DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the filing of 9/3/25. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
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 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 1-5, 8-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103
by Munir (2014289646) in view of Yoakum (20130066974) and in further view of Sun (20200125616.)
Claim 1, 10, 19: Munir discloses a method for providing a conference application during a network conference, the method comprising:
participating in a network conference (Fig. 3: meeting test3; Fig. 4: 400: test3) using a client application (FIG. 4: 400 web meeting screen 400, displayed in response to a conference being initiated using web conferencing screen 300; par. 52), the client application executed by a first client device (par. 78, the memory element may store, and the processing module, module, processing circuit, and/or processing unit executes, hard coded and/or operational instructions corresponding to at least some of the steps and/or functions illustrated in one or more of the Figures; Claim 1);
selecting, within the client application, a conference application from a plurality of conference applications during the network conference (Fig. 4, displays many user selectable objects and functionality that may be viewed as applications, such as a “Share My Desktop” application 406; Fig. 4: polling / Open Poll application 415; video conference application 407, Chat application 413; New Whiteboard Application);
displaying an application user interface generated by the conference application during the network conference (Fig. 4: 417 Polling tab / Poll Questions user interface.)
receiving an input to share application content associated with the conference application with a second participant (par. 22, between one or more individuals using workstations, smart phones, tablets, laptops, dedicated conferencing devices) in the network conference (Fig. 4: 416, e.g. the input of entering a Poll Question that would be shared with other participants in the conference / poll; par. 22, screen sharing, and similar collaborative sharing of information to and between participants of a conference; Fig. 4: 406; par. 23, sharing of audio and visual content; such as through using the Voice Conference application 407);
in response to the input to share the application content, transmitting the application content to a second client device (par. 22, between one or more individuals using workstations, smart phones, tablets, laptops, dedicated conferencing devices) associated with the second participant (Fig. 4: 416, e.g. the input of entering a Poll Question that would be shared with other participants in the conference / poll; par. 22, screen sharing, and similar collaborative sharing of information to and between participants of a conference; Fig. 4: 406; par. 23, sharing of audio and visual content; such as through using the Voice Conference application 407.)
Munir does not explicitly disclose launching the conference application from the client application.
Yoakum discloses a similar method for providing a conference applications, including: launching the conference application from the client application (par. 9, requesting initiation of the application for use on each of the plurality of participant user devices in the conference.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing of the Applicant’s claimed invention to combine Munir and Yoakum. The two are analogous to the Applicant’s invention in that both relate to conference applications, and specifically to integrating external functionalities in one or more programs. The motivation to do so would have providing a more effective form of sharing information than was possible with standard screen sharing, as described by Yoakum at [0008].
While Munir discloses transmitting application content from a first client device to a second client device, Munir does not explicitly disclose:
wherein transmitting the application content causes the second client device to install or execute the conference application to view the content.
Sun teaches discloses a similar method for sharing content, including: install or execute the conference application to view the content (par. 146, if the second application has not been installed in the user terminal 140, the processing module 706 may automatically download, install, and invoke the second application.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing of the Applicant’s claimed invention to combine Sun and Munir. One would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Sun in Munir so that the content that shared with the second device could be processed / viewed in an application designed for it.
2. (Original) Munir, Yoakum, and Sun disclose the limitations of Claim 1.
Munir discloses wherein the operation of participating comprises participating in the network conference to communicate with one or more attendees over at least one of a wired and wireless network. (See Munir at [0022] where disclosed is a definition of a “conference” which includes a communications network including workstations and smart phones. This is held to teach the limitation of both a wired and wireless network since smart phones were known to operate wirelessly and workstations were known to operate both over wired and local wireless networks, at the time of filing of the present application.)
3. (Original) Munir, Yoakum, and Sun disclose the limitations of Claim 1.
Munir discloses wherein the operation of selecting comprises selecting the conference application from a plurality of installed conference applications. (See Munir at Fig. 7 and [0059] where it is verified that the plurality of conference applications is installed and where they are installed.)
4. (Original) Munir, Yoakum, and Sun disclose the limitations of Claim 3.
Munir discloses further comprising installing the plurality of installed conference applications from a network server. (See again Munir at [0059] where it is stated that “[t]he path listed in second pane 721 can point to the location of the application or service--whether that program is installed locally, on a local area network, on a remote network, or is designed to be accessed via a cloud-based service.” The networked and cloud-based options described above teach the limitations of the applications being installed on a networked server.)
5. (Original) Munir, Yoakum, and Sun disclose the limitations of Claim 1.
Munir discloses wherein the operation of selecting comprises:
selecting an application selector to view a list of the plurality of conference applications; and (See Munir at [0028] where the functionality is generally described including the selection of objects representing conferencing options as illustrated in Fig. 1. Illustrated is a home screen wherein item 103 selects a uniform conferencing screen which teaches the limitations of an application.)
selecting the conference application from the list. (See Munir at [0048] and Fig. 3 where a number of conference applications are illustrated for selection by the user.).
8. (Original) Munir, Yoakum, and Sun disclose the limitations of Claim 1.
Munir discloses wherein the operation of selecting comprises selecting more than one conference application and the operation of running comprises running the more than one conference application to display more than one application user interface, respectively. (See Munir at [0060] where multiple conferencing applications protocols are discussed and it is stated “settings window 801 allows users to make particular conferencing applications active.” )
9. (Original) Munir, Yoakum, and Sun disclose the limitations of Claim 1.
Munir discloses wherein the operation of displaying comprises performing at least one of relocating and resizing the application user interface. (See Munir at [0040] where display properties including size and color are disclosed, which are held to teach the stated limitations. This limitation is alternatively held to be well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art of window/pane graphical user interfaces at the time of the filing of this invention.).
12. (Original) Munir, Yoakum, and Sun disclose the limitations of Claim 10.
wherein the processor receives user input to select the conference application from a plurality of installed conference applications. (See Munir at Fig. 7 and [0059] where it is verified that the plurality of conference applications are installed and where they are installed.)
13. (Original) Munir, Yoakum, and Sun disclose the limitations of Claim 10.
wherein the processor installs the plurality of installed conference applications from a network server. (See again Munir at [0059] where it is stated that “[t]he path listed in second pane 721 can point to the location of the application or service--whether that program is installed locally, on a local area network, on a remote network, or is designed to be accessed via a cloud-based service.” The networked and cloud-based options described above teach the limitations of the applications being installed on a networked server.)
14. (Original) Munir, Yoakum, and Sun disclose the limitations of Claim 10.
wherein the processor receives an application selector as user input and in response displays a list of the plurality of conference applications, (See Munir at [0028] where the functionality is generally described including the selection of objects representing conferencing options as illustrated in Fig. 1. Illustrated is a home screen wherein item 103 selects a uniform conferencing screen which teaches the limitations of an application.) and wherein the processor receives additional user input to select the conference application from the list (See Munir at [0048] and Fig. 3 where a number of conference applications are illustrated for selection by the user.).
17. (Original) Munir, Yoakum, and Sun disclose the limitations of Claim 10.
Munir teaches the processor selects more than one conference application and runs the more than one conference application to display more than one application user interface, respectively. (See Munir at [0060] where multiple conferencing applications protocols are discussed and it is stated “settings window 801 allows users to make particular conferencing applications active.” )
18. (Original) Munir, Yoakum, and Sun disclose the limitations of Claim 10.
Munir teaches the display interface performs at least one of relocating and resizing the application user interface. (See Munir at [0040] where display properties including size and color are disclosed, which are held to teach the stated limitations. This limitation is alternatively held to be well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art of window/pane graphical user interfaces at the time of the filing of this invention.).
20. (Original) Munir, Yoakum, and Sun disclose the limitations of Claim 10.
Munir discloses a limitation wherein the program instructions cause the one or more processors to select the conference application from a plurality of installed conference applications. (See Munir at Fig. 7 and [0059] where it is verified that the plurality of conference applications is installed and where they are installed.)
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munir, Yoakum, Sun and in further view of U.S. Pre-grant publication 20190312918 (Balasaygun).
6. Munir, Yoakum, and Sun disclose the limitations of Claim 1.
Munir Yoakum and Sun do not teach a limitation wherein the conference application is configured as a web application that can be executed by a web browser.
Balasaygun discloses wherein the conference application is configured as a web application that can be executed by a web browser (See Balasaygun at [0038] where disclosed is a conferencing application running in a browser. See also Munir at [0056] where a web conference screen is disclosed.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s claimed invention to combine Munir , Yoakum, Sun and Balasaygun into the above combination. Munir and Balasaygun are analogous to the Applicant’s invention in that both relate to conference applications. The motivation to do so would have been allowing a user to attend the conference from any computer that did not necessarily have particular software installed.
15. Munir, Yoakum, and Sun disclose the limitations of Claim 10.
Munir, Yoakum, and Sun do not disclose that the conference application is configured as a web application that can be executed by a web browser.
Balasaygun discloses this limitation. (See Balasaygun at [0038] where disclosed is a conferencing application running in a browser. See also Munir at [0056] where a web conference screen is disclosed.)
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munir, Yoakum, Sun and Balasaygun and in further view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication U.S. 20160182673 (Barak).
7. Munir, Yoakum, Sun and Balasaygun disclose the limitations of Claim 6.
Balasaygun and Munir do not specifically teach that wherein the client application includes a version of a web browser and the operation of running comprises running the client application as a web application using the version of the web browser.
Barak discloses a limitation where the browser version is checked prior to the pushing of a requested web resource to the browser on the server side. (See Barak at [0027]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s claimed invention to combine Barak and Balasaygun. The two are analogous to the Applicant’s invention in that both relate to web browsers. The motivation to consider which browser version a user is using in Balasaygun would have been insuring a user’s browser could display materials as discussed by Barak at [0002], because browser version might affect how or if data is able to be presented to a user.
16. Munir, Yoakum, Sun and Balasaygun disclose the limitations of Claim 15.
Munir, Yoakum, Sun and Balasaygun do not specifically teach that wherein the client application includes a version of a web browser and the processor runs the version of the web browser to running the client application as a web application.
Barak discloses a limitation where browser version is checked prior to the pushing of a requested web resource to the browser on the server side (See Barak at [0027]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s claimed invention to combine Barak and Balasaygun. The two are analogous to the Applicant’s invention in that both relate to web browsers. The motivation to consider browser versioning issues in Balasaygun would have been user access issue as discussed by Barak at [0002].
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office Action asserts that the chat and polling functionalities in Munir are each "applications." This is not correct. Munir does not disclose these functionalities as being separate applications. Each of these is simply a functionality provided by the web conferencing application itself.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The word “separate” is not in the claims, nor in the Applicant’s Specification, which describes these same sort of applications in terms of “functionality”: the conference application 704 provides any desired functionality, such as word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, or any other type of functionality suitable for an application (par. 93.)
Furthermore, these applications (in Applicant’s Specification) do not appear to be separate, and are instead shown to be part of the main display application, tucked away in its sidebar (Fig. 13: 704.) Under BRI, these appear to be functionally equivalent.
Applicant further argues that Yoakum does not describe that such applications are launched "from the client application." Instead, Yoakum describes that a client transmits a request to "assign an application to the conference" to the conference controller, which then assigns the application to the conference. The conference controller then transmits requests to each of the client devices participating in the conference to initiate the assigned application. Yoakum does not describe that it is the conference application that launches the assigned application. Instead, Yoakum is explicit that it is the client device that initiates the assigned application. No application is launched "from the client application" in Yoakum.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yoakum is clear that the initiation occurs as a result of user interface manipulation (par. 72) within the interface 84 (Fig. 2A) for assigning (Fig. 2B) an application to the conference. This interface is the main client application for the conference. In response to the assignment, the new application is initiated on all the client devices and can be readily accessed / viewed within the user interface 84, as shown in Fig. 12-13.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREY BELOUSOV whose telephone number is (571) 270-1695 and Andrew.belousov@uspto.gov email. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4140. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Andrey Belousov/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2145
11/17/25