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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically claim 18 requires “[a first pair of] frames” which does not follow conventional markup requirements of double brackets to remove 5 or fewer characters in MPEP 714 as well as a status indicator of a preliminary amendment. It is unclear whether it is intended to have “a first pair of” language in the claim or to have it removed. As best understood, it is to be removed and omitted from consideration in this Office Action. Dependent claims inherit this issue.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 13, 14, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (US App. 20240214523) in view of Lee (US App. 20110093273).
In regard to claim 1, Bao teaches a computer-implemented method (see at least Abstract and Para. 212) comprising: determining a first activity value by comparing activity of a first sharable video stream received from a first device associated with a first participant of a screen sharing session (see Fig. 1 and Para. 130-131); generating a first ranked list of activity values, the first ranked list including the first activity value (See Para. 130-132 and Fig. 2 rank video call users based on activity); identifying the first activity value as a highest ranking activity value in the first ranked list of activity values (See Fig. 7, rank numbers).
Bao is not relied upon to teach activity is frames; and transmitting, responsive to identifying the first activity value as the highest ranking activity value, the first sharable content to participants of the screen sharing session.
However, Lee teaches activity is frames (see Para. 53); and transmitting, responsive to identifying the first activity value as the highest ranking activity value, the first sharable content to participants of the screen sharing session (see Fig. 5, display participant stream with highest probability of talking).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the activity of Bao to include the frames of Lee to identify the active talker without complex configuration process (see Para. 4).
In regard to claim 13, Bao teaches a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by a processor (see at least Abstract and Para. 60 and 212) to cause the processor to perform operations comprising: determining a first activity value by comparing activity of a first sharable video stream received from a first device associated with a first participant of a screen sharing session (see Fig. 1 and Para. 130-131); generating a first ranked list of activity values, the first ranked list including the first activity value (See Para. 130-132 and Fig. 2 rank video call users based on activity); identifying the first activity value as a highest ranking activity value in the first ranked list of activity values (See Fig. 7, rank numbers).
Bao is not relied upon to teach activity is frames; and transmitting, responsive to identifying the first activity value as the highest-ranking activity value, the first sharable content to participants of the screen sharing session.
However, Lee teaches activity is frames (see Para. 53); and transmitting, responsive to identifying the first activity value as the highest-ranking activity value, the first sharable content to participants of the screen sharing session (see Fig. 5, display participant stream with highest probability of talking).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the activity of Bao to include the frames of Lee to identify the active talker without complex configuration process (see Para. 4).
In regard to claim 18, Bao teaches a computer system comprising a processor and one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform operations (see at least Abstract and Para. 60 and 212) comprising: determining a first activity value by comparing activity of a first sharable video stream received from a first device associated with a first participant of a screen sharing session (see Fig. 1 and Para. 130-131); generating a first ranked list of activity values, the first ranked list including the first activity value(See Para. 130-132 and Fig. 2 rank video call users based on activity); identifying the first activity value as a highest ranking activity value in the first ranked list of activity values (See Fig. 7, rank numbers).
Bao is not relied upon to teach activity is frames ; and transmitting, responsive to identifying the first activity value as the highest ranking activity value, the first sharable content to participants of the screen sharing session.
However, Lee teaches activity is frames (see Para. 53); and transmitting, responsive to identifying the first activity value as the highest ranking activity value, the first sharable content to participants of the screen sharing session (see Fig. 5, display participant stream with highest probability of talking).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the activity of Bao to include the frames of Lee to identify the active talker without complex configuration process (see Para. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Bao in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Bao teaches further comprising: determining a second activity value by comparing activity of a second sharable video stream received from a second device associated with a second participant of the screen sharing session, wherein the first ranked list includes the second activity value (See Para. 130-132 and Fig. 2 rank video call users based on activity and Fig. 7 has an example of rank numbers for each user).
Bao is not relied upon to teach activity is frames.
However, Lee teaches activity is frames (see Para. 53).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the activity of Bao to include the frames of Lee to identify the active talker without complex configuration process (see Para. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Bao in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 2.
Bao further teaches wherein the determining of the first and second activity values occurs during a first window of time (See Para. 147, time period between moments).
Regarding claim 14, Bao in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 13.
Bao further teaches wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are transferred over a network from a remote data processing system (See Para. 159).
Regarding claim 19, Bao in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 18. Bao further teaches further comprising: determining a second activity value by comparing activity of a second sharable video stream received from a second device associated with a second participant of the screen sharing session, wherein the first ranked list includes the second activity value, wherein the determining of the first and second activity values occurs during a first window of time (See Para. 130-132 and Fig. 2 rank video call users based on activity and Fig. 7 has an example of rank numbers for each user in a time period from moment to moment in Para. 147).
Bao is not relied upon to teach activity is frames.
However, Lee teaches activity is frames (see Para. 53).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the activity of Bao to include the frames of Lee to identify the active talker without complex configuration process (see Para. 4).
Claim(s) 4 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (US App. 20240214523) in view of Lee (US App. 20110093273) in further view of Wu et al. (US App. 20130169742).
Regarding claim 4, Bao in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 3.
Bao further teaches a third activity value by comparing activity of the first sharable video stream received from the first device associated with the first participant of the screen sharing session (see Fig. 7, user rankings of at least 6 different video call user screens); determining, during the second window of time, a fourth activity value by comparing activity of the second sharable video stream received from the second device associated with the second participant of the screen sharing session (see Fig. 7, rank change); generating a second ranked list of activity values, the second ranked list including the third and fourth activity values; identifying the fourth activity value as a highest ranking activity value in the second ranked list of activity values (See Para. 149, updating rankings based on activity changes).
Bao is not relied upon to teach determining, during a second window of time subsequent to the first window of time; activity is frames; and transmitting, responsive to identifying the fourth activity value as the highest ranking activity value, the second sharable content to participants of the screen sharing session.
However, Lee teaches activity is frames (see Para. 53); and transmitting, responsive to identifying the fourth activity value as the highest ranking activity value, the second sharable content to participants of the screen sharing session (see Fig. 5, display participant stream with highest probability of talking).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the activity of Bao to include the frames of Lee to identify the active talker without complex configuration process (see Para. 4).
Bao and Lee are not relied upon to teach determining, during a second window of time subsequent to the first window of time.
However, Wu teaches determining, during a second window of time subsequent to the first window of time (see Figs. 4A-4D where different time periods of users talking changes the focused display window to be larger or smaller depending on their activity).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the activity of Bao to include the frames of Lee with subsequent time period analysis and compensation of Wu to optimize for limited computer/network resources (see Para. 13).
Regarding claim 20, Bao in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 18. Bao further teaches further comprising: determining, a third activity value by comparing activity of the first sharable video stream received from the first device associated with the first participant of the screen sharing session (see Fig. 7, user rankings of at least 6 different video call user screens); determining, during the second window of time, a fourth activity value by comparing frames of the second sharable video stream received from the second device associated with the second participant of the screen sharing session (see Fig. 7, rank change); generating a second ranked list of activity values, the second ranked list including the third and fourth activity values (See Para. 149, updating rankings based on activity changes).
Bao is not relied upon to teach during a second window of time subsequent to the first window of time; activity is frames; identifying the fourth activity value as a highest ranking activity value in the second ranked list of activity values; and transmitting, responsive to identifying the fourth activity value as the highest ranking activity value, the second sharable content to participants of the screen sharing session.
However, Lee teaches activity is frames (see Para. 53); identifying the fourth activity value as a highest ranking activity value in the second ranked list of activity values; and transmitting, responsive to identifying the fourth activity value as the highest ranking activity value, the second sharable content to participants of the screen sharing session (see Fig. 5, display participant stream with highest probability of talking).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the activity of Bao to include the frames of Lee to identify the active talker without complex configuration process (see Para. 4).
Bao and lee are not relied upon to teach during a second window of time subsequent to the first window of time.
However, Wu teaches during a second window of time subsequent to the first window of time (see Figs. 4A-4D where different time periods of users talking changes the focused display window to be larger or smaller depending on their activity).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the activity of Bao to include the frames of Lee with subsequent time period analysis and compensation of Wu to optimize for limited computer/network resources (see Para. 13).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (US App. 20240214523) in view of Lee (US App. 20110093273) in further view of Dove et al. (US App. 20170149854).
Regarding claim 5, Bao in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 3.
Bao further teaches wherein the comparing of the frames of the first sharable video stream comprises comparing frames received during the first window of time, wherein the frames comprise a first activity and a second activity (See Para. 130-132 and Fig. 2 rank video call users based on activity and Fig. 7 has an example of rank numbers for each user).
Bao is not relied upon to teach activity is frame; the first and second frames being separated by a predetermined number of frames.
However, Lee teaches activity is frames (see Para. 53).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the activity of Bao to include the frames of Lee to identify the active talker without complex configuration process (see Para. 4).
Bao in view of Lee is not relied upon to teach the first and second frames being separated by a predetermined number of frames.
As discussed above Lee teaches the concept of consecutive frames.
However, Dove teaches the first and second frames being separated by a predetermined number of frames (see Para. 51 and 65, periodic 10 second update to sample against).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the activity of Bao to include the frames of Lee with subsequent time period analysis and periodic sampling Dove to prevent demoting a user in priority too quickly (see Para. 39).
Regarding claim 6, Bao in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 5.
Lee further teaches wherein the frames received during the first window of time further wherein the comparing of the activity of the first sharable video stream further comprises comparing the third and fourth frames (See Para. 130-132 and Fig. 2 rank video call users based on activity and Fig. 7 has an example of rank numbers for each user).
Bao is not relied upon to teach activity is frames; comprise third and fourth frames separated by the predetermined number of frames,
However, Lee teaches activity is frames (see Para. 53).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the activity of Bao to include the frames of Lee to identify the active talker without complex configuration process (see Para. 4).
Bao in view of Lee is not relied upon to teach comprise third and fourth frames separated by the predetermined number of frames.
As discussed above Lee teaches the concept of consecutive frames.
However, Dove teaches comprise third and fourth frames separated by the predetermined number of frames (see Para. 51 and 65, periodic 10 second update to sample against).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the activity of Bao to include the frames of Lee with subsequent time period analysis and periodic sampling Dove to prevent demoting a user in priority too quickly (see Para. 39).
Regarding claim 10, Bao in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 5.
Lee further teaches wherein the comparing of the frames of the first sharable video stream comprises comparing a first set of pixels of the first frame to a second set of pixels of the second frame, thereby determining a number of pixels that have changed from the first frame to the second frame (see Para. 53).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the activity of Bao to include the pixel comparison of Lee to identify the active talker without complex configuration process (see Para. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Bao in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 10.
Lee further teaches wherein the first activity value is based at least in part on the number of pixels that have changed from the first frame to the second frame (see Para. 53).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the activity of Bao to include the pixel comparison of Lee to identify the active talker without complex configuration process (see Para. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 12, 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Orr (US App. 20050099492).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW YEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-4115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/MATTHEW YEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625