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 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Examiner has brought in Penner (2016/0342377) to discuss the newly amended features.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janakiraman (2023/0083688) in view of Penner (2016/0342377).
As for claims 1, 8, and 15, Janakiraman discloses a computer-implemented method of saving bandwidth by relieving a need to transmit video capture associated with an online meeting, the 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]).
However, Janakiraman fails to disclose:
The actions including one or more interactions by the at least one broadcaster within a computing environment of a broadcaster device;
Without transmitting a video capture of the actions performed by the at least one broadcaster during the online meeting if the URI is linkable;
In an analogous art, Penner discloses:
The actions including one or more interactions by the at least one broadcaster within a computing environment of a broadcaster device (During an online presentation, instead of sending a video of the raw desktop video, the presentation device sends the presentation state. This allows the viewer device to locally render the presentation using the shared presentation file. The system uses URLs or remote presentation data so viewers render content locally instead of the raw desktop video from the presenter’s device. Viewers are synchronized to the presenter’s local actions while conserving bandwidth; [0025], [0027]-[0029], [0035], [0037], [0042], [0044], [0049]);
Without transmitting a video capture of the actions performed by the at least one broadcaster during the online meeting if the URI is linkable ([0025], [0027]-[0029], [0035], [0037], [0042], [0044], [0049]);
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 Penner, for the advantage of conserving bandwidth.
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 6, 13, and 20, Penner 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 (During an online presentation, instead of sending a video of the raw desktop video, the presentation device sends the presentation state. This allows the viewer device to locally render the presentation using the shared presentation file. The system uses URLs or remote presentation data so viewers render content locally instead of the raw desktop video from the presenter’s device. Viewers are synchronized to the presenter’s local actions while conserving bandwidth; [0025], [0027]-[0029], [0035], [0037], [0042], [0044], [0049]).
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]).
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 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
Prosecution Insights