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
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Engstrom et al (hereinafter Engstrom) US 20130222601.
Referring to claim 1, Engstrom discloses a content distribution server that receives streamer videos from a plurality of streamer terminals connected via a network, generates streaming content, and distributes the streaming content to viewer terminals, the content distribution server comprising:
a streamer video receiving unit that receives the plurality of streamer videos (see Fig. 1 and Paragraphs 0025, 0038, and 0058 for disclosing multiple video streams are received at a mobile device);
a buffer unit that temporarily stores the plurality of streamer videos (see Paragraph 0038 for disclosing a buffer for storing the received video streams);
an edit screen generation unit that synthesizes the plurality of streamer videos in the buffer unit and generates an edit screen for accepting an edit operation of the streaming content from an editor terminal connected via the network (see Paragraphs 0027, 0038, 0043-0044, 0052-0053, and 0059-0060 for disclosing the synthesis of the plurality of videos from the buffer unit for display on the mobile device in that of an edit screen wherein the video director inputs (via providing input through the device interface) an edit operation which of the videos to be broadcast to viewers);
an edit information transmitting/receiving unit that transmits the edit screen to the editor terminal and receives, as edit information, the edit operation entered from the editor terminal via the edit screen (see Paragraphs 0043-0044 and 0052-0053 for disclosing the software/application transmits/provides the edit screen to the mobile device and receives the edit operation including information input from the mobile device);
a streaming content generation unit that generates the streaming content from the plurality of streamer videos held in the buffer unit on the basis of the edit information and a streaming content distribution unit that distributes the streaming content to the viewer terminal via the network (see Paragraphs 0020-21 and 0059-0061 for disclosing the system generates the streaming content (i.e., video selected to be shown by the director/edited) from the videos previously received and buffered based on the edit information/input function selection shown above, and the indicated streaming content is broadcast/distributed to users/TV (viewing terminal) viewers who view the broadcast coverage of the video across the globe, thereby requiring a broadcast network to reach global users).
Referring to claim 2, Engstrom discloses the edit information includes a screen configuration in the streaming content and a switching instruction for the plurality of streamer videos to be laid out in the screen configuration (see Paragraph 0061 for disclosing the inputs entered by the video direction indicate a screen configuration (indicates which of the video streams should be presented wholly on screen) and causes a switching-to of each individual video chosen to be selected on the time of each input wholly on the screen).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engstrom et al (hereinafter Engstrom) US 20130222601 in view of Arrasvuori et al (hereinafter Arrasvuori) US 20110126236.
Referring to claim 3, Engstrom discloses the content distribution server further comprises a streamer video storage means and the streamer video storage means stores a part or all of the plurality of streamer videos stored in the buffer unit (as seen in the rejection of claim 1);
the edit information transmitting/receiving unit further includes a function of receiving, included in the edit information, a playback instruction entered at the editor terminal via the edit screen (as seen in the rejection of claim 1, the received input function received at the edit screen includes a playback instruction for the selected particular video);
the playback instruction includes specification of a streamer video to play back in the streamer video storage means and inserted in the streaming content (as seen in the rejection of claim 1); and
the streaming content generation unit generates, based on the received edit information, the streaming content of streamer video in the streamer video storage means specified in the playback instruction (as seen in the rejection of claim 1).
Engstrom is unclear as to indication of a time range of the video to play back to be switched and generating content using the specified time range using the specified time range.
Arrasvuori discloses indication of a time range of the video to play back to be switched and generating content using the specified time range using the specified time range (see Paragraphs 0040-0042 for disclosing a user specifying a time range of multiple video segments to be switched to a played back for respective time ranges/durations).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the segment customization of Arrasvuori with the system of Engstrom in order to fulfill a need for an approach for efficiently presenting media sources and content in segments that are relevant to the user (see Arrasvuori, Paragraph 0002).
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12389084. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations of the instant application are broader than and wholly disclosed by claims 1-3 of the cited patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
LeBlanc et al US 20030189589 for disclosing broadcasting edited camera angle selections from a plurality of video feeds over a network to viewers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS T CORBO whose telephone number is (571)270-5675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/NICHOLAS T CORBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
07/10/2026
Prosecution Insights