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 in response to the Amendment After Non-Final Rejection filed 06/08/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06/08/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 12,273,574 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitazato et al. (US 2018/0123711), herein Kitazato, in view of Guez et al. (US 2022/0053245), herein Guez, in view of Wojdala et al. (US 2018/0061130), herein Wojdala.
Consider claim 1, Kitazato clearly teaches a computer-implemented method for generating interactive video data, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a video stream corresponding to an event; (Figs. 3 and 12: Signal transmitting unit 302 transfers streams of a game broadcast, [0078], [0170], [0171].)
applying, by the one or more processors, to the video stream to generate tracking data; (Fig. 18: A moving object list description (MOLD) document is created, [0172], [0184], [0201]-[0209].)
generating, by the one or more processors, interactive video data based on the video stream and the tracking data; (Fig. 20: The MOLD document is multiplexed with the video asset using the versatile data stream, [0081], [0084], [0212]-[0214].) and
providing, by the one or more processors, the interactive video data to a device, wherein the device is configured to render the interactive video data on the device, and wherein the interactive video data includes one or more graphical renderings. (Fig. 12: Receiver 12 receives a broadcast stream and overlays the display object onto the video display based on the MOLD document, [0070], [0107], [0169]-[0173], [0211], [0219].)
However, Kitazato does not explicitly teach applying, by the one or more processors, one or more machine-learning models to the video stream to generate tracking data.
In an analogous art, Guez, which discloses a system for video processing, clearly teaches applying, by the one or more processors, one or more machine-learning models to the video stream to generate tracking data. (Visual analysis engine 112 tracks objects in a video feed using artificial intelligence, [0006], [0020], [0037], [0064].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kitazato by applying, by the one or more processors, one or more machine-learning models to the video stream to generate tracking data, as taught by Guez, for the benefit of eliminating the need for expensive retrofitting of sports venues and sports equipment ([0006] Guez).
However, Kitazato combined with Guez does not explicitly teach embedding, by the one or more processors, the tracking data as metadata into a first portion of the video stream; and generating, by the one or more processors, interactive video data based on the video stream and the embedded tracking data.
In an analogous art, Wojdala, which discloses a system for video processing, clearly teaches embedding, by the one or more processors, the tracking data as metadata into a first portion of the video stream; and generating, by the one or more processors, interactive video data based on the video stream and the embedded tracking data. (Object tracking metadata is embedded into the vertical blanking interval of the video stream to generate interactive video, [0008], [0011].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kitazato combined with Guez by embedding, by the one or more processors, the tracking data as metadata into a first portion of the video stream; and generating, by the one or more processors, interactive video data based on the video stream and the embedded tracking data, as taught by Wojdala, to achieve the predictable result of transmitting tracking data to client devices.
Consider claim 3, Kitazato combined with Guez and Wojdala clearly teaches the one or more graphical renderings include a scoreboard overlay, one or more video augmentations, or one or more two-dimensional pitch overlays. (Fig. 12, [0170], [0171] Kitazato)
Consider claim 4, Kitazato combined with Guez and Wojdala clearly teaches computer-implemented method comprising: augmenting, by the one or more processors, the video stream with game event data or context data. (Fig. 12: The broadcast stream includes data describing a player name, a position, and the number of goals, and the like, [0170], [0171] Kitazato.)
Consider claim 5, Kitazato combined with Guez and Wojdala clearly teaches the tracking data includes image plane or stream plane tracking data, (Fig. 18: The position information of the object includes a horizontal coordinate x and a vertical coordinate y of the display position of the object on the screen (an upper left corner in the case of a rectangular area) as an attribute value, [0205] Kitazato.) real-world plane tracking data, or scoreboard data.
Consider claim 6, Kitazato combined with Guez and Wojdala clearly teaches generating the interactive video data based on the video stream and the embedded tracking data includes: synchronizing, by the one or more processors, via a codec module, (Fig. 1: ARGS 110 outputs an augmented reality video output 124, [0034] Guez.) the tracking data with the video stream to generate annotated video data. (The MOLD document includes information for synchronizing display objects with the video, [0169]-[0173] Kitazato.)
Consider claim 7, Kitazato combined with Guez and Wojdala clearly teaches providing the interactive video data to the device includes: providing, by the one or more processors, the generated annotated video data to the device. (Fig. 12: Receiver 12 receives the broadcast stream and overlays the display object synchronized with the video display based on the MOLD document, [0173] Kitazato.)
Consider claim 8, Kitazato clearly teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors, causes a computing system to perform operations (Fig. 3) comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors, a video stream corresponding to an event; (Figs. 3 and 12: Signal transmitting unit 302 transfers streams of a game broadcast, [0078], [0170], [0171].)
applying, by the one or more processors, to the video stream to generate tracking data; (Fig. 18: A moving object list description (MOLD) document is created, [0172], [0184], [0201]-[0209].)
generating, by the one or more processors, interactive video data based on the video stream and the tracking data; (Fig. 20: The MOLD document is multiplexed with the video asset using the versatile data stream, [0081], [0084], [0212]-[0214].) and
providing, by the one or more processors, the interactive video data to a device, wherein the device is configured to render the interactive video data on the device, and wherein the interactive video data includes one or more graphical renderings. (Fig. 12: Receiver 12 receives a broadcast stream and overlays the display object onto the video display based on the MOLD document, [0070], [0107], [0169]-[0173], [0211], [0219].)
However, Kitazato does not explicitly teach applying, by the one or more processors, one or more machine-learning models to the video stream to generate tracking data.
In an analogous art, Guez, which discloses a system for video processing, clearly teaches applying, by the one or more processors, one or more machine-learning models to the video stream to generate tracking data. (Visual analysis engine 112 tracks objects in a video feed using artificial intelligence, [0006], [0020], [0037], [0064].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kitazato by applying, by the one or more processors, one or more machine-learning models to the video stream to generate tracking data, as taught by Guez, for the benefit of eliminating the need for expensive retrofitting of sports venues and sports equipment ([0006] Guez).
However, Kitazato combined with Guez does not explicitly teach embedding, by the one or more processors, the tracking data as metadata into a first portion of the video stream; and generating, by the one or more processors, interactive video data based on the video stream and the embedded tracking data.
In an analogous art, Wojdala, which discloses a system for video processing, clearly teaches embedding, by the one or more processors, the tracking data as metadata into a first portion of the video stream; and generating, by the one or more processors, interactive video data based on the video stream and the embedded tracking data. (Object tracking metadata is embedded into the vertical blanking interval of the video stream to generate interactive video, [0008], [0011].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kitazato combined with Guez by embedding, by the one or more processors, the tracking data as metadata into a first portion of the video stream; and generating, by the one or more processors, interactive video data based on the video stream and the embedded tracking data, as taught by Wojdala, to achieve the predictable result of transmitting tracking data to client devices.
Consider claim 10, Kitazato combined with Guez and Wojdala clearly teaches the one or more graphical renderings include a scoreboard overlay, one or more video augmentations, or one or more two-dimensional pitch overlays. (Fig. 12, [0170], [0171] Kitazato)
Consider claim 11, Kitazato combined with Guez and Wojdala clearly teaches the operations comprising: augmenting the video stream with game event data or context data. (Fig. 12: The broadcast stream includes data describing a player name, a position, and the number of goals, and the like, [0170], [0171] Kitazato.)
Consider claim 12, Kitazato combined with Guez and Wojdala clearly teaches the tracking data includes image plane or stream plane tracking data, (Fig. 18: The position information of the object includes a horizontal coordinate x and a vertical coordinate y of the display position of the object on the screen (an upper left corner in the case of a rectangular area) as an attribute value, [0205] Kitazato.) real-world plane tracking data, or scoreboard data.
Consider claim 13, Kitazato combined with Guez and Wojdala clearly teaches generating the interactive video data based on the video stream and the embedded tracking data includes: synchronizing, by the one or more processors, via a codec module, (Fig. 1: ARGS 110 outputs an augmented reality video output 124, [0034] Guez.) the tracking data with the video stream to generate annotated video data. (The MOLD document includes information for synchronizing display objects with the video, [0169]-[0173] Kitazato.)
Consider claim 14, Kitazato combined with Guez and Wojdala clearly teaches providing the interactive video data to the device includes: providing, by the one or more processors, the generated annotated video data to the device. (Fig. 12: Receiver 12 receives the broadcast stream and overlays the display object synchronized with the video display based on the MOLD document, [0173] Kitazato.)
Consider claim 15, Kitazato clearly teaches a computer system for generating interactive video data, comprising:
a processor; and a memory having programming instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform operations (Fig. 3) comprising:
receiving a video stream corresponding to an event; (Figs. 3 and 12: Signal transmitting unit 302 transfers streams of a game broadcast, [0078], [0170], [0171].)
applying to the video stream to generate tracking data; (Fig. 18: A moving object list description (MOLD) document is created, [0172], [0184], [0201]-[0209].)
generating interactive video data based on the video stream and the tracking data; (Fig. 20: The MOLD document is multiplexed with the video asset using the versatile data stream, [0081], [0084], [0212]-[0214].) and
providing the interactive video data to a device, wherein the device is configured to render the interactive video data on the device, and wherein the interactive video data includes one or more graphical renderings. (Fig. 12: Receiver 12 receives a broadcast stream and overlays the display object onto the video display based on the MOLD document, [0070], [0107], [0169]-[0173], [0211], [0219].)
However, Kitazato does not explicitly teach applying, by the one or more processors, one or more machine-learning models to the video stream to generate tracking data.
In an analogous art, Guez, which discloses a system for video processing, clearly teaches applying, by the one or more processors, one or more machine-learning models to the video stream to generate tracking data. (Visual analysis engine 112 tracks objects in a video feed using artificial intelligence, [0006], [0020], [0037], [0064].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kitazato by applying, by the one or more processors, one or more machine-learning models to the video stream to generate tracking data, as taught by Guez, for the benefit of eliminating the need for expensive retrofitting of sports venues and sports equipment ([0006] Guez).
However, Kitazato combined with Guez does not explicitly teach embedding, by the one or more processors, the tracking data as metadata into a first portion of the video stream; and generating, by the one or more processors, interactive video data based on the video stream and the embedded tracking data.
In an analogous art, Wojdala, which discloses a system for video processing, clearly teaches embedding, by the one or more processors, the tracking data as metadata into a first portion of the video stream; and generating, by the one or more processors, interactive video data based on the video stream and the embedded tracking data. (Object tracking metadata is embedded into the vertical blanking interval of the video stream to generate interactive video, [0008], [0011].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kitazato combined with Guez by embedding, by the one or more processors, the tracking data as metadata into a first portion of the video stream; and generating, by the one or more processors, interactive video data based on the video stream and the embedded tracking data, as taught by Wojdala, to achieve the predictable result of transmitting tracking data to client devices.
Consider claim 17, Kitazato combined with Guez and Wojdala clearly teaches the one or more graphical renderings include a scoreboard overlay, one or more video augmentations, or one or more two-dimensional pitch overlays. (Fig. 12, [0170], [0171] Kitazato)
Consider claim 18, Kitazato combined with Guez and Wojdala clearly teaches the operations further comprising: augmenting the video stream with game event data or context data. (Fig. 12: The broadcast stream includes data describing a player name, a position, and the number of goals, and the like, [0170], [0171] Kitazato.)
Consider claim 19, Kitazato combined with Guez and Wojdala clearly teaches the tracking data includes image plane or stream plane tracking data, (Fig. 18: The position information of the object includes a horizontal coordinate x and a vertical coordinate y of the display position of the object on the screen (an upper left corner in the case of a rectangular area) as an attribute value, [0205] Kitazato.) real-world plane tracking data, or scoreboard data.
Consider claim 20, Kitazato combined with Guez and Wojdala clearly teaches generating the interactive video data based on the video stream and the embedded tracking data includes: synchronizing, via a codec module, (Fig. 1: ARGS 110 outputs an augmented reality video output 124, [0034] Guez.) the tracking data with the video stream to generate annotated video data. (Fig. 12: Receiver 12 receives the broadcast stream and overlays the display object synchronized with the video display based on the MOLD document, [0173] Kitazato.)
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitazato et al. (US 2018/0123711) in view of Guez et al. (US 2022/0053245) in view of Wojdala et al. (US 2018/0061130) in view of Power et al. (US 2019/0228306), herein Power.
Consider claim 2, Kitazato combined with Guez and Wojdala clearly teaches the video stream.
However, Kitazato combined with Guez and Wojdala does not explicitly teach the video stream is received from a tracking system, and wherein the tracking system includes a plurality of calibrated cameras configured to capture a plurality of motions of one or more agents and one or more objects on a playing surface.
In an analogous art, Power, which discloses a system for video processing, clearly teaches the video stream is received from a tracking system, and wherein the tracking system includes a plurality of calibrated cameras configured to capture a plurality of motions of one or more agents and one or more objects on a playing surface. ([0029])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kitazato combined with Guez and Wojdala by the video stream is received from a tracking system, and wherein the tracking system includes a plurality of calibrated cameras configured to capture a plurality of motions of one or more agents and one or more objects on a playing surface, as taught by Power, to achieve the predictable result of tracking objects in the video.
Consider claim 9, Kitazato combined with Guez, Wojdala and Power clearly teaches the video stream is received from a tracking system, and wherein the tracking system includes a plurality of calibrated cameras configured to capture a plurality of motions of one or more agents and one or more objects on a playing surface. ([0029] Power)
Consider claim 16, Kitazato combined with Guez, Wojdala and Power clearly teaches the video stream is received from a tracking system, and wherein the tracking system includes a plurality of calibrated cameras configured to capture a plurality of motions of one or more agents and one or more objects on a playing surface. ([0029] Power)
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights