DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the remarks filed 09/22/2025. Claims 1 - 20 are pending and have
been examined.
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
Applicant's arguments filed 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in Remarks filed 09/22/2025, “Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Roedel in view of Baker alone or further in view of Han. Roedel in view of Baker does not disclose or make obvious at least "determining a context associated with the client device based on the connection request," therefore claim 1 is allowable over Roedel in view of Baker. The Office Action mistakenly asserts that Roedel discloses such functionality, but overlooks that claim 1 recites that the context is determined "based on the connection request." Roedel, by contrast, has a pre-defined modality for the conference. Indeed, Roedel describes that, "[w]hen the user wants to join a conference, it may be determined whether the modality setting is relevant to the conference." Roedel, Paragraph 15. Roedel explains that the modalities are specific to conferences (not to user device) and that they are set by the host or a user. Id. ("A modality setting may refer to a configuration of conferencing-related operations or functions of a conference device or system. A modality setting may be set up by a user or a conference organizer and stored in data storage."). Thus, Roedel only considers the conference settings when determining whether to employ a modality; it does not determine any context associated with the device based on the connection request as recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is allowable over Roedel in view of Baker. Independent claims 10 and 17 recite similar features and are likewise allowable over Roedel in view of Baker. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are each allowable at least based on their dependence from an allowable independent claim. Applicant respectfully requests the Examiner withdraw the rejection of claims 1-20.”
As stated in Non-Final Rejection dated 05/22/2025, Roedel teaches “determining a context associated with the client device based on the connection request” (see Roedel Figure 6, retrieve modality setting associated with conference, send retrieved modality setting to user device, and allow user to join conference using modality setting). Roedel further expands this Figure 6 in Paragraphs [0047] – [0054]. Roedel teaches “the modality setting may be a personalized modality setting set up by the user 110A for conferences having a particular attribute” (see Roedel Paragraph [0049]). Roedel teaches the modality settings having a possibility of being automatically set by a host, but also having a possibility of being personalized by the user. Therefore, the user can choose their own modality settings seen in Figure 2 (video on/off, video filter, microphone on/off, speaker on/off, etc.). Consequently, the user may choose their own settings, that are stored for future use. Roedel also teaches “receiving, from a user via a user interface, a first user input indicating an intention to join a first conference; determining whether the first modality setting is relevant to the first conference based on an attribute of the first conference; and when it is determined that the first modality setting is relevant to the first conference, allowing the user to join the first conference using the first modality setting”. Therefore, when a user wants to join a conference, their modality settings are determined to be relevant to the conference based on an attribute of the conference. Roedel additionally teaches “The user device 120 may also be configured to allow the users 110 to set up a new modality setting or modify the existing modality setting to create a new modality setting, which may be stored in the data storage for later use. Using the user devices 120, the users 110 may set up a modality setting optimized or personalized for a conference having a particular attribute, such as, a conference identification, conference participants, conference type, user identification, user preferences, user location, user schedule, user device hardware/software configuration, network connection quality, etc.” (see Roedel Paragraph [0021]). Interpreting the claims under BRI, Roedel does teach “determining a context associated with the client device based on the connection request”. Therefore, claim 1 remains rejected as being unpatentable over Roedel in view of Baker. Independent claims 10 and 17 recite similar features and likewise remain rejected over Roedel in view of Baker. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are each rejected at least based on their dependence from an allowable independent claim.
Response to Amendment
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 – 17, and 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roedel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0341625, hereinafter “Roedel”) in view of Baker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0275134, hereinafter “Baker”).
Regarding Claim 1, Roedel teaches
A method (see Roedel Paragraph [0003], method) comprising:
receiving, by a virtual conference provider, a connection request from a client device executing virtual conference client software (see Roedel Figure 6, receive request to join to (video) conference from user device);
determining a context associated with the client device based on the connection request (see Roedel Figure 6, retrieve modality setting associated with conference, send retrieved modality setting to user device, and allow user to join conference using modality setting);
Roedel does not expressively teach
generating a manifest associated with the context, the manifest comprising one or more configuration settings associated with the virtual conference client software; and
transmitting the manifest to the client device.
However, Baker teaches
generating a manifest associated with the context, the manifest comprising one or more configuration settings associated with the virtual conference client software (see Baker Paragraph [0012], creation of the user-preference profile could be managed by a preference management module that provides an interface which allows selective customization of one or more features associated with a particular user, and Paragraph [0005], the user-preference information can be in a profile that is either manually or automatically selectable, for example, at the onset of a conference and based on an identifier, such as a caller ID, or, for example, based on the endpoint in use by a conference attendee); and
transmitting the manifest to the client device (See Baker Paragraph [0006], this profile could be stored either on a conference bridge or on the endpoint itself. Therefore, for example, when it is determined that user-preferences will be used to regulate certain aspects of a conference, one or more of the conference bridge and a module associated with the endpoint can ensure the conference is setup and run with those preferences and Figure 1, in which user preferences, stored in a file, have to be transmitted to endpoints).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a method of determining a context associated with a device based on a connection request to execute virtual client software (as taught in Roedel), with generating a manifest associated with a context, comprising one or more configuration settings associated with video conference software, and transmitting to the client device (as taught in Baker), the motivation being to automatically allow users to utilize preferences to assist with usability in a video conference (see Baker Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 2, Roedel in view of Baker teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the connection request includes a request to join a virtual conference (see Roedel Figure 6, receive request to join to (video) conference from user device); and
after transmitting the manifest to the client device, joining the client device to the virtual conference (see Roedel Figure 6, retrieve modality setting associated with conference, send retrieved modality setting to user device, and allow user to join conference using modality setting).
Regarding Claim 3, Roedel in view of Baker teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more configuration settings comprise one or more of microphone access, camera access, video resolution, video bitrate, transcription settings, or caption settings (see Roedel Figure 2, modality settings include enabling video representation, video filter, microphone access, speaker access, device selection and join options (which include join without enabling audio and video output modalities, joining via conference room with audio and video capabilities enabled)).
Regarding Claim 4, Roedel in view of Baker teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the context comprises determining a network provider associated with the connection request (see Roedel Paragraph [0021], Using the user devices 120, the users 110 may set up a modality setting optimized or personalized for a conference having a particular attribute, such as, a conference identification, conference participants, conference type, user identification, user preferences, user location, user schedule, user device hardware/software configuration, network connection quality, etc.).
Regarding Claim 5, Roedel in view of Baker teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the context comprises determining a location of the client device (see Roedel Paragraph [0021], Using the user devices 120, the users 110 may set up a modality setting optimized or personalized for a conference having a particular attribute, such as, a conference identification, conference participants, conference type, user identification, user preferences, user location, user schedule, user device hardware/software configuration, network connection quality, etc.).
Regarding Claim 6, Roedel in view of Baker teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the context comprises determining a type of audio or video input device associated with the client device (see Roedel Paragraph [0021], Using the user devices 120, the users 110 may set up a modality setting optimized or personalized for a conference having a particular attribute, such as, user device hardware/software configuration, and Figure 2, modality settings include enabling video representation, video filter, microphone access, speaker access, device selection and join options (which include join without enabling audio and video output modalities, joining via conference room with audio and video capabilities enabled)).
Regarding Claim 7, Roedel in view of Baker teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the context comprises determining parameters of a network connection of the client device (see Roedel Paragraph [0021], Using the user devices 120, the users 110 may set up a modality setting optimized or personalized for a conference having a particular attribute, such as, network connection quality, and Paragraph [0022], user devices 120 may also monitor various parameters (e.g., a number of participants, participants' locations, network condition, etc.) of an on-going conference to determine and then automatically switch from one modality setting to another when a trigger condition is met).
Regarding Claim 8, Roedel in view of Baker teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of client devices are connected to the virtual conference provider (see Roedel Figure 1, plurality of client devices are connected to a video conference), and further comprising providing an indication of the context to a subset of the plurality of client devices, the indication configured to cause the plurality of client devices to display a visual indicator of the context (see Roedel Figure 2, modality settings include enabling video representation, video filter, microphone access, speaker access, device selection and join options (which include join without enabling audio and video output modalities, joining via conference room with audio and video capabilities enabled), a visual indicator of the context is displayed when a modality setting is enabled, such as a video representation or video filter shown on video conference display corresponding to respective user).
Regarding Claim 9, Roedel in view of Baker teaches
The method of claim 8, wherein the visual indicator is associated with one of a chat session or a virtual conference (see Roedel Figure 2, modality settings include enabling video representation, video filter, microphone access, speaker access, device selection and join options (which include join without enabling audio and video output modalities, joining via conference room with audio and video capabilities enabled), a visual indicator of the context is displayed when a modality setting is enabled, such as a video representation or video filter shown on video conference display corresponding to respective user).
Regarding Claims 10 - 16, they are rejected similarly as Claims 1 - 7, respectively. The system can be found in Roedel (Paragraph [0015], system).
Regarding Claim 17, it is rejected similarly as Claim 1. The non-transitory computer-readable medium can be found in Baker (Paragraph [0027], computer-readable medium).
Regarding Claim 19, Roedel in view of Baker teaches
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein generating the manifest comprises selecting the manifest based on the connection request (see Roedel Figure 6, receive request to join to (video) conference from user device, retrieve modality setting associated with conference, send retrieved modality setting to user device, and allow user to join conference using modality setting).
Regarding Claim 20, Roedel in view of Baker teaches
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, further comprising processor-executable instructions configured to cause one or more processors to:
receive a status indication from the client device (see Roedel Paragraph [0021], Using the user devices 120, the users 110 may set up a modality setting optimized or personalized for a conference having a particular attribute, such as, a conference identification, conference participants, conference type, user identification, user preferences, user location, user schedule, user device hardware/software configuration, network connection quality, etc.);
determine a new context based on the status indication (see Roedel Figure 4, user input indicating intention to modality setting or switch to another modality setting);
generate a second manifest based on the new context (see Baker Paragraph [0012], creation of the user-preference profile could be managed by a preference management module that provides an interface which allows selective customization of one or more features associated with a particular user, and Paragraph [0005], the user-preference information can be in a profile that is either manually or automatically selectable, for example, at the onset of a conference and based on an identifier, such as a caller ID, or, for example, based on the endpoint in use by a conference attendee); and
transmit the second manifest to the client device (See Baker Paragraph [0006], this profile could be stored either on a conference bridge or on the endpoint itself. Therefore, for example, when it is determined that user-preferences will be used to regulate certain aspects of a conference, one or more of the conference bridge and a module associated with the endpoint can ensure the conference is setup and run with those preferences and Figure 1, in which user preferences, stored in a file, have to be transmitted to endpoints).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roedel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0341625, hereinafter “Roedel”) in view of Baker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0275134, hereinafter “Baker”) and Han et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0037066, hereinafter “Han”).
Regarding Claim 18, Roedel in view of Baker teaches all the limitations of Claim 17, but do not expressively teach
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, further comprising processor-executable instructions configured to cause one or more processors to, in response to determining the context, transmit a chat indication to participants in a virtual conference, the chat indication configured to cause client devices associated with the participants to display a chat interface.
However, Han teaches
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, further comprising processor-executable instructions configured to cause one or more processors to, in response to determining the context, transmit a chat indication to participants in a virtual conference, the chat indication configured to cause client devices associated with the participants to display a chat interface (see Han Abstract, a display configured to generate and display a chat window upon receiving an occurrence signal for a predetermined event from a first external device among the plurality of external devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a method of determining a context associated with a device based on a connection request to execute virtual client software, and generating a manifest associated with a context, comprising one or more configuration settings associated with video conference software, and transmitting to the client device (as taught in Roedel in view of Baker),
with sending a chat indication to participants in a virtual conference, configured to cause devices to display a chat interface (as taught in Han), the motivation being to automatically and actively control a plurality of devices, specifically, to align with a user’s configuration settings (see Han Paragraph [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
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 CARISSA A JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-1677. The examiner can normally be reached Telework M-F 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM CT.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 5712727503. 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.
/CARISSA A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691