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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: -- Managing Simultaneous Audio Conflicts in Web Conferences--.
Examiner Comment on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101
Independent Claims 1, 12, and 20 have been considered in regards to the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG). While certain steps such as considering relationships between participants, calculation of positions based upon the relationship data, and detecting overlapping speech can be mentally performed using a combination of a mental judgement, use of pen and paper, and listening to speech for rendering a judgement, the independent claims contain a number of additional elements. These elements relate to a combination of virtual display position in a video conference and stereophonic direction into audio channels based upon these evaluations. Accordingly, these additional elements direct any steps related to an abstract mental process under the broadest reasonable interpretation to a practical application in step 2A prong 2. Thus, the independent claims and their respective dependents, by virtue of their dependency, are found to be patent eligible under the 2019 PEG. Note also that the specification at Paragraph 0036 clearly disavows signals per se from the scope of computer readable storage medium.
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)(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, 5-12, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clavel, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2014/0173467 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Clavel discloses:
A computer implemented method comprising:
identifying, during a video conference attended by a first attendee, other attendees of the video conference (user and other participants are identified for an audio-video conference chat such as via a “user identifier”, Paragraphs 0021, 0023, 0027, 0052, and 0069-0071);
rendering, during the video conference as a display to the first attendee, a virtual meeting environment including virtual representations of the other attendees of the video conference (see GUI display of user and other participants shown in Figs. 3 and 4; see also related discussion of a "virtual chat room" and "virtual chat room space" at Paragraphs 0024 and 0030),
wherein the rendering comprises:
accessing relationship characteristic data indicative of relationships between the first attendee and the other attendees (accessing various types of relationship data between a user and other participants- "historical relationship," "social network connection," etc., Paragraphs 0034 and 0048); and
calculating positions for virtual representations of the other attendees in the first attendee’s virtual field of view based at least in part on the relationship characteristic data (numerical determination (e.g., see "automatically calculated") of presentation settings related to "position within a virtual chat room space" that is "specific to each user" that considers relationship information, Paragraphs 0030-0031, 0038-0040, and 0048-0049);
detecting, in speech streamed to the first attendee during the video conference, simultaneous speech from at least two of the other attendees, wherein the simultaneous speech comprises individual speech from a second attendee and individual speech from a third attendee (Paragraph 0003- "simultaneously occurring conversations;" see also the discussion of the "concurrently presented" simultaneously detected audio and video streams that can include a subset or all participant streams that includes a second and third participant as shown in Figs. 3 and 4, Paragraphs 0019, 0023, and0051-0055); and
directing, responsive to detecting the simultaneous speech, the individual speech from the second attendee to a first audio channel and the individual speech from the third attendee to a second audio channel (description of stereo spatialization such as "stereo left or stereo right" of the various participants for playback or other stereophonic 3D space, Paragraphs 0049 and 0056).
With respect to Claim 2, Clavel further discloses:
The computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
accessing priority data generated in response to priority inputs from the first attendee indicative of priority values for the second attendee and the third attendee that prioritize the second attendee and the third attendee above the other attendees (access of various "priority" data related to a first user participant used for audio and virtual prioritization that includes data input by that participant such as preferences or actions taken wherein such data is used to prioritize other participants in tiers such as the second and third participants, Paragraphs 0022, 0034, and 0037-0040; Fig. 9, S220).
With respect to Claim 5, Clavel further discloses:
The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the accessing of the relationship characteristic data comprises accessing social network data representative of social network relationships between the first attendee and the other attendees ("social network connections," Paragraphs 0022, 0034-0035, 0037, and 0048).
With respect to Claim 6, Clavel further discloses:
The computer implemented method of claim 5, further comprising:
calculating degrees of associations between the first attendee and the other attendees based at least in part on the social network relationships (automatic calculation of priority tiers as a degree of association that considers social network connections, Paragraphs 0034, 0037, 0039-0040, 0048, and 0055).
With respect to Claim 7, Clavel further discloses:
The computer implemented method of claim 6, wherein the accessing of the relationship characteristic data comprises accessing meeting data representative of common interests in topics of the video conference between the first attendee and the other attendees (relationship data that is accessed includes similarities between "user interests" in content (e.g., "similar topic"), Paragraphs 0034-0035, 0039-0040, and 0047-0048).
With respect to Claim 8, Clavel further discloses:
The computer implemented method of claim 7, further comprising:
calculating degrees of associations between the first attendee and the other attendees based at least in part on the social network relationships and common interests in the topics of the video conference (automatic calculation of priority tiers as a degree of association that considers social network connections and similar “user interests”, Paragraphs 0034-0035, 0037, 0039-0040, 0047-0048, and 0055).
With respect to Claim 9, Clavel further discloses:
The computer implemented method of claim 8, wherein the calculating of the positions for virtual representations of the other attendees is based at least in part on respective degrees of associations between the first attendee and the other attendees (mapping in a virtual conference space is based upon degrees/tiers of association between a first and other participants, Paragraphs 0037-0040).
With respect to Claim 10, Clavel further discloses:
The computer implemented method of claim 9, wherein the calculating of the positions for virtual representations of the other attendees comprises calculating virtual distances in the virtual environment between the first attendee and each of the positions of the virtual representations of the other attendees (mapping into a virtual space involves the calculation of virtual differences wherein the distance inversely varies with priority (e.g., higher priority is closer while lower priority is further), Paragraphs 0038-0040).
With respect to Claim 11, Clavel further discloses:
The computer implemented method of claim 10, wherein the calculating of the virtual distances comprises calculating a virtual distance between the first attendee and a virtual representation of a fourth attendee, wherein the method further comprises:
detecting, in the speech streamed to the first attendee during the video conference, speech from the fourth attendee (identification of a spoken audio stream from a fourth participant, 0027-0028, and 0031; see Fig. 3 virtual space representation that includes a fourth participant); and
setting a volume of the speech from the fourth attendee based at least in part on the virtual distance between the first attendee and the virtual representation of the fourth attendee (adjustment of audio parameters "corresponding to the virtual position" (that is based upon a virtual distance) including "the volume of an audio stream," Paragraphs 0031, 0038, and 0042-0043).
Claim 12 is directed towards an embodiment of the invention in the form of one or more computer readable storage media storing program instructions that when executed by a processor perform the method of claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Clavel teaches method implementation as a computer program stored on a computer readable storage medium (Paragraph 0089).
Claims 15 and 18-19 contain subject matter respectively similar to Claims 2 and 5-6, and thus, are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 is relates to a system embodiment of the invention comprising a processor and one or more computer readable storage media storing program instructions that when executed by a processor perform the method of claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Clavel teaches method implementation as a system comprising a processor and a program stored on a computer readable storage medium (Paragraph 0089).
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 3-4 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clavel, et al. in view of El Ghazzal (U.S. PG Publication: 2022/0214859 A1).
With respect to Claim 3, Clavel teaches the virtual conference space method for audibly rendering overlapping concurrent spoken audio streams stereophonically and considering priority/relationship information as applied to Claim 2. While Clavel teaches that the virtual conference can include a fourth participant (see Fig. 3) and diminishing intelligibility of a lower priority participant (e.g., such as by lowering volume- see Paragraphs 0028 and 0063), Clavel does not specifically teach converting the individual speech from the fourth attendee to text. El Ghazzal, however, discloses that a lower priority user with a lowered volume can have their spoken audio transcribed (Paragraph 0042).
Clavel and El Ghazzal are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in addressing concurrent audio in conferencing. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the transcription feature of El Ghazzal for the lower priority/lower volume participants taught by Clavel to provide a predictable result of allowing a user to have a more detailed review of conferencing data having lowered audible intelligibility.
With respect to Claim 4, Clavel further discloses:
accessing priority data generated in response to priority inputs from the first attendee indicative of a priority value for the fourth attendee that prioritizes the fourth attendee below the second attendee and the third attendee access of various "priority" data related to a first user participant used for audio and virtual prioritization that includes data input by that participant such as preferences or actions taken wherein such data is used to prioritize other participants in tiers such as the second and third participants, Paragraphs 0022, 0034, and 0037-0040; Fig. 9, S220; note that priority data may place a fourth attendee below second and third attendees, such as a C2 group or medium/low vs. high, See Figs. 3 and 8 and Paragraphs 0038-0040).
Claims 16-17 contain subject matter respectively similar to Claims 3-4, and thus, are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clavel, et al. in view of O'Connell, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2023/0344965 A1).
With respect to Claim 13, Clavel teaches the virtual conference management program stored on a computer-readable medium for audibly rendering overlapping concurrent spoken audio streams stereophonically as applied to Claim 12. Although Clavel alludes to network routing (Paragraph 0089) and installation of user software at a computer device (Paragraph 0079), Clavel does not specifically teach the stored program instructions are transferred over a network from a remote data processing system even though this limitation is outside of the scope of the claimed invention which is limited to the one or more mediums themselves and not the run-time transfer of instructions (i.e., the transfer procedure is not part of the stored program instructions). In the interest of compact prosecution, however, it is noted that O’Connell teaches that the computer readable program instructions can be downloaded to a user's computing/processing device from a networked computer/computer readable storage medium (Paragraph 0022).
Clavel and O’Connell are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in video conferencing software. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to provide a downloadable option for the application as taught by O’Connell for the installable application taught by Clavel to provide a predictable result of allowing distribution of the video conferencing software of Clavel for installation on different user device.
With respect to Claim 14, O’Connell further discloses:
The computer program product of claim 12, wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system (these limitations relate to run-time processing not part of the stored computer program and are outside of the scope of the claimed invention under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), however, see that the computer readable program instructions can be downloaded to a user's computing/processing device from a networked server/computer readable storage medium, Paragraphs 0022), further comprising:
program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request; and program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use (metering and pricing software that tracks resource utilization and render invoices or billing for use of these resources, Paragraph 0059; such teachings in Clavel would provide the predictable result of allowing a provider to profit/cover development or operation costs from developed software/services).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Spivak, et al. (U.S. Patent: 11,563,855)- teaches audio spatialization based upon a location of a participant within a video conference user interface where participants speaking concurrently are directed towards different audio channels (Col. 12, Lines 33-44). Spivak also teaches the creation of prioritized subgroups based on "a social graph" (Col. 7, Lines 14-25).
Jia, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2023/0353678 A1)- teaches a video conference GUI having multiple virtual rows (Fig. 5) where audio stream spatialization is used where multiple people "speak at the same time" (Paragraphs 0082 and 0092).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S WOZNIAK whose telephone number is (571)272-7632. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3, off alternate Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may 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, Andrew Flanders can be reached at (571)272-7516. 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.
JAMES S. WOZNIAK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2655
/JAMES S WOZNIAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655