DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 ends with a semicolon. A claim should end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 13, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernstein et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0277802) in view of Tamayo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0208755).
Regarding claim 1, Bernstein et al. discloses a method for broadcasting live multimedia to predefined social groups (squads), comprising:
selecting one or more squads in a client application, each of the squads comprising one or more members (see paragraphs 0003, 0022; enable a broadcaster to control the audience by restricting the broadcast to a private audience);
initiating a push notification to members of the selected one or more squads (see paragraphs 0022, fig. 7 (step 710); push notification to target viewers); and
upon termination of the live broadcast session, archiving the live broadcast session (see paragraph 0004, fig. 7 (step 765); When a broadcast ends, the system may store the broadcast) comprising storing a recording of the video streams and audio stream (see paragraph 0004, fig. 7 (step 765); stores the video stream).
However, Bernstein et al. is silent as to first and second camera, a text transcript, and an AI-generated summary.
Tamayo et al. discloses first and second camera (see paragraph 0045; multiple cameras and corresponding video streams and multiple locations as suitable), a text transcript (see paragraphs 0003, 0005, fig. 3 (steps 215-225), step 5 (steps 415-420); receiving, by the at least one processor, an audio data in real-time from an audio device at the live event; generating, by the at least one processor, in real time, a transcription data of the audio data) and an AI-generated summary (see paragraph 0003, fig. 3 (step 250-255); training, by the at least one processor, a machine learning engine based on the combined software container to obtain a trained machine learning engine that is trained to generate a user-specific summary data).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bernstein et al. with the teachings of Tamayo et al., the motivation being to improve accessibility and improve user comprehension and engagement.
Regarding claim 8, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Bernstein et al. discloses a messaging interface that allows real- time communication between the broadcaster and squad members (see figs. 2C, 3B, 3C, paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 9, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 8). Bernstein et al. discloses allowing viewers to react or respond via the messaging interface during the live stream (see paragraphs 0003, 0022, figs. 2c, 3b, 3c, 6 (steps 650-655)).
Regarding claim 13, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Bernstein et al. discloses wherein the application is further configured to record timestamp metadata during the video session (see paragraphs 0003-0005, fig. 6 (step 620)).
Regarding claim 14, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Tamayo et al. discloses generating a summarized video highlight reel using artificial intelligence (see paragraph 0003, fig. 3 (steps 250-255)).
Regarding claim 17, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Bernstein et al. discloses using edge computing or local caching to reduce latency in long-duration video playback (see paragraphs 0003-0004).
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.
Claims 2, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0317527).
Regarding claim 2, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). However, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. are silent as to wherein the first and second cameras comprises front-facing and rear-facing camera, and wherein the first and second video streams are captured simultaneously.
Huang et al. discloses wherein the first and second cameras comprises front-facing and rear-facing camera, and wherein the first and second video streams are captured simultaneously (see paragraphs 0003, 0112, 0126, 0154 and fig. 1D, 1E, 1F, 2A-2B, 3A-3B, 4A-4B, 10A-10F, 11A-11C, 12A, 13A, 14A, 16A-16D).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. with the teachings of Huang et al., the motivation being to improve user experience.
Regarding claim 16, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). However, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. are silent as to wherein a viewer interface provided with the persistent access link allows switching between single and dual-camera viewing modes.
Huang et al. discloses wherein a viewer interface provided with the persistent access link allows switching between single and dual-camera viewing modes (see paragraph 0107 and figs. 11A-11B, 12A-12B, 13A-13B, 13G-13H, 14A-14B).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. with the teachings of Huang et al., the motivation being to improve user experience.
Regarding claim 18, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). However, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. are silent as to wherein the first and second video streams are displayed side-by-side in a split-screen format on a web or mobile interface.
Huang et al. discloses wherein the first and second video streams are displayed side-by-side in a split-screen format on a web or mobile interface (see paragraph 0003, fig. 1D, 1E, 1F, 2-4).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. with the teachings of Huang et al., the motivation being to improve user experience.
Regarding claim 19, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). However, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. are silent as to wherein the first and second video streams are displayed in picture-in-picture format I on a web or mobile interface.
Huang et al. discloses wherein the first and second video streams are displayed in picture-in-picture format I on a web or mobile interface (see paragraph 0003, FIG. 4A).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. with the teachings of Huang et al., the motivation being to improve user experience.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olliphant (U.S. Patent No. 7,343,335).
Regarding claim 10, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Bernstein et al. discloses receiving confirmation when the members of the selected squads join the live broadcast session (see paragraph 0022, figs. 3c, 4c, 4d).
However, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. are silent as providing a user interface button for initiating a secondary nudge alert to the members of the selected squad who have not joined the broadcast session.
Olliphant discloses providing a user interface button for initiating a secondary nudge alert to the members of the selected squad who have not joined the broadcast session (see col. 9, lines 52-55, fig. 9 (step 914; invite again)).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. with the teachings of Olliphant, the motivation being to contact the potential member to join the group.
Regarding claim 11, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Bernstein et al. discloses receiving confirmation when the members of the selected squads join the live broadcast session (see paragraph 0022, figs. 3c, 4c, 4d).
However, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. are silent as issuing a secondary nudge alert to the members of the selected squad who do not join within a configurable time threshold.
Olliphant discloses issuing a secondary nudge alert to the members of the selected squad who do not join within a configurable time threshold (see col. 9, lines 52-55, fig. 9 (step 914; invite again)).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. with the teachings of Olliphant, the motivation being to contact the potential member to join the group.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LaMarca et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0180576) and Grentz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0121931).
Regarding claim 3, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Bernstein et al. discloses engaging trip mode, comprising specifying current location (see paragraph 0027);
transmitting a GPS location stream and corresponding time stamp stream as part of the live broadcast session (see paragraph 0027, fig. 6 (steps 610-620)); and
wherein the selected squads are provided access to the archived broadcast session including the trip recording (see paragraph 0004).
However, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. are silent as to computing an estimated time of arrival; notifying the selected squads of trip start and the estimated time of arrival; streaming real-time trip updates showing an actual route made from the GPS location stream as part of the live broadcast session; and issuing an arrival notification upon reaching the destination.
LaMarca et al. discloses specifying current location and a destination (see paragraph 0025);
computing an estimated time of arrival (see paragraph 0013, fig. 5 (step 514), fig. 6 (step 610));
issuing an arrival notification upon reaching the destination (see paragraph 0045);
wherein the archiving the live broadcast session further comprises archiving a trip recording, comprising the planned route, and the actual route, the gps location stream and the corresponding time stamp stream (see paragraphs 0042, 0054, 0058, fig. 4 (410)).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. with the teachings of LaMarca et al., the motivation being to predict estimated time of arrival.
However, Bernstein et al., Tamayo et al. and LaMarca et al. are silent as to notifying the selected squads of trip start and the estimated time of arrival; streaming real-time trip updates showing an actual route made from the GPS location stream as part of the live broadcast session; and wherein the archiving the live broadcast session further comprises archiving a trip recording, comprising the planned route, and the actual route, the gps location stream and the corresponding time stamp stream.
Grentz et al. discloses notifying the selected squads of trip start and the estimated time of arrival (see paragraph 0052);
streaming real-time trip updates showing an actual route made from the GPS location stream as part of the live broadcast session (see paragraph 0052).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bernstein et al., Tamayo et al. and LaMarca et al. with the teachings of Grentz et al., the motivation being to monitor a user.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Volo (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0317482).
Regarding claim 4, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). However, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. are silent as to issuing an emergency alert during the session that dispatches a high-priority notification with live location and stream access links to the selected squads.
Volo discloses issuing an emergency alert during the session that dispatches a high-priority notification with live location and stream access links to the selected squads (see paragraphs 0025-0032, 0044-0046).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. with the teachings of Volo, the motivation being to enhance safety.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weber (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0082226).
Regarding claim 5, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Tamayo et al. discloses providing the first and second video streams, the environmental audio stream, recording of the video streams and audio stream, the text transcript, and the AI-generated summary (see paragraph 0045, paragraphs 0003, 0005, fig. 3 (steps 215-225), step 5 (steps 415-420), paragraph 0003, fig. 3 (step 250-255)).
However, Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. are silent as to persistent access link.
Weber discloses persistent access link (see paragraph 0157).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bernstein et al. and Tamayo et al. with the teachings of Weber, the motivation being to enhance safety.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernstein et al., Tamayo et al. and Weber as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0317527).
Regarding claim 7, Bernstein et al., Tamayo et al. and Weber discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Weber discloses persistent access link (see paragraph 0157). However, Bernstein et al., Tamayo et al. and Weber are silent as to wherein the first and second video streams in a dual-camera split-screen format.
Huang et al. discloses wherein the first and second video streams in a dual-camera split-screen format (see paragraphs 0003, 0112, 0126, 0154 and fig. 1D, 1E, 1F, 2A-2B, 3A-3B, 4A-4B, 10A-10F, 11A-11C, 12A, 13A, 14A, 16A-16D).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bernstein et al., Tamayo et al. and Weber with the teachings of Huang et al., the motivation being to improve user experience.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernstein et al., Tamayo et al. and Weber as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lanka et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0255004).
Regarding claim 12, Bernstein et al., Tamayo et al. and Weber discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 5). Weber discloses persistent access link (see paragraph 0157). However, Bernstein et al., Tamayo et al. and Weber are silent as to link includes an optional expiration timestamp or access token.
Lanka et al. discloses link includes an optional expiration timestamp or access token (see paragraph 0049).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bernstein et al., Tamayo et al. and Weber with the teachings of Lanka et al., the motivation being to improve enhances the security of the system.
Regarding claim 15, Bernstein et al., Tamayo et al. and Weber discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 5). Weber discloses persistent access link (see paragraph 0157). However, Bernstein et al., Tamayo et al. and Weber are silent as to link are managed through a user account.
Lanka et al. discloses link are managed through a user account (see paragraphs 0010, 0049).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bernstein et al., Tamayo et al. and Weber with the teachings of Lanka et al., the motivation being to improve enhances the security of the system.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernstein et al., Tamayo et al., LaMarca et al. and Grentz et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Weber (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0082226).
Regarding claim 6, Bernstein et al., Tamayo et al., LaMarca et al. and Grentz et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 3). Bernstein et al. discloses the live broadcast session such that during the live broadcast provides access to the live broadcast session, including the first and second video streams, the environmental audio stream, the planned route, the actual route, the GPS location stream and corresponding time stamp stream, and after the broadcast session, provides access to the archived broadcast, including the recordings of the first and second video streams and the audio stream, and the actual path, the GPS location stream and corresponding time stamp stream (see paragraphs 0004, 0027, fig. 6 (steps 610-620)).
However, Bernstein et al., Tamayo et al., LaMarca et al. and Grentz et al. are silent as to persistent access link.
Weber discloses persistent access link (see paragraph 0157).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bernstein et al., Tamayo et al., LaMarca et al. and Grentz et al. with the teachings of Weber, the motivation being to enhance safety.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claims 1, 3, 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NNENNA NGOZI EKPO whose telephone number is (571)270-1663. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 10:00am - 6:30pm, TH-F 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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.
NNENNA EKPO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/NNENNA N EKPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 June 9, 2026.
Prosecution Insights