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
This Office Action is made in reply to Application 19/012,753 filed 07 January 2025. After a preliminary amendment, Claims 2 – 21 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 and 14 - 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
• “the resolution or encoding rate” in Claim 7 line 2 should apparently be –the resolution or the encoding rate--;
• “the resolution or encoding rate” in Claim 8 line 2 should apparently be –the resolution or the encoding rate--;
• “the resolution or encoding rate” in Claim 14 line 2 should apparently be –the resolution or the encoding rate--;
• “the resolution or encoding rate” in Claim 15 line 2 should apparently be –the resolution or the encoding rate--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 7, 8, 14, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the content tag" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the surrounding portion" in line 2 and in lines 2 - 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the surrounding portion” refers to “a surrounding portion” associated with encoding rate (Claim 6 line 3) or “a surrounding portion” associated with resolution (Claim 6 lines 3 – 4).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the content tag corresponding to the downvote tag" in lines 3 - 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is instantiated in Claim 4 and Claim 7 is dependent on Claim 6 which is dependent on Claim 3.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the surrounding portion" in line 2 and in lines 2 - 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the surrounding portion” refers to “a surrounding portion” associated with encoding rate (Claim 6 line 3) or “a surrounding portion” associated with resolution (Claim 6 lines 3 – 4).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the content tag corresponding to the upvote tag" in lines 3 - 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is instantiated in Claim 5 and Claim 8 is dependent on Claim 6 which is dependent on Claim 3.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the surrounding portion" in line 2 and in lines 2 - 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the surrounding portion” refers to “a surrounding portion” associated with encoding rate (Claim 13 lines 2-3) or “a surrounding portion” associated with resolution (Claim 13 line 3).
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the surrounding portion" in line 2 and in lines 2 - 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the surrounding portion” refers to “a surrounding portion” associated with encoding rate (Claim 13 lines 2-3) or “a surrounding portion” associated with resolution (Claim 13 line 3).
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the upvote tag" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the content tags" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 14 March 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 12,225,267 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Double Patenting Rejection - Overcome
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of Claims 2, 3, 6, 10, 17 and 19 – 20 over claims 1, 7 – 8, 11 – 12, 18 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,225,267 has been overcome by the Terminal Disclaimer which was filed 14 March 2025 and approved 27 March 2026.
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.
Claims 2 – 3, 6 – 8 and 10 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sayers et al., US Pub. 2012/0210383 A1 (hereinafter Sayers) [included in the IDS received 14 March 2025] in view of Walker et al., US Pub. 2024/0024788 A1 (hereinafter Walker) [included in the IDS received 14 March 2025].
In regards to Claim 2, Sayers discloses a method comprising:
providing a real-time multimedia stream (Sayers: Fig. 1 and [0010], where streaming media for an event is presented; [0013], where the event can include a live sporting event, a live concert, a live entertainment event, etc.; [0034] where there is a live streamed event)
during a broadcast of the real-time multimedia stream, generating, a plurality of content tags at specified timestamps (Sayers: [0019], where an event of interest might occur at time T; [0023], where portions of the event that meet a predetermined interest level are marked); and
providing a delayed multimedia stream that includes content corresponding to the real- time multimedia stream (Sayers: [0034], where a data stream, or video stream, can be delayed by a predetermined time). But Sayers fails to explicitly disclose wherein delivery of portions of the delayed multimedia stream that correspond to the plurality of content tags is prioritized via inserting or removing portions to affect a length and delay of the delayed multimedia stream.
Walker, from a similar endeavor, teaches wherein delivery of portions of the delayed multimedia stream that correspond to the plurality of content tags is prioritized via inserting or removing portions to affect a length and delay of the delayed multimedia stream (Walker: [0030], where one or more selected views, e.g. a perspective from a second spectator, a different view, a replay of a player performing a difficult maneuver, etc., can be added to a game rendering according to preference rules which indicate information of interest to a spectator; [0021], where video content of live gameplay is streamed in either real-time or with a slight delay).
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 providing of the delayed multimedia stream as disclosed by Sayers, (Sayers: [0034]), in view of Walker which discloses that different views or perspectives can be added to the rendering of the stream according to preference rules, (Walker: [0030]). This allows for improvement in crowd-sourced stream production, (Walker: [0006]).
Regarding Claim 3, the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of content tags corresponds to upvote tags indicating an increased priority and downvote tags indicating a decreased priority (Sayers: [0009], where viewer interest and/or excitement about an event can be evaluated by correlating social media with the event; [0018], where a user can indicate interest in an event via a message that is positive, negative or neutral; [0023], where the quantity of messages is noted and user feedback indicating positive, negative or neutral interest in a specific portion of the event. For example, a user who is a fan of Team A can have positive interest about a touchdown catch of Team A and a user who is an opponent of Team A can have negative interest about a touchdown catch of Team A;; [0030], where a sudden increase in outgoing messages about a particular portion indicates high interest in that portion)..
Regarding Claim 6, the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising:
based on a priority of the content tag, adjusting at least one of the following: buffer size,
prebuffering, encoding rate of a surrounding portion, or resolution of a surrounding portion (Sayers: [0029], where the compression rate can be increased in times of lower interest, i.e. before a running race begins; [0031], where it is determined the level of interest for various portions of an event including portions with higher interest).
Regarding Claim 7, the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising:
decreasing the resolution or encoding rate of the surrounding portion when the surrounding portion is marked with the content tag corresponding to the downvote tag (Sayers: [0029], where the compression ratio can be increased [decreasing the resolution or encoding rate] in times of lower interest, i.e. before a running race begins; [0026], where data compression may allow for encoding information using fewer bits than an unencoded representation).
Regarding Claim 8, the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising:
maintaining the resolution or encoding rate of the surrounding portion when the surrounding portion is marked with the content tag corresponding to the upvote tag (Sayers: [0029], where the compression ratio can be decreased [maintaining the resolution or encoding rate] in times of higher interest, i.e. the approach to the finish line in a running race; [0026], where data compression may allow for encoding information using fewer bits than an unencoded representation; [0030], where in response to increased interest in a portion of an event, the compression ratio can be decreased and a higher quality data stream can be produced which can show the interesting portion in greater detail).
In regards to Claim 10, Sayer discloses a method comprising:
providing a real-time multimedia stream (Sayers: Fig. 1 and [0010], where streaming media for an event is presented; [0013], where the event can include a live sporting event, a live concert, a live entertainment event, etc.; [0034] where there is a live streamed event);
during a broadcast of the real-time multimedia stream, generating, a plurality of upvote tags at specified timestamps (Sayers: [0018], where a user can indicate interest in an event via a message that is positive, negative or neutral; [0023], where the quantity of messages is noted and user feedback indicating positive, negative or neutral interest in a specific portion of the event. For example, a user who is a fan of Team A can have positive interest about a touchdown catch of Team A; [0030], where a sudden increase in outgoing messages about a particular portion indicates high interest in that portion); and
providing a delayed multimedia stream that includes content corresponding to the real- time multimedia stream (Sayers: [0034], where a data stream, or video stream, can be delayed by a predetermined time). But Sayers fails to explicitly disclose, wherein delivery of portions of the delayed multimedia stream that correspond to the plurality of upvote tags are prioritized via inserting additional camera angles of portions marked by upvote tags to increase a length of and affect a delay of the delayed multimedia stream.
Walker, from a similar endeavor, teaches wherein delivery of portions of the delayed multimedia stream that correspond to the plurality of upvote tags are prioritized via inserting additional camera angles of portions marked by upvote tags to increase a length of and affect a delay of the delayed multimedia stream (Walker: [0030], where one or more selected views, e.g. a perspective from a second spectator, a different view, a replay of a player performing a difficult maneuver, etc., can be added to a game rendering according to preference rules which indicate information of interest to a spectator; [0021], where video content of live gameplay is streamed in either real-time or with a slight delay).
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 providing of the delayed multimedia stream as disclosed by Sayers, (Sayers: [00341), in view of Walker which discloses that different views or perspectives can be added to the rendering of the stream according to preference rules, (Walker: [00301). This allows for improvement in crowd-sourced stream production, (Walker: [00061).
Regarding Claim 11, the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the plurality of upvote tags have an increased priority compared to untagged additional camera angles and additional camera angles marked with downvote tags (Sayers: [0018], where a user can indicate interest in an event via a message that is positive, negative or neutral; [0023], where the quantity of messages is noted and user feedback indicating positive, negative or neutral interest in a specific portion of the event. For example, a user who is a fan of Team A can have; Walker: [0030], where one or more selected views, e.g. a perspective from a second spectator, a different view, a replay of a player performing a difficult maneuver, etc., can be added to a game rendering according to preference rules which indicate information of interest to a spectator).
Regarding Claim 12, the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising:
inserting additional camera angles marked by upvote tags into the delayed multimedia stream (Walker: [0030], where one or more selected views, e.g. a perspective from a second spectator, a different view, a replay of a player performing a difficult maneuver, etc., can be added to a game rendering according to preference rules which indicate information of interest to a spectator).
Regarding Claim 13, the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising:
adjusting at least one of the following: buffer size, prebuffering, encoding rate of a surrounding portion, or resolution of a surrounding portion to prioritize additional camera angles marked with upvote tags (Sayers: [0029], where the compression rate can be increased in times of lower interest, i.e. before a running race begins; [0031], where it is determined the level of interest for various portions of an event including portions with higher interest).
Regarding Claim 14, the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising:
decreasing the resolution or encoding rate of the surrounding portion when the surrounding portion is unmarked or marked with the downvote tag (Sayers: [0029], where the compression ratio can be increased [decreasing the resolution or encoding rate] in times of lower interest, i.e. before a running race begins; [0026], where data compression may allow for encoding information using fewer bits than an unencoded representation).
Regarding Claim 15, the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising:
maintaining the resolution or encoding rate of the surrounding portion when the surrounding portion is marked with the upvote tag (Sayers: [0029], where the compression ratio can be decreased [maintaining the resolution or encoding rate] in times of higher interest, i.e. the approach to the finish line in a running race; [0026], where data compression may allow for encoding information using fewer bits than an unencoded representation; [0030], where in response to increased interest in a portion of an event, the compression ratio can be decreased and a higher quality data stream can be produced which can show the interesting portion in greater detail).
Claim(s) 4 - 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayers in view of Walker as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Walker et al., US Pub. 2009/0144785 A1 (hereinafter Walker2).
Regarding Claim 4, the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising:
portions marked by content tags corresponding to downvote tags (Sayers: [0018], where a user can indicate interest in an event via a message that is positive, negative or neutral; [0023], where the quantity of messages is noted and user feedback indicating positive, negative or neutral interest in a specific portion of the event). But the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker fails to explicitly disclose removing portions indicated as not important from the delayed multimedia stream.
Walker2 from a similar endeavor teaches removing portions indicated as not important from the delayed multimedia stream (Walker2: [0018], where live media feed of an event is recorded and broadcasted at a predetermined delay [delayed media stream]. Portions of the live media feed are identified as important and could be modified to enhance the event. The elongated delay can be reduced or eliminated by omitting down time in the live media feed; [0041], where segments of video footage identified as not important to the game are deleted which help in accounting for the increased broadcast delay time created by broadcasting extended live slow-motion media).
Because many of the most important plays come and go in short moments of suspense and excitement when a sporting event is broadcast and televised in real time, there is a need to improve current broadcasts by prolonging suspenseful and exciting moments of a live event, (Walker2: [0014] – [0016]). 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 combination of Sayers and Walker in view of Walker2 such that the portions of live video that have received negative feedback from users (Sayers: [0023]) could be removed from the delayed multimedia stream as disclosed by Walker2, (Walker2: [0018] – [0041]). This would allow viewers to be shown spectacular sports plays, for the first time, with special effects, such as slow motion, already applied, (Walker2: [0016]).
Regarding Claim 5, the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising:
portions marked by content tags corresponding to upvote tags (Sayers: [0018], where a user can indicate interest in an event via a message that is positive, negative or neutral; [0023], where the quantity of messages is noted and user feedback indicating positive, negative or neutral interest in a specific portion of the event. For example, a user who is a fan of Team A can have positive interest about a touchdown catch of Team A). But the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker fails to explicitly disclose inserting portions marked by content tags indicating an event of interest into the delayed multimedia stream.
Walker2 from a similar endeavor teaches inserting portions marked by content tags indicating an event of interest into the delayed multimedia stream (Walker2: Fig. 3D and [0060], where a first cue [content tag] 356 is inserted in an editing version of the live media feed [delayed multimedia stream] to mark the beginning of a portion of the live event that is of interest. A modification is added, such as a slow motion effect, to the delayed live media feed; [0059], where the modification, i.e. slow motion and/or multiple camera angles, chose for Event 2 elongated, or stretched out, the broadcast of the live media feed for the event by 10 seconds).
Because many of the most important plays come and go in short moments of suspense and excitement when a sporting event is broadcast and televised in real time, there is a need to improve current broadcasts by prolonging suspenseful and exciting moments of a live event, (Walker2: [0014] – [0016]). 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 combination of Sayers and Walker in view of Walker2 such that the portions of live video that have received negative feedback from users (Sayers: [0023]) could be removed from the delayed multimedia stream as disclosed by Walker2, (Walker2: [0018] – [0041]). This would allow viewers to be shown spectacular sports plays, for the first time, with special effects, such as slow motion, already applied, (Walker2: [0016]).
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayers in view of Walker as applied to claims 2, 10 and 17 above, and further in view of Mishra et al., US Pub. 2023/0300430 A1 (hereinafter Mishra) [included in the IDS received 14 March 2025].
Regarding Claim 9, the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker discloses the method of claim 2. But the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker fail to explicitly disclose, wherein generating the content tags further comprises: determining, using a machine learning model, a content type of the real-time multimedia stream; and assigning, using the machine learning model, content tags to portions of the real-time multimedia stream based on the content type of the real-time multimedia stream.
Mishra from a similar endeavor teaches determining, using a machine learning model, a content type of the real-time multimedia stream (Mishra: [0067], where machine learning model may include a trained event detector model which determines the context [content type] of a video stream. For example, if the extracted features reveal a bat and a ball in consecutive video frames, the event detector may determine the context of the video stream is a baseball game); and
assigning, using the machine learning model, content tags to portions of the real-time multimedia stream based on the content type of the real-time multimedia stream (Mishra: [0067], where a set of highlight segments may be identified within the context of the video. For example, if the context is a baseball game, then a highlight segment may be a portion of the video stream showing a hit, a homerun or a pitch; [0068], where a starting frame [content tags] and an ending frame [content tags] of the highlight are detected and frames are marked [content tags] as part of the highlight segment).
Because it is difficult to figure out which frames in video segments are relevant for highlights and to analyze associated audio with those frames and derive relevant highlights, there is a need for efficient highlight generation for live streaming media, (Mishra: [0003]). 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 combined teaching of Sayers and Walker in view of Mishra to identify highlight segment within video streams contemporaneously as the video streams are being processed through a video streaming system based on trained machine learning models, (Mishra: [0019]). This provides a more interactive streaming experience to the end user by allowing the end user to replay and/or share the most exciting portion of a video stream in real time, (Mishra: [0022]).
Regarding Claim 16, the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker discloses the method of claim 10. But the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker fails to explicitly disclose, wherein generating the upvote tags further comprises: determining, using a machine learning model, a content type of the real-time multimedia stream; and assigning, using the machine learning model, upvote tags to additional camera angles of the real-time multimedia stream based on the content type of the real-time multimedia stream.
Mishra from a similar endeavor teaches determining, using a machine learning model, a content type of the real-time multimedia stream (Mishra: [0067], where machine learning model may include a trained event detector model which determines the context [content type] of a video stream. For example, if the extracted features reveal a bat and a ball in consecutive video frames, the event detector may determine the context of the video stream is a baseball game); and
assigning, using the machine learning model, upvote tags to additional camera angles of the real-time multimedia stream based on the content type of the real-time multimedia stream (Mishra: [0067], where a set of highlight segments may be identified within the context of the video. For example, if the context is a baseball game, then a highlight segment may be a portion of the video stream showing a hit, a homerun or a pitch; [0068], where a starting frame [content tags] and an ending frame [content tags] of the highlight are detected and frames are marked [content tags] as part of the highlight segment).
Because it is difficult to figure out which frames in video segments are relevant for highlights and to analyze associated audio with those frames and derive relevant highlights, there is a need for efficient highlight generation for live streaming media, (Mishra: [0003]). 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 combined teaching of Sayers and Walker in view of Mishra to identify highlight segment within video streams contemporaneously as the video streams are being processed through a video streaming system based on trained machine learning models, (Mishra: [0019]). This provides a more interactive streaming experience to the end user by allowing the end user to replay and/or share the most exciting portion of a video stream in real time, (Mishra: [0022]).
Claims 17 - 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sayers in view of Walker2.
In regards to Claim 17, Sayers discloses a method comprising:
providing a real-time multimedia stream (Sayers: Fig. 1 and [0010], where streaming media for an event is presented; [0013], where the event can include a live sporting event, a live concert, a live entertainment event, etc.; [0034] where there is a live streamed event);
during a broadcast of the real-time multimedia stream, generating, a plurality of downvote tags at specified timestamps (Sayers: [0019], where an event of interest might occur at time T; [0023], where the quantity of messages is noted and user feedback indicating positive, negative or neutral interest in a specific portion of the event. For example, a user who is an opponent of Team A can have negative interest about a touchdown catch of Team A); and
providing a delayed multimedia stream that includes content corresponding to the real- time multimedia stream wherein delivery of portions of the delayed multimedia stream that correspond to the plurality of downvote tags, portions marked by downvote tags (Sayers: [0034], where a data stream, or video stream, can be delayed by a predetermined time; [0019], where an event of interest might occur at time T; [0023], where the quantity of messages is noted and user feedback indicating positive, negative or neutral interest in a specific portion of the event). But Sayers fails to explicitly disclose, wherein delivery of portions of the delayed multimedia stream that correspond to the portions of noninterest is deemphasized via removing camera angles of portions of noninterest to decrease a length of and affect a delay of the delayed multimedia stream.
Walker2 from a similar endeavor teaches wherein delivery of portions of the delayed multimedia stream that correspond to the portions of noninterest is deemphasized via removing camera angles of portions of noninterest to decrease a length of and affect a delay of the delayed multimedia stream (Walker2: [0018], where live media feed of an event is recorded and broadcasted at a predetermined delay. Portions of the live media feed are identified as important and could be modified to enhance the event. The elongated delay can be reduced or eliminated by omitting down time in the live media feed; [0041], where segments of video footage identified as not important to the game are deleted which help in accounting for the increased broadcast delay time created by broadcasting extended live slow-motion media).
Because many of the most important plays come and go in short moments of suspense and excitement when a sporting event is broadcast and televised in real time, there is a need to improve current broadcasts by prolonging suspenseful and exciting moments of a live event, (Walker2: [0014] – [0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sayers in view of Walker2 such that the portions of live video that have received negative feedback from users (Sayers: [0023]) could be removed from the delayed multimedia stream as disclosed by Walker2, (Walker2: [0018] – [0041]). This would allow viewers to be shown spectacular sports plays, for the first time, with special effects, such as slow motion, already applied, (Walker2: [0016]).
Regarding Claim 18, the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker2 discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the downvote tags indicate a decreased priority compared to untagged camera angles and camera angles marked with upvote tags (Sayers: [0019], where an event of interest might occur at time T; [0023], where the quantity of messages is noted and user feedback indicating positive, negative or neutral interest in a specific portion of the event; Walker: Figs. 7A-7C and [0103]-[0104], where a slow motion effect has been applied to Event 3 736 of the live media feed which has been identified as an exciting play and while Down Time 738 has been identified as not interesting and has omitted 7 seconds).
Regarding Claim 19, the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker2 discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising:
removing camera angles marked by downvote tags from the delayed multimedia stream (Sayers: [0018], where a user can indicate interest in an event via a message that is positive, negative or neutral; [0023], where the quantity of messages is noted and user feedback indicating positive, negative or neutral interest in a specific portion of the event; Walker2: [0018], where live media feed of an event is recorded and broadcasted at a predetermined delay. Portions of the live media feed are identified as important and could be modified to enhance the event. The elongated delay can be reduced or eliminated by omitting down time in the live media feed; [0041], where segments of video footage identified as not important to the game are deleted which help in accounting for the increased broadcast delay time created by broadcasting extended live slow-motion media; [0017], where live media feed modification may offer a variety of different camera angles for a particular sports play and a plurality of camera angles may be broadcast at the same time).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayers in view of Walker2 as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Walker.
Regarding Claim 20, the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker2 discloses the method of claim 18. But the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker2 fail to explicitly disclose, further comprising: inserting additional camera angles marked by upvote tags into the delayed multimedia stream.
Walker from a similar endeavor teaches inserting additional camera angles marked by upvote tags into the delayed multimedia stream (Walker: [0030], where one or more selected views, e.g. a perspective from a second spectator, a different view, a replay of a player performing a difficult maneuver, etc., can be added to a game rendering according to preference rules which indicate information of interest to a spectator; [0021 ], where video content of live gameplay is streamed in either real-time or with a slight delay).
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 combined teaching of Sayers and Walker2 in view of Walker such that the providing of the delayed multimedia stream as disclosed by Sayers, (Sayers: [0034]), in view of Walker which discloses that different views or perspectives can be added to the rendering of the stream according to preference rules, (Walker: [0030]). This allows for improvement in crowd-sourced stream production, (Walker: [0006]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayers in view of Walker2 as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Mishra.
Regarding Claim 21, the combined teaching of Sayers and Walker2 discloses the method of claim 17. But the combination of Sayers and Walker2 fail to explicitly disclose, wherein generating the content tags further comprises: determining, using a machine learning model, a content type of the real-time multimedia stream; and assigning using the machine learning model, downvote tags to camera angles of the real-time multimedia stream based on the content type of the real-time multimedia stream.
Mishra from a similar endeavor teaches determining, using a machine learning model, a content type of the real-time multimedia stream (Mishra: [0067], where machine learning model may include a trained event detector model which determines the context [content type] of a video stream. For example, if the extracted features reveal a bat and a ball in consecutive video frames, the event detector may determine the context of the video stream is a baseball game); and
assigning using the machine learning model, downvote tags to camera angles of the real-time multimedia stream based on the content type of the real-time multimedia stream Mishra: [0067], where a set of highlight segments may be identified within the context of the video. For example, if the context is a baseball game, then a highlight segment may be a portion of the video stream showing a hit, a homerun or a pitch; [0068], where a starting frame [content tags] and an ending frame [content tags] of the highlight are detected and frames are marked [content tags] as part of the highlight segment).
Because it is difficult to figure out which frames in video segments are relevant for highlights and to analyze associated audio with those frames and derive relevant highlights, there is a need for efficient highlight generation for live streaming media, (Mishra: [0003]). 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 combined teaching of Sayers and Walker2 in view of Mishra to identify highlight segment within video streams contemporaneously as the video streams are being processed through a video streaming system based on trained machine learning models, (Mishra: [0019]). This provides a more interactive streaming experience to the end user by allowing the end user to replay and/or share the most exciting portion of a video stream in real time, (Mishra: [0022]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pacor et al., US Pub. 2014/0150032 A1 teach that cameras positioned at different locations throughout a venue and/or oriented in different directions capture varying perspectives of a live event, ([0031]). A selected group of video feeds based on predicted future use of the video feeds by the end user may be buffered, ([0028]). The group feed vectors are ranked according to popularity and the video feeds to be buffered may correspond with the heist ranking feed vectors, ([0113]).
Buchheit, US Pub. 2012/0307145 A1 teaches simultaneously presenting a primary stream and an enhances stream which can be time-synchronized to the primary stream and can be associated with a secondary viewpoint, ([0005]). For example, a viewer can watch a soccer game replay of a goal from the point of view of the goalie while another viewer can watch an alternate camera angle of the same goal at the same time, ([0026]).
Bustamante et al., US Pub. 2019/0246146 A1 teach a platform for sharing multiple viewpoints of a live event which includes multiple client devices, (Fig. 7 and [0049]). A client viewpoint may be removed by the server fir any devices that stopped live streaming a viewpoint of the live event, ([0050]).
Myhill, US Pub. 2018/0161682 A1 [included in the IDS received 14 March 2025] teaches that an output can be slightly delayed so that the cameras which best cover important events are advantageously arranged such that the viewer is provided with a good view of the action surrounding the important events and a "delay mode" which allows key game events or specific actions which have been tagged as important to be prioritized. When the "delay mode" is on, it allows, for example, a game to be displayed according to game events and actions by using position, compose and cut cameras, i.e. cinematographic module will cut away from the default camera type if a high-priority event or action occurs, ([0035] - [0036]).
Devaux, US Pub. 2015/0264296 A1 [included in the IDS received 14 March 2025] teaches that an event can be covered from a variety of viewpoints via a plurality of cameras and processing of the video may be delayed and thus may be prioritized, (paras. 75, 81 and 143).
Pickett, US Pub. 2017/0237903 A1 [included in the IDS received 14 March 2025] teach that during a sporting event, a near real-time view that may provide a plurality of camera angles may capture entire plays or critical moments which may be broadcast with a delay, ([0055]).
He et al., US Pub. 2021/0021806 A1 [included in the IDS received 14 March 2025] teach that an event such as sport match or music concert may have multiple viewpoints on the field or stadium to offer different viewing perspectives to the users, ([0123]).
Obara, US Pub. 2020/0053401 A1 [included in the IDS received 14 March 2025] teaches receiving several video feeds from several cameras present at the event with each camera capturing from a different angle, ([0033]) and that an event trigger refers to anything that indicates that a portion of the live event includes some event that may be of particular interest to a user, ([0035]).
Cave, JR. et al., US Pub. 2016/0012856 A1 [included in the IDS received 14 March 2025] teach a video replay system which allows for playback of video tiles from a buffer which minimizes the delay between capturing and replaying a desire video portion, ([0022]).
Panchaksharaiah et al., US Pub. 2017/0332036 A1 [included in the IDS received 14 March 2025] teach adjusting a size of content on a display based on a relative importance of the content, For example, a system may increase a size of the replay and decrease a size of the live video because the replay is more important to the user, ([0003]).
Verna et al., US Pub. 2012/0210348 A1 [included in the IDS received 14 March 2025] teach displaying video associated with a talking replay and can include liver video from a sports broadcast, ([0046]).
Singhal et al., US Pub. 2021/0400329 A1 [included in the IDS received 14 March 2025] teach determining an engagement score that characterizes a level of user engagement with respect to portion of a media object, ([0005]).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cynthia M FOGG whose telephone number is (571)272-2741. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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 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.
/CYNTHIA M FOGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421