Detailed Action
This is a Non-final Office action in response to communications received on 3/14/2025. Claims 1-12 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings, filed 3/14/2025, are acknowledged.
Provisional Priority
The provisional priority date of 12/23/2020 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the claim recites “a processor having an input receiving a real-time live digital media steam and an input defining a payload for a watermark”, however “an input receiving a real-time live digital media steam” appears two have a typographical error and an improper descriptor of “an input”. The claim should more correctly recite “a processor having an input comprising a real-time live digital media stream and an input defining a payload for a watermark”, or similar language.
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.
Claims 2 and 12 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2 and 12, the claims recite “less than about 500 millisecond of latency”. This language “about 500 milliseconds” is unclear as to the actual upper limit of the latency.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. US 12273601 B2 (Lucchi). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are taught by the use of synonyms and change of limitation order from the patent identified above.
Application 19/079,523
Patent No. US 12273601 B2
1. A live media streaming architecture with real-time watermarking, comprising:
a processor having an input receiving a real-time live digital media steam and an input defining a payload for a watermark,
the processor including a watermarking module that applies the watermark, including at least a portion of the payload, to individual frames of the digital media stream, such that individual portions of the payload are applied to a frame or sub frame level; and
an edge device transmitting differently watermarked digital media streams as live media streams based on the output of the watermarking module to respective different subscriber devices among a plurality of subscriber devices.
1. A live media streaming architecture with real-time watermarking, comprising: …
a first input configured to receive the real-time live digital media stream from the origin device and a second input configured to receive a payload for use in creating a watermark
watermarking module, comprising computer program instructions that when processed by the processor configures the processor to: apply a respective watermark, including at least a portion of the payload, to each individual frame of the real-time live digital media stream
generate a respective uniquely watermarked real-time live digital media stream for each subscriber device by defining a respective unique sequence of individual frames or subframes selected from among the plurality of differently watermarked real-time live digital media streams based on respective information associated the subscriber device
2. The live media streaming architecture of claim 1, wherein the watermarking library, when applying a watermark to a stream, introduces less than about 500 millisecond of latency to delivery of the stream.
2. The live media streaming architecture of claim 1, wherein the watermarking module, to apply the watermark to the real-time live digital media stream, introduces less than 500 milliseconds of latency to delivery of the real-time live digital media stream through the third one or more computer networks.
3. The live media streaming architecture of claim 1, wherein the watermarking library generates a first version of a subframe with a first watermark and a second version of a subframe with a second watermark, and wherein the edge device delivers a first stream to a first subscriber device with a first sequence of versions of subframes and a second stream to a second subscriber device with a second sequence of versions of subframes different from the first sequence.
3. The live media streaming architecture of claim 1, wherein the watermarking module generates a first version of a subframe with a first watermark and a second version of a subframe with a second watermark, and wherein the edge device delivers a first stream to a first subscriber device with a first sequence of versions of subframes and a second stream to a second subscriber device with a second sequence of versions of subframes different from the first sequence.
4. The live media streaming architecture of claim 1, wherein the watermarking library generates a first version of a frame with a first watermark and a second version of a frame with a second watermark, and wherein the edge device delivers a first stream to a first subscriber device with a first sequence of versions of frames and a second stream to a second subscriber device with a second sequence of versions of frames different from the first sequence.
4. The live media streaming architecture of claim 1, wherein the watermarking module generates a first version of a frame with a first watermark and a second version of a frame with a second watermark, and wherein the edge device delivers a first stream to a first subscriber device with a first sequence of versions of frames and a second stream to a second subscriber device with a second sequence of versions of frames different from the first sequence.
5. The live media streaming architecture of claim 1, wherein the digital media stream comprises an audio stream, wherein a frame of the audio stream is marked with the watermark.
5. The live media streaming architecture of claim 1, wherein the real-time live digital media stream comprises an audio stream, wherein a frame of the audio stream is marked with the watermark.
6. The live media streaming architecture of claim1, wherein the digital media stream comprises a video stream, wherein a frame of the video stream is marked with the watermark.
6. The live media streaming architecture of claim 1, wherein the real-time live digital media stream comprises a video stream, wherein a frame of the video stream is marked with the watermark.
7. The live media streaming architecture of claim 1, wherein the digital media stream comprises both a video stream and an audio stream, wherein frames of both the audio stream and the video stream are marked with the watermark.
7. The live media streaming architecture of claim 1, wherein the real-time live digital media stream comprises both a video stream and an audio stream, wherein frames of at least the video stream are marked with the watermark.
8. The live video streaming architecture of claim 1, wherein a payload of the watermark carries data indicating at least one of a republisher, a subscriber, or metadata about the digital media stream.
8. The live video streaming architecture of claim 1, wherein the payload for the watermark carries data indicating at least one of a republisher, a subscriber, or metadata about the real-time live digital media stream.
12. A live media streaming architecture with real-time watermarking, comprising:
a processor having an input receiving a digital media steam and an input defining a payload for a watermark,
the processor including a watermarking module that applies the watermark, including at least a portion of the payload, to individual frames of the digital media stream,
such that each watermarked frame is produced with a latency of less than about 500 milliseconds; and
an edge device transmitting differently watermarked digital media streams based on the output of the watermarking module to respective different subscriber devices among a plurality of subscriber devices.
9. A live media streaming architecture with real-time watermarking, comprising: …
a first input configured to receive real-time live digital media streams from the plurality of origin devices and a second input configured to receive a respective payload for each publisher for use in creating watermarks,
wherein the third computer storage of the watermarking server computer includes a watermarking module comprising computer program instructions that when processed by the third processor configures the third processor to: apply a respective watermark, including at least a portion of the payload for the respective publisher, to each individual frame of each real-time live digital media stream
10. The live media streaming architecture of claim 9, wherein the watermarking module, to apply the watermark to the real-time live digital media streams, introduces less than 500 milliseconds of latency to delivery of the real-time live digital media streams through the third one or more computer networks.
9. …generate a respective uniquely watermarked real-time live digital media stream for each subscriber device by defining a respective unique sequence of individual frames or subframes selected from among the plurality of differently watermarked real-time live digital media streams based on respective information associated the subscriber device…
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.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schrempp (US 20160105428 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Schrempp teaches the limitations of claim 9 substantially as follows:
A computer system providing extraction of a watermark in digital media transmitted by a live media streaming architecture, comprising a processing system configured to: (Schrempp; Para. [0030]: Recovering a watermark embedded in MVPD content (i.e. extraction of a watermark in digital media transmitted by a live media streaming architecture))
receive digital media transmitted from a live media streaming architecture to a subscriber device; (Schrempp; Paras. [0030] & [0033]: Receiving and extracting a watermark from a reference stream corresponding to a live MVPD content stream and using the watermark to determine that a viewing user is a subscriber (i.e. receive digital media transmitted from a live media streaming architecture to a subscriber device))
extract a watermark from the received digital media; (Schrempp; Para. [0030]: Receiving and extracting a watermark from a reference stream corresponding to a live MVPD content stream (i.e. extract a watermark from the received digital media))
determine, based on at least the watermark, whether the digital media is authorized; and (Schrempp; Para. [0030]: Receiving and extracting a watermark from a reference stream corresponding to a live MVPD content stream to determine if a match exists in the live stream (i.e. determine, based on at least the watermark, whether the digital media is authorized))
take an action with respect to transmission by the live media streaming architecture to the subscriber device based on the determination; (Schrempp; Paras. [0030] & [0033]: Receiving and extracting a watermark from a reference stream corresponding to a live MVPD content stream and using the watermark to determine that a viewing user is a subscriber (i.e. take an action with respect to transmission by the live media streaming architecture to the subscriber device based on the determination))
wherein the extraction occurs in less than fifteen seconds from a time of transmission by the live media streaming architecture to the subscriber device. (Schrempp; Para. [0030]: The reference stream need only represent a few second of the live stream in order to provide the watermark comparison (i.e. wherein the extraction occurs in less than fifteen seconds from a time of transmission by the live media streaming architecture to the subscriber device))
Regarding claim 10, Schrempp teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Schrempp teaches the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
The computer system of claim 9, wherein the extraction is performed in at least one of blind, non-blind, or informed extraction modes. (Schrempp; Paras. [0030] & [0033]: Receiving and extracting a watermark from a reference stream corresponding to a live MVPD content stream and using the watermark to determine that a viewing user is a subscriber (i.e. informed extraction modes))
Regarding claim 11, Schrempp teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Schrempp teaches the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
The computer system of claim 9, wherein the extraction is performed using a computer program library having an application interface enabling the computer program library to be linked to and used by another computer program. (Schrempp; Para. [0036]: An external interface module that allows a user to request to view content (i.e. a computer program library having an application interface enabling the computer program library to be linked to and used by another computer program))
Prior Art Considered But Not Relied Upon
Young (US 2021/0084389 A1) which teaches A method of applying watermarks containing unique identifiers to a live or recorded video source.
Schupak (US 2019/0182554 A1) which teaches a system of multiple broadcasters creating live streams of digital content where viewers receive copies of said live streams.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE ISAAC NARRAMORE whose telephone number is (303)297-4357. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1700 MT.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on (571) 272-3787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BLAKE I NARRAMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights