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 .
Examiner’s Suggestion of Terminology Uses in parallel/compatibility with Specs.
Claim 8 recites, “A computer system, the computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage media, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method comprising:…”
Claim 15 recites, “A computer program product, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable tangible storage media and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage media, the program instructions executable by a processor capable of performing a method, the method comprising:…”.
Examiner suggests:
(1) to remove the term “tangible”, (i.e., A computer readable , in the claim to make it consistent/compatible the written definition/clarification in the Specs [0018]… A computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media,
OR
2) to add non-transitory as follows: non-transitory computer-readable storage media… since par. 18 clearly defines that “A computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se…”
The amendment will not constitute a new matter.
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, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig et al (US 2005/0144284) in view of Brown et al (US 2003/0023683) and ISOBE (US 2010/0146082) OR Goldstein (US 2011/0190952) and Srinivas et al (US 2013/0028574).
Claims 1, 8 and 15, Ludwig teaches a processor-implemented method, a computer system and a computer-readable tangible storage media comprising:
in response to an initiation of a recording of a web conference, receiving a recording authorization selection and a recording access permission selection from each participant within a plurality of participants to the web conference; Ludwig in view of Fig. 45, a video conference recording request is initiated at 3402... Such a request makes usable the recorded video conference to any user having permission thereto, [0731]… When a user, having permissions, desires to access recorded video conference information, he may do so by means of browser 1821 invoked by MCG, not shown in this view, or other user interface at 3450. Browser 1821 then accesses video playback application 1822 at 3452. Step 3452 in turn initiates another AVSS session request at 3408, enabling multiple concurrent recording and playback sessions by authorized users. [0735]. Here examiner reads that the authorized users are those who implicitly or alternatively by obviousness have given authority to record the conversation. To support this obviousness, examiner wishes to provide Brown who teaches such obviousness as he provides a system and program for notifying users participating in a messaging session when that messaging session is recorded and allowing users to agree to the recording, [0019]. See Fig. 6 for automatic agreement by each user);
writing the recording authorization selection and the recording access permission selection to a corresponding TCP header for each participant;
Ludwig teaches recording authorization and access permission (see previous steps), transporting video files between destinations, [0036], via TCP (transportation control protocol), [0111].
Ludwig does not the TCP header with recording authorization and access permission written to the TCP header, ISOBE teaches “the payload data included in the packet 1007 is recorded into the file access request temporarily-recording table 206, and the recorded beginning address is written into the POINTER 318 of the TCP/IP connection table 207, [0120-0121]” OR Goldstein teaches “the web-server may provide HTTP server functionality, such as access control through authorization, operating as a gate for transferring data using HTTP protocol, video monitoring and camera control through the web browser using the TCP/IP environment, control of camera movement through the web browser using the TCP/IP environment, viewing the archives stored on the server for each device through the window, limiting access rights for viewing the video feed from the cameras, controlling devices and sensors, and viewing recordings from the server, displaying the video signal parameters (e.g., frame rate per second ("FPS"), frame size (in kB)) in the surveillance window, etc. Additionally, the Web-server may act as a mobile-server, providing capabilities through various computing devices (e.g., PocketPCs, smartphones, PDAs, etc.), [0077]”;
recording a stream of the web conference for each participant based on the recording authorization selection; (Ludwig: See Fig. 11, recording button 510);
in response to the recording ending, (Ludwig: See Fig. 11, end recording button 514) encrypting the stream for each participant based on the recording access permission selection (Ludwig: A/V files may be encoded in accordance with a variety of formats. Thus, at times, transcoding may be required to convert an A/V file into a different format than that which was utilized to record the A/V file., [0141]; Upon receiving such a request, the AVSM 160 determines whether the user ID associated with the request is specified within the A/V file's access privilege list…. If the passwords match, the AVSM 160 adds the user ID to the access privilege list, and proceeds with request processing operations, [0254]; permission key, [0602]); and
generating an enriched recording of the web conference based on the encrypted streams.
Ludwig teaches the encrypted stream, but not generating an enriched recording of the web conference. It is however an obviousness since conferencing recording is highly desirable and quite often required for the matter of preservation of an record. To support this obviousness…
Srinivas teaches “a data mining method and an audio/video recording enrichment system (AVRES) 100 is presented for enriching audio video recordings by which attendee-driven metadata and other enhanced content are incorporated with audio and/or video data to facilitate subsequent viewers/listeners navigating effectively through AV content, [0002, 0037] and Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Ludwig to include the teaching of Brown for the purpose of providing a method/system allowing users to agree/disagree to a recording and to include the teaching of ISOBE or Goldstein for the purpose of improving quality of communications after a file access request or improving building security and cost-efficient energy and also to include the teaching of Srinivas for the purpose of proving a system/method to help users navigate more effectively through AV content as the availability of online webcasts and seminars continues to increase.
Claims 3, 10 and 17, wherein the encrypting comprises performing password protection and/or tokenization to the stream for each participant opting into the recording access permission selection. (Ludwig: password [0253]).
Claims 6, 13 and 20. The method of claim 1, wherein the recording ending for a participant is selected from a group consisting of a participant stopping the recording through a user interaction with a graphical user interface, (Ludwig: (Ludwig: See Fig. 11, end recording button 514), a conclusion of the web conference, and a participant leaving the web conference before the conclusion of the web conference.
Claims 7 and 14, wherein the encrypting is performed, for each participant leaving the web conference before the conclusion of the web conference, at a time each participant leaves the web conference, and wherein encrypting is performed, for each participant present at the conclusion of the web conference, at the conclusion of the web conference. (Ludwig teaches, Fig. 11 spells out the start, the pause and the end of the conferencing recording. During an audio/video conference session, the encoder/decoder is always available, [0755]. Examiner reads that the encryption (i.e., encoding) is performed regardless who leave the conference during the call or at the end of the call. The process of recording and encrypting is on/available for performing its responsibility.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig in view of Brown and ISOBE OR Goldstein and Srinivas and further in view of Ma et al (US 2017/0180261) OR Zhang et al (US 2021/0084100).
Claims 2, 9 and 16, Ludwig does not teach “the writing occurs in an optional data field of the corresponding TCP header”.
Ma teaches, TCP header 555 with an optional data filed, [0066]. Zhang: Fig. 4, [0078] TCP header with optional dada field.
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Ludwig to include the teaching of Ma or Zhang for the purpose of providing additional field in the header and defining specific requirement to carry out the method of recording precisely.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig in view of Brown and ISOBE OR Goldstein and Srinivas and further in view of Chen et al (US 2013/0078930).
Claims 4, 11 and 18, Ludwig does not teach “the enriched recording attenuates volume of each encrypted audio stream to −96 db”.
Chen teaches, “a speaker volume control, for example PWM channel volume control 580, may control amplification and attenuation of any of signals 672 and 720 generated by switching power amplifier 708 in a range of, for example, -96 dB to +0 dB. Alternatively or in addition, a headphones volume control, for example DAC channel volume control 590, may control amplification and attenuation of any of signals 738 and 740 generated by amplifiers 734 and 736, respectively, in a range of, for example, -96 dB to +0 dB, [0113]).
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Ludwig to include the teaching of Chen for the purpose of providing a method of improving the user’s listening experience.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig in view of Brown and ISOBE OR Goldstein and Srinivas and further in view of Gutierrez-Sheris (US 2020/0396065) OR Hallaji et al (US 2021/0160281)
Claims 5, 12 and 19, Ludwig does not teach, “wherein the writing sets a Boolean flag for each of a plurality of selections within the recording authorization selection and the recording access permission selection, and wherein the Boolean flag is selected from a group consisting of audio authorization, video authorization, chat interaction authorization, password protection, and tokenization”.
Gutierrez-Sheris teaches, “Authorization Cascade—Optional. Boolean value that indicates whether or not the authorization subroutine should be invoked, and/or authorization filters should be enforced for instances of token types derived from the token in question. Options are “True” or “False”, depending on whether or not the authorization subroutine and/or authorization filters of this particular user token type must be applied in the case of derived tokens as well as this token type itself, [0498].
Hallaji teaches, “The classification, can be tracked in the form of a metadata flag a Boolean flag, among others, and when is suspicious session is flagged, the session itself and have the interactions modified such that interactions are not possible without further authentication authorization (such as an automated text validation step, or a phone validation step), or interactions may simply be terminated and the session may be noted as suspicious and the account may also be disabled, [0136]”.
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Ludwig to include the teaching of Gutierrez-Sheris for the purpose of providing a method of determining whether or not the authorization should be invoked and implementing real-world event-driven smart contract execution systems or to include the teaching of Hallaji for the purpose of verification and flagging the suspiciousness of phishing or fraudulence.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUNG-HOANG J. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1949. The examiner can normally be reached Reg. Sched. 6:00-3:00.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. 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.
/PHUNG-HOANG J NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691