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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments regarding Jakes (and Elliot) are moot as they are not being applied to address the amended subject matter.
Applicant argues that Gossweiler does not teach muting or unmuting “an outgoing audio channel from the communication application to a communication session”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Gossweiler teaches (Gossweiler, FIG. 8C, Col 31, Lines 13-15) muting the communication data stream, i.e. the data stream itself is muted. Applicant argues that Gossweiler merely excludes some users from receiving the data stream. However, Applicant provides no citations to Gossweiler to claim and as such, are mere allegations of patentability.
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.
2. Claims 1-4, 7-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Gossweiler et al. (US 8749610 B1) in view of Takeuchi et al. (US 20030177893 A1)
Claim 1 Gossweiler teaches a system comprising:
one or more processors coupled to a memory; (Gossweiler, Col. 42, Lines 49-52)
displays a mute-state indication for the communication application on the mute user interface, (Gossweiler, FIG. 10C, Col. 40, Lines 55-60, user interface 1020 and mute icons 1032 and 1034 indicating audio captured by a microphone is being muted) wherein the mute-state indication communicates whether audio content captured by a microphone associated with the client device is being output by the communication application over a network connection to a different client device; (Gossweiler, FIG. 8C, Col 31, Lines 13-15, wherein to be muted comprises muting the communication data stream; i.e. the microphones that capture audio work normally, but the data stream is what is muted)
receives a mute request (Gossweiler, FIG. 3, step 308, Col. 24, Lines 53-55; receiving a mute request from the interface) through the mute user interface; (Gossweiler, FIG. 10A)
communicates a mute state change request that is an internal client device communication (Examiner interprets a request that is “an internal client device communication” as merely computer processing, i.e. the ordinary execution of software commands) to the communication application in response to the mute request, wherein the mute state change request that instructs the communication application to stop communicating the audio content captured by the microphone over a network connection to a different client device; (Gossweiler, Col. 25, Lines 24-50; FIG. 3, step 310, determining that the mute request is authorized; Col. 25, Lines 24-26, FIG. 3, step 312, muting the data stream)
receives an interaction with the mute user interface; (FIG. 10A, Col 39, Lines 48, receiving an interaction with the mute user interface) and
outputs a notice indicating the mute state of the communication application is actively muted. (Gossweiler, FIG. 10C, Col. 40, Lines 55-60, user interface 1020 and mute icons 1032 and 1034 indicating audio captured by a microphone is being muted)
However, Gossweiler does not explicitly teach an operating system executing on the one or more processors of a client device, the operating system comprising a voice mute coordinator and code to output a mute user interface, wherein the voice mute coordinator is able to provide instructions to a communication application, wherein the communication application is an application running on the client device and is distinct from the operating system;
wherein the voice mute coordinator:
monitors a mute state of the communication application based on state information provided to the voice mute coordinator by the communication application; and wherein the mute state change request is from the operating system to the communication application.
From a related technology, Takeuchi teaches an operating system (FIG. 1, Operating System 2, ¶0070) executing on the one or more processors of a client device, (FIG. 1, Personal Computer 3, ¶0070) the operating system comprising a voice mute coordinator (FIG. 1, Outgoing Audio Parameter Setting Section 8, ¶0070) and code to output a mute user interface, (FIG. 4, Audio Parameter Setting Window 400, Mute-on/off setting checkbox-on/off setting checkbox 402, ¶0078, outputting a mute user interface) wherein the voice mute coordinator is able to provide instructions to a communication application, (Examiner interprets “able to instructions to a communication application” as generic computer processing) wherein the communication application is an application running on the client device (FIG. 1, ¶0070, wherein the application software is running on Personal Computer 3) and is distinct from the operating system; (FIG. 1, ¶0070, wherein application software group 1 is distinct from operating system 2)
wherein the voice mute coordinator:
monitors a mute state of the communication application based on state information provided to the voice mute coordinator by the communication application, FIG. 5, ¶0087-¶0093, monitoring the mute state of communication application based on state information provided by the communication application to the operating system; ¶0071-¶0072, wherein the state information comprises an audio level that indicates a mute state) wherein a mute state change request is from the operating system to the communication application. (FIG. 3, S303-S305, ¶0082-¶0083, wherein a mute change request is from the operating system, i.e. operating system 2, output audio parameter 159, to the communication system and then is set to the audio parameter of the first application software)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of managing communications as taught in Gossweiler to further incorporate consider distinctions between operating systems and software in order to more efficiently manage network resources.
Claim 2 Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the mute user interface is an element of an operating system, (Takeuchi, FIG. 4, Audio Parameter Setting Window 400, ¶0078, the user interface being an element of the operating system) a system tray, a dock, or an icon bar.
Claim 3 Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the mute-state indication comprises a symbol or icon that changes appearance in response to a change in the mute state, wherein the mute state indicates whether from the communication application is muted or unmuted. (Gossweiler, FIG. 10C, Col. 40, Lines 55-60, user interface 1020 and mute icons 1032 and 1034 indicating audio captured by a microphone is being muted)
Claim 4 Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi teaches Claim 3, wherein the symbol or icon displayed by the mute user interface comprises an interactive mute control. (Takeuchi, FIG. 4, Audio Parameter Setting Window 400, ¶0078, comprising an interactive mute control)
Claim 7 Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the communication application and a second communication application are running on the system (Takeuchi, FIG. 1, ¶0074, a first application software and a second application software) and wherein the voice mute coordinator forwards mute state change requests to the communication application or the second communication application based on the mute state of the communication application and the mute state the second communication application. (Gossweiler, Col. 24, Lines 26-40, wherein a mediating node forwards mute requests to their respective application node)
Claim 8 Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the communication application and a second communication application are running on the system (Takeuchi, FIG. 1, ¶0074, a first application software and a second application software) and wherein the mute-state indication displays the mute state for the communication application and a second mute state for the second communication application. (Takeuchi, FIG. 5, ¶0090, wherein a first application software and a second application software have their mute state displaced by the interface)
Claim 9 Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the communication application and a second communication application are running on a system (Takeuchi, FIG. 1, ¶0074, a first application software and a second application software) and wherein a voice mute coordinator issues a hold command to mute the outgoing audio channel of the communication application when the second communication application becomes an active application. (Examiner notes that the condition “when the second application becomes an active application” places a contingency on the limitation, and as the claim does not indicate that necessity of this contingency, i.e. that the second application becomes an active application, the limitation has no patentable weight)
Claim 10 is taught by Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi as described for Claim 1.
Claim 11 Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi teaches Claim 10, and further teaches wherein the operating system comprises communication application programming interface (API) functions (Gossweiler, Col. 6, Lines 18-21, API functions) that the first communication application uses to facilitate establishing a network communication audio output channel over a network. (Examiner notes that “that the first communication application uses to facilitate establishing…” comprises an intended use statement, wherein the facilitation by the first communication application is not an element of the recited claims, but instead merely an intended use, and does not have patentable weight)
Claim 12 Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi Claim 10, and further teaches wherein the first communication application subscribes to the operating system level mute services via a voice mute coordinator (VMC), (Takeuchi, FIG. 1, ¶0073 and ¶0076, wherein the operating system subscribes the application software to the output audio parameter setting section) wherein the VMC comprises an application programming interface (API) service application in the operating system. (Gossweiler, Col. 6, Lines 18-21, API functions)
Claim 13 Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi teaches Claim 10, and further teaches further comprising updating an appearance of a symbol displayed by the mute user interface based on changes to the mute state of the first communication application. (Takeuchi, FIG. 5, ¶0090, wherein a first application software and a second application software have their mute state displaced by the interface)
Claim 14 Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi teaches Claim 10, and further teaches wherein a mute-state indication of the mute user interface comprises a symbol or icon that changes appearance when the mute state changes. (Takeuchi, FIG. 5, ¶0090, wherein a first application software and a second application software have their mute state displaced by the interface)
Claim 15 Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi teaches Claim 10, and further teaches wherein the first communication application transmits voice information captured from an audio input over the outgoing audio channel. (Takeuchi, FIG. 5, ¶0090, wherein a first application software transits the audio information over the outgoing channel)
Claim 16 Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi teaches Claim 10, and further teaches registering activation of a second network communication call by a second communication application with the operating system; (Takeuchi, FIG. 1, ¶0073 and ¶0076, wherein the operating system installs and registers the second application software to the output audio parameter setting section) subscribing the second communication application to the operating system level mute services; (Takeuchi, FIG. 1, ¶0073 and ¶0076, wherein the operating system subscribes the second application software to the output audio parameter)
with the operating system level mute services, monitoring the mute state of the second communication application based on one or more messages from the second communication application; (Takeuchi, FIG. 5, ¶0087-¶0093, monitoring the mute state of communication application based on state information provided by the communication application to the operating system; ¶0071-¶0072, wherein the state information comprises an audio level that indicates a mute state) and wherein the mute state indication displayed on the mute user interface is based on the mute state of the first communication application and the mute state of the second communication application. (Takeuchi, FIG. 5, ¶0090, wherein a first application software and a second application software have their mute state displaced by the interface)
Claim 18 is taught by Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi as described for Claim 1.
Claim 19 Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi teaches Claim 18, and further teaches wherein a mute state indication of the mute user interface comprises a symbol or icon that changes appearance when the mute state changes. (Takeuchi, FIG. 5, ¶0090, wherein a first application software and a second application software have their mute state displaced by the interface)
3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gossweiler et al. (US 8749610 B1) in view of Takeuchi et al. (US 20030177893 A1) and in further view of Yerrace et al. (US 20140052438 A1)
Claim 5 Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi teaches Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the communication application comprises a web application executing within a browser or an applet executing within a runtime environment.
From a related technology, Yerrance teaches wherein the communication application comprises a web application executing within a browser (Yerrance, ¶0002, web browser software application) or an applet executing within a runtime environment.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi to incorporate web applications as taught in Yerrace in order to more effectively adapt to various well-known application types and situations that may improve operation and efficiency.
3. Claims 6, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gossweiler et al. (US 8749610 B1) in view of Takeuchi et al. (US 20030177893 A1) and in further view of Kato (US 20120026279 A1).
Claim 6 Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi teaches Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the outgoing audio channel receives audio input from a microphone; and wherein the operating system displays active applications receiving input from the microphone, and a mute status of each of the active applications.
From a related technology, Kato teaches wherein the outgoing audio channel receives audio input from a microphone; (Kato, FIG. 2, ¶0087, microphone 114) and
wherein the operating system displays active applications receiving input from the microphone, and a mute status of each of the active applications. (Kato, FIG. 33, ¶0335, displaying the active terminals, i.e. applications, receiving inputs from the microphone and their respective mute states)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi to incorporate the well-known techniques and technology taught in Kato, such as microphone technology and related techniques for displaying respective statuses, in order to more effectively utilize network resources given well-known interface devices.
Claim 17 Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi teaches Claim 16, but does not explicitly teaches wherein the mute user interface identifies the first communication application and the second communication application.
From a related technology, Kato teaches wherein the mute user interface identifies the first communication application and the second communication application. (Kato, FIG. 33, ¶0335, wherein the user interface separately identifies each microphone application)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi to incorporate the well-known techniques and technology taught in Kato to identify respective applications in order to improve user accessibility and efficiency.
Claim 20 is taught by Claim 6 as described by Gossweiler in view of Takeuchi and Kato.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER PALACA CADORNA whose telephone number is (571)270-0584. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P CADORNA/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights