user device is operable to select the element of interest and the element for comparison via an interactive graphical user interface (GUI).
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one user device is operable to select the element of interest and the element for comparison via the interactive GUI.
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the element of interest is a first contestant and the element for comparison is a second contestant from the at least one historical event.
16. The system of claim 1, wherein the element of interest is a first contestant and the element for comparison is a second contestant from the at least one historical event
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one user device is operable to display the first event in a front view, a back view, and/or a middle view of the element of interest in the first event.
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one user device is operable to display the first event in a front view, a back view, and/or a middle view of the element of interest in the first event.
11. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one user device is operable to display the first event in broadcast mode including at least one camera view of the first event.
11. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one user device is operable to display the first event in broadcast mode including at least one camera view of the first event.
As can be seen, the instant claim 1 is broader than the claim 1 of the issued patent, therefore, obvious over patented claim 1. The dependent claims, as shown are the same!
Similar analysis applies to the remainder of claims 12-20 of instant applications and the issued patent.
The other issued patents (11,917,264), (11,588,675), and (11,240,569) are all subject to Terminal Disclaimers with respect to the issued patent 12,192,592 and similar analysis applies to them as well.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosser et al., WO 2000/64176 (hereinafter “Rosser”). Rosser is of record as indicated in the IDS of 12/30/2024.
Note: Rosser in its entirety reads on Applicant’s claims. The references to specific passages are merely provided for the convenience of the Applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Rosser discloses a system of video enhancement for event broadcasting (Abstract, Fig. 2), comprising:
a server platform (Fig. 2, e.g. 226/ 227) in network communication with at least one input capture device (214/216) for a first event and at least one user device (230);
wherein the at least one input capture device (214, 222) is operable to collect and transmit input data relating to the first event to the server platform (214, 216, 218, 226; Page 6, line 10 through page 7, line8);
wherein the server platform is operable to access historical data from at least one historical event (Page 9, line 19 through page 10, line 26);
wherein the server platform is operable to overlay a graphical element representing an element for comparison on video images of an element of interest in the current event (232 as overlaid on screen 230; page 11, lines 20-26);
wherein the at least one user device is operable to display the graphical element on the video images of the element of interest (as shown on screen 230, page 11, lines 20-26); and
wherein the data relating to the first event and the at least one historical event is synchronized (Page 4, line 21 through page 5, line 9; Page 11, lines 27-30)
Regarding claim 3, the system of Rosser discloses wherein the input data comprises video data for the first event (As supplied by the video camera system of 214, 222, 224).
Regarding claim 5, Rosser discloses wherein the input data is associated with time codes, and wherein the server platform is operable to synchronize the input data along a timeline (Page 11, lines 27-30).
Regarding claim 6, Rosser discloses wherein the element for comparison is an element different from the element of interest in the at least one historical event (Page 4, line 21 through page 5, line 9).
Regarding claim 7, Rosser discloses wherein the element for comparison is the element of interest in the at least one historical event (Page 9, line 19 through page 10, line 26; 232 as overlaid on screen 230; page 11, lines 20-26; as shown on screen 230, page 11, lines 20-26.)
Regarding claim 11, the system of Rosser discloses wherein the at least one user device is operable to display the first event in broadcast mode including at least one camera view of the current auto racing event (Page 8, line 25 through page 9, line 25).
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.
Claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosser, in view of Allen et al., USPGPUB 2014/0331253 (hereinafter “Allen”). Allen reference was provided by the Applicant in the IDS of 12/30/2024.
Regarding claim 2, the system of Rosser is silent on wherein the server platform is cloud-based.
However, Allen discloses a method and system for monitoring and collection raw and historic data on races (Abstract), analyzing and providing said data in various configurations (e.g. Figs 1A, 5, 6) via a server platform (Fig. 11) wherein the server platform is cloud-based (¶¶ [27], [68]).
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 the system of Rosser (server platform serving data and applications via network of devices) with Allen’s teaching in order to take advantage of cloud computing benefits well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 4, the system of Rosser and Allen discloses wherein the server platform is operable to update a line (the driving line in real-time) based on changes in position of the element of interest (Allen: driver and vehicle of interest, Fig. 6, 603, 605, drive line for pass#56 and lines for current and previous runs, ¶¶ [81], [110]).
Regarding claim 8, the system of Rosser and Allen discloses wherein the at least one user device is operable to select the element of interest and the element for comparison via the interactive Graphical User Interface (GUI) (Allen: ¶ [63]).
Claim 9 is rejected by the same analysis as claim 8 as the contestant are the drivers/ cars selected for comparison (Allen: ¶ [63]).
Regarding claim 12, Rosser discloses a system of video enhancement for event broadcasting (Abstract, Fig. 2), comprising:
a server platform (Fig. 2, e.g. 226/ 227) in network communication with at least one input capture device (214/216) for a first event and at least one user device (230);
wherein the at least one input capture device (214, 222) is operable to collect and transmit input data relating to the first event to the server platform (214, 216, 218, 226; Page 6, line 10 through page 7, line8);
wherein the server platform is operable to access historical data for at least one historical event (Page 9, line 19 through page 10, line 26);
wherein the server platform is operable to overlay a graphical element representing an element for comparison on video images of an element of interest in the first event of an element of interest in the current event (232 as overlaid on screen 230; page 11, lines 20-26);
wherein the at least one user device is operable to display the graphical element on the video images of the element of interest (as shown on screen 230, page 11, lines 20-26); and
wherein the data relating to the first event and the at least one historical event is synchronized (Page 4, line 21 through page 5, line 9; Page 11, lines 27-30).
Rosser is not explicit wherein the user device is operable to display statistical data for the element of interest and the element for comparison.
However, Allen discloses wherein the user device is operable to display statistical data for the element of interest and the element for comparison (Allen: Fig.5, ¶ [79]).
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 the system of Rosser (data of interest to spectators/ viewers) with Allen’s teaching in order to provide data relevant to the sports of interest to the spectators/ viewer.
Claim 13 recites similar features as those of claim 9, therefore, rejected the same.
Regarding claim 14, Rosser discloses in detail an embodiment of an event to be a ski competition (Fig. 2, and as detailed with respect to claim 18), he further discloses that the same is applied to other events such as “auto/ motor racing” (e.g. Formula 1) (Page 3, lines 1-8; Page 4, lines 11-18; page 5, lines 1-9) where the competitor/ contestants are “driver and vehicles”.
Claim 15 is rejected by the same analysis as claim 14.
The method of claim 16 combines features of the system of claims 12-15, effectuating the same, therefore, is rejected by the same analysis.
Regarding claim 17, Rosser is not explicit in that the real-time input data comprises a speed, a percentage of throttle, a percentage of brake, a steering angle, and revolutions per minute (RPM).
However, Allen discloses a method and system for monitoring and collection raw and historic data on races (Abstract), wherein the data comprises a speed (¶ [8]), a percentage of throttle (¶ [8]), a percentage of brake (¶ [8]), a steering angle (¶ [8]), and revolutions per minute (RPM) (¶ [8]).
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 the system of Rosser (data of interest to spectators/ viewers) with Allen’s teaching in order to provide data relevant to the sports of interest to the spectators/ viewer.
Regarding claim 18, the system of Rosser and Allen discloses the at least one user device simultaneously displaying a view of the first racing event in broadcast mode, wherein the view of the first racing event in broadcast mode does not include the graphical element representing the vehicle for comparison (Page 8, line 25 through page 9, line 25).
Regarding claim 20, the system of Rosser and Allen discloses wherein the vehicle of interest is a first contestant and the vehicle for comparison is the first contestant from the at least one historical event. (Rosser: Page 11, lines 20-26; 232 as overlaid on screen 230; page 11, lines 20-26. Allen: Figs. 6, 7, and corresponding descriptions)
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosser, in view of Allen, further in view of Curry, USPGPUB 2010/0026809 (hereinafter “Curry”).
Regarding claim 10, the system of Rosser and Allen is silent on wherein the interactive GUI is operable to display the current auto racing event in a front view, a back view, and/or a middle view of the element of interest in the first event.
However, Curry discloses a method and system for selection of the viewing mode of a sporting event broadcast/ presentation (Fig. 20B) wherein the interactive GUI is operable to display (Fig. 20B) the current sporting event in a front view, a back view, and/or a middle view of the driver and vehicle of interest in the current auto racing event (Curry: ¶¶ [212]-[213], [215], [220]).
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 the system of Rosser and Allen with Curry’s teaching in order to provide the user with selections of viewing angles/ options for further enjoyment of the game.
Regarding claim 19, the system of Rosser, Allen, and Curry discloses a method and system for selection of the viewing mode of a sporting event broadcast/ presentation (Curry: Fig. 20B) wherein the interactive GUI is operable to display (Fig. 20B) the current sporting event in a bird's-eye view of the current sporting event (Curry: ¶¶ [198], [223], [220], [259]). As further detailed by Curry in ¶¶ [188]-[223].
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 CFR § 1.111 (c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Klein et al., USPGPUB 2012/0081965 – See Abstract, Figs 5, 6, and corresponding description
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R MARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-7 ET flex.
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, Nathan J Flynn can be reached at 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 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.
/JAMES R MARANDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421