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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 8 recites “A computer program product…”. The claim is non-statutory because it defines software which does not fall in any of the four statutory categories of subject matter. In order to fall under a statutory category of subject matter, the claim has to be a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. When functional descriptive material is recorded on a non-transitory computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. While “functional descriptive material” may be claimed as a statutory product (i.e., a manufacture) when embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium, a software embodying that same functional descriptive material is neither a process nor a product (i.e. a tangible “thing") and therefore does not fall within one of the four statutory classes of 35 U.S.C. 101. The examiner suggests amending the claim to embody the program on a non-transitory computer-readable medium or equivalent in order to make the claim statutory. For example, claim 8 should read --A non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with computer executable instructions that when executed by the computer result in… --. Further, note that any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Janakiraman (2023/0083688).
As for claims 1, 8, and 15, Janakiraman discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
initiating an online meeting (video conference meeting: [0025]-[0026]) between at least one broadcaster (participant) and at least one viewer (other participants; [0012], [0025]);
capturing actions (participant selects “collaborate” option) performed by the at least one broadcaster during the online meeting (Each client device executes a video conferencing application in which various participants are able to interact with each other. During the meeting, a participant executes a software application to access and collaborate on content with the other participants in the video conference ([0068]). The GUI provides a “collaborate” option to share a content object accessed by the software application with other participants in the video conference ([0079]).);
converting at least one action performed by the broadcaster to a uniform resource identifier (The “collaborate” option results in converting that action command to a URL of the object being sent to other participants to load on their device; [0071], [0074], [0093]); and
sending the captured actions including the URI to the at least one viewer (URL of content object is sent to participants; [0013]),
wherein the captured actions including the URI replicate locally the at least one broadcaster’s captured actions on a device associated with the viewer (Content object is launched at participant device; [0015], [0068]).
As for claims 2, 9, and 16, Janakiraman discloses wherein the URI is associated with an action of accessing a shared file (URL of content object is sent to participants [0013]. Content object is launched at participant device [0015], [0068]).
As for claims 3, 10, and 17, Janakiraman discloses wherein the shared file is opened on the device associated with the viewer in response to receiving the URI (“…it is automatically launched…” [0015], [0071]).
As for claims 4, 11, and 18, Janakiraman discloses wherein an audio stream of the online meeting is provided without a video stream of the online meeting (During the meeting, audio and not video is streamed to the participants; [0029]).
As for claims 5 and 12, Janakiraman discloses the method further comprising: in response to a portion of the captured actions being not linkable, sending a video capture of the online meeting to the at least one viewer for the portion of the online meeting where captured actions could not be converted (If participant device is unable to launch the object, the client device generates and sends an additional multimedia stream sharing the client device’s view of the content object. [0075]).
As for claims 7 and 14, Janakiraman discloses the method further comprising:
in response to the at least one viewer not being able to access the shared file via the URI, sending a video capture of the online meeting to the at least one viewer for a portion of the online meeting where the shared file is accessed by the at least one broadcaster (If participant device is unable to launch the object, the client device generates and sends an additional multimedia stream sharing the client device’s view of the content object. [0075]).
As for claim 19, Janakiraman discloses:
program instructions, in response to a portion of the captured actions being not linkable, to send a video capture of the online meeting to the at least one viewer for the portion of the online meeting where captured actions could not be converted (If participant device is unable to launch the object, the client device generates and sends an additional multimedia stream sharing the client device’s view of the content object. [0075]).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janakiraman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vas (2018/0167399).
As for claims 6, 13, and 20, Janakiraman fails to disclose wherein the URI is generated based, in part, on an application in which the captured actions were made by the at least one broadcaster.
In an analogous art, Vas discloses wherein the URI is generated based, in part, on an application in which the captured actions were made by the at least one broadcaster (URL is generated to access files for the meeting; [0073], [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Janakiraman’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Vas, for the advantage of conserving network resources.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8567. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-3:00 PM.
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, NATHAN FLYNN can be reached at (571)272-1915. 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.
SUMAIYA A. CHOWDHURY
Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421