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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to correspondence 12/08/25 regarding application 18/112,157, in which claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s request on page 8 that the examiner contact Applicant’s attorney prior to issuing a new Office Action is acknowledged. However, since the Office Action contains new grounds for rejection based on newly cited prior art, it is believed that the interest of compact and efficient prosecution is better served by allowing Applicant’s representative an opportunity to review the written new grounds for rejection prior to any additional interviews.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections based on Wiener, Bell, Raanani, and Holmes have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection, based in part on the newly discovered reference to Cutler (US 20080313713), which discloses each of two devices can transmit a short, unique ID as inaudible watermarks, which are specific to a first meeting participant and a second meeting participant, [0027], [0035], similarly to the amended claim language. The new grounds for rejection based in part on Cutler are necessitated by Applicant’s claim amendments.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiener et al. (US 20130166742) in view of Bell (US 20140117073), in further view of Cutler (US 20080313713).
Consider claim 1, Wiener discloses a system, comprising:
one or more processors (processor, [0015]); and
one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to the one or more processors and comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions executed by the processor, [0015]), cause the system to perform operations comprising:
connecting a second device of a user to a meeting session (endpoint 115, a second device of a user, communicates, i.e. connects, with conference server 120 over a communication network, [0031], which is hosting a video conference with multiple endpoints, i.e. a meeting session, [0028], for which a user having mobile device 130, i.e. a first device, is sharing the endpoint, [0066]);
in response to connecting the second device of the user to the meeting session, generating an audio watermark for the user of the meeting session (marking component inserts media cues, e.g. an audio watermark, into a particular data stream, [0047], for user of shared endpoint 115 and user of device 130 during a conference, [0047-0050]; since the video is streamed to endpoint 115 in response to its connection to the conference, the audio watermark present in the stream is considered generated “in response to connecting”), wherein the audio watermark comprises an identification of the user (Mark Decoding Unit 325 deciphers or decodes the received video clip, into which the audio watermark has been inserted by Marking Unit 315, [0047], to obtain identification information, e.g. a service/user ID, user identification information, which is used by device 130 to serve as identification in communications with conference server 120, [0048]);
decoding, by a first device of the user, the audio watermark (application 140 running on device 130, a first device of the user, contains Mark Decoding Unit 325, which deciphers or decodes the received video clip, into which the audio watermark has been inserted by Marking Unit 315, [0047],); and
determining, by the first device, the identification of the user and an identification of the meeting session in response to decoding the audio watermark (Mark Decoding Unit 325 deciphers or decodes the received video clip, into which the audio watermark has been inserted by Marking Unit 315, [0047], to obtain identification information, e.g. a service/user ID, user identification information, [0048], the service ID identifying the conference, i.e. meeting session, [0032]).
Wiener does not specifically mention detecting, by a first device of the user, the audio watermark.
Bell discloses detecting, by a first device of the user, the audio watermark (audio output from speaker has an audio watermarking encoded with the audio stream 520 that can be detected by an audio capture device of a client computing device, [0054], such as an attendee’s mobile phone, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wiener by detecting, by a first device of the user, the audio watermark in order to allow a person to join an online meeting that is in progress without having to have a meeting invitation issued to them, as suggested by Bell ([0002]), predictably also avoiding a person having to spend time searching for a meeting invitation previously provided to them, as suggested by Bell ([0002]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of meeting assistance.
Wiener and Bell do not specifically mention the audio watermark comprises an identification specific to the user.
Cutler discloses an audio watermark comprises an identification specific to the user (each of the two devices can transmit a short, unique ID as inaudible watermarks, which are specific to a first meeting participant and a second meeting participant, [0027], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wiener and Bell such that the audio watermark comprises an identification specific to the user in order to reduce effort for participants to enable meetings, as suggested by Cutler, ([0006]), predictably improving suitability for distributed ad hoc meetings, as suggested by Cutler ([0006]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of meeting assistance.
Consider claim 8, Wiener discloses a method, comprising:
connecting a second device of a user to a meeting session (endpoint 115, a second device of a user, communicates, i.e. connects, with conference server 120 over a communication network, [0031], which is hosting a video conference with multiple endpoints, i.e. a meeting session, [0028], for which a user having mobile device 130, i.e. a first device, is sharing the endpoint, [0066]);
in response to connecting the second device of the user to the meeting session, generating an audio watermark for the user of the meeting session (marking component inserts media cues, e.g. an audio watermark, into a particular data stream, [0047], for user of shared endpoint 115 and user of device 130 during a conference, [0047-0050]; since the video is streamed to endpoint 115 in response to its connection to the conference, the audio watermark present in the stream is considered generated “in response to connecting”), wherein the audio watermark comprises an identification of the user (Mark Decoding Unit 325 deciphers or decodes the received video clip, into which the audio watermark has been inserted by Marking Unit 315, [0047], to obtain identification information, e.g. a service/user ID, user identification information, which is used by device 130 to serve as identification in communications with conference server 120, [0048]);
decoding, by a first device of the user, the audio watermark (application 140 running on device 130, a first device of the user, contains Mark Decoding Unit 325, which deciphers or decodes the received video clip, into which the audio watermark has been inserted by Marking Unit 315, [0047],); and
determining, by the first device, the identification of the user and an identification of the meeting session in response to decoding the audio watermark (Mark Decoding Unit 325 deciphers or decodes the received video clip, into which the audio watermark has been inserted by Marking Unit 315, [0047], to obtain identification information, e.g. a service/user ID, user identification information, [0048], the service ID identifying the conference, i.e. meeting session, [0032]).
Wiener does not specifically mention detecting, by a first device of the user, the audio watermark.
Bell discloses detecting, by a first device of the user, the audio watermark (audio output from speaker has an audio watermarking encoded with the audio stream 520 that can be detected by an audio capture device of a client computing device, [0054], such as an attendee’s mobile phone, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wiener by detecting, by a first device of the user, the audio watermark for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Wiener and Bell do not specifically mention the audio watermark comprises an identification specific to the user.
Cutler discloses an audio watermark comprises an identification specific to the user (each of the two devices can transmit a short, unique ID as inaudible watermarks, which are specific to a first meeting participant and a second meeting participant, [0027], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wiener and Bell such that the audio watermark comprises an identification specific to the user for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 15, Wiener discloses one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying instructions that, when executed by a processor (non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions executed by the processor, [0015]), cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
connecting a second device of a user to a meeting session (endpoint 115, a second device of a user, communicates, i.e. connects, with conference server 120 over a communication network, [0031], which is hosting a video conference with multiple endpoints, i.e. a meeting session, [0028], for which a user having mobile device 130, i.e. a first device, is sharing the endpoint, [0066]);
in response to connecting the second device of the user to the meeting session, generating an audio watermark for the user of the meeting session (marking component inserts media cues, e.g. an audio watermark, into a particular data stream, [0047], for user of shared endpoint 115 and user of device 130 during a conference, [0047-0050]; since the video is streamed to endpoint 115 in response to its connection to the conference, the audio watermark present in the stream is considered generated “in response to connecting”), wherein the audio watermark comprises an identification of the user (Mark Decoding Unit 325 deciphers or decodes the received video clip, into which the audio watermark has been inserted by Marking Unit 315, [0047], to obtain identification information, e.g. a service/user ID, user identification information, which is used by device 130 to serve as identification in communications with conference server 120, [0048]);
decoding, by a first device of the user, the audio watermark (application 140 running on device 130, a first device of the user, contains Mark Decoding Unit 325, which deciphers or decodes the received video clip, into which the audio watermark has been inserted by Marking Unit 315, [0047],); and
determining, by the first device, the identification of the user and an identification of the meeting session in response to decoding the audio watermark (Mark Decoding Unit 325 deciphers or decodes the received video clip, into which the audio watermark has been inserted by Marking Unit 315, [0047], to obtain identification information, e.g. a service/user ID, user identification information, [0048], the service ID identifying the conference, i.e. meeting session, [0032]).
Wiener does not specifically mention detecting, by a first device of the user, the audio watermark.
Bell discloses detecting, by a first device of the user, the audio watermark (audio output from speaker has an audio watermarking encoded with the audio stream 520 that can be detected by an audio capture device of a client computing device, [0054], such as an attendee’s mobile phone, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wiener by detecting, by a first device of the user, the audio watermark for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Wiener and Bell do not specifically mention the audio watermark comprises an identification specific to the user.
Cutler discloses an audio watermark comprises an identification specific to the user (each of the two devices can transmit a short, unique ID as inaudible watermarks, which are specific to a first meeting participant and a second meeting participant, [0027], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wiener and Bell such that the audio watermark comprises an identification specific to the user for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 2, Wiener discloses the audio watermark comprises: the identification of the meeting session (identification from the decoded media cue, [0025], associates the user with particular services on a particular server, such as a conference, i.e. meeting session, [0050], [0064]).
Consider claim 3, Wiener discloses detecting the audio watermark comprises listening, via a microphone of the first device, for the audio watermark produced by a speaker of the second device (device 130 records an audio clip 135 from audio being output from speakers of endpoint 115, i.e. listens, [0043], which is transmitted to conference server 120 for detecting the media cue, i.e. watermark, [0040]).
Consider claim 4, Wiener discloses moving, in response to identifying the user and the meeting session, the meeting session from the first device to the second device (identification information, which includes user identity and session information, is used to transfer a user currently using a device such as a cellular telephone, i.e. first device, to a shared an endpoint, i.e. second device, without disconnecting, [0066], [0025], [0050], [0064], via server 120, also a “first device”).
Consider claim 9, Wiener discloses the audio watermark comprises: the identification of the meeting session (identification from the decoded media cue, [0025], associates the user with particular services on a particular server, such as a conference, i.e. meeting session, [0050], [0064]).
Consider claim 10, Wiener discloses detecting the audio watermark comprises listening, via a microphone of the first device, for the audio watermark produced by a speaker of the second device (device 130 records an audio clip 135 from audio being output from speakers of endpoint 115, i.e. listens, [0043], which is transmitted to conference server 120 for detecting the media cue, i.e. watermark, [0040]).
Consider claim 11, Wiener discloses the first device is a local device and the second device is a mobile device (identification information, which includes user identity and session information, is used to transfer a user sharing an endpoint, i.e. a local first device, to a cellular telephone, i.e. mobile device without disconnecting, [0066], [0025], [0050], [0064]; server 120, is connected to endpoints and mobile device via LAN and is therefore also “a local first device”).
Consider claim 16, Wiener discloses the audio watermark comprises: the identification of the meeting session (identification from the decoded media cue, [0025], associates the user with particular services on a particular server, such as a conference, i.e. meeting session, [0050], [0064]).
Consider claim 17, Wiener discloses detecting the audio watermark comprises listening, via a microphone of the first device, for the audio watermark produced by a speaker of the second device (device 130 records an audio clip 135 from audio being output from speakers of endpoint 115, i.e. listens, [0043], which is transmitted to conference server 120 for detecting the media cue, i.e. watermark, [0040]).
Consider claim 18, Wiener discloses moving, in response to identifying the user and the meeting session, the meeting session from a first device to a second device (identification information, which includes user identity and session information, is used to transfer a user currently using a device such as a cellular telephone, i.e. first device, to a shared an endpoint, i.e. second device, without disconnecting, [0066], [0025], [0050], [0064], via server 120, also a “first device”).
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiener et al. (US 20130166742) in view of Bell (US 20140117073), in further view of Cutler (US 20080313713), in further view of Raanani et al. (US 20190057698).
Consider claim 5, Wiener discloses determining the identification of the user and the meeting session (Mark Decoding Unit 325 deciphers or decodes the received video clip, into which the audio watermark has been inserted by Marking Unit 315, [0047], to obtain identification information, e.g. a service/user ID, user identification information, [0048], the service ID identifying the conference, i.e. meeting session, [0032]).
Wiener and Bell do not specifically mention an identification specific to the user.
Cutler discloses an identification specific to the user (each of the two devices can transmit a short, unique ID as inaudible watermarks, which are specific to a first meeting participant and a second meeting participant, [0027], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wiener and Bell by including an identification specific to the user for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Wiener, Bell, and Cutler do not specifically initiating activation of a virtual assistant in response to identifying the user and the meeting session; and instructing the virtual assistant to perform an action associated with interacting with the user.
Raanani discloses initiating activation of a virtual assistant in response to identifying a trigger during meeting session (during a real-time call, in-call virtual assistant monitors, identifies a trigger, [0029]); and instructing the virtual assistant to perform an action associated with interacting with the user (a specified task in response to the trigger, [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wiener, Bell, and Cutler by initiating activation of a virtual assistant, as in Raanani, in response to identifying the user and the meeting session as in Wiener; and instructing the virtual assistant to perform an action associated with interacting with the user as in Raanani in order to help users guide conversations with other user, as suggested by Raanani ([0016]) . Doing so would have led to predictable results of increasing the probability of positive outcome for the call, as suggested by Raanani ([0016]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of meeting assistance.
Consider claim 12, Wiener discloses determining the identification of the user and the meeting session (Mark Decoding Unit 325 deciphers or decodes the received video clip, into which the audio watermark has been inserted by Marking Unit 315, [0047], to obtain identification information, e.g. a service/user ID, user identification information, [0048], the service ID identifying the conference, i.e. meeting session, [0032]).
Wiener and Bell do not specifically mention an identification specific to the user.
Cutler discloses an identification specific to the user (each of the two devices can transmit a short, unique ID as inaudible watermarks, which are specific to a first meeting participant and a second meeting participant, [0027], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wiener and Bell by including an identification specific to the user for reasons similar to those for claim 5.
Wiener, Bell, and Cutler do not specifically initiating activation of a virtual assistant in response to identifying the user and the meeting session; and instructing the virtual assistant to perform an action associated with interacting with the user.
Raanani discloses initiating activation of a virtual assistant in response to identifying a trigger during meeting session (during a real-time call, in-call virtual assistant monitors, identifies a trigger, [0029]); and instructing the virtual assistant to perform an action associated with interacting with the user (a specified task in response to the trigger, [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wiener, Bell, and Cutler by initiating activation of a virtual assistant, as in Raanani, in response to identifying the user and the meeting session as in Wiener; and instructing the virtual assistant to perform an action associated with interacting with the user as in Raanani for reasons similar to those for claim 5.
Consider claim 19, Wiener discloses determining the identification of the user and the meeting session (Mark Decoding Unit 325 deciphers or decodes the received video clip, into which the audio watermark has been inserted by Marking Unit 315, [0047], to obtain identification information, e.g. a service/user ID, user identification information, [0048], the service ID identifying the conference, i.e. meeting session, [0032]).
Wiener and Bell do not specifically mention an identification specific to the user.
Cutler discloses an identification specific to the user (each of the two devices can transmit a short, unique ID as inaudible watermarks, which are specific to a first meeting participant and a second meeting participant, [0027], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wiener and Bell by including an identification specific to the user for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Wiener, Bell, and Cutler do not specifically initiating activation of a virtual assistant in response to identifying the user and the meeting session; and instructing the virtual assistant to perform an action associated with interacting with the user.
Raanani discloses initiating activation of a virtual assistant in response to identifying a trigger during meeting session (during a real-time call, in-call virtual assistant monitors, identifies a trigger, [0029]); and instructing the virtual assistant to perform an action associated with interacting with the user (a specified task in response to the trigger, [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wiener, Bell, and Cutler by initiating activation of a virtual assistant, as in Raanani, in response to identifying the user and the meeting session as in Wiener; and instructing the virtual assistant to perform an action associated with interacting with the user as in Raanani for reasons similar to those for claim 5.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiener et al. (US 20130166742) in view of Bell (US 20140117073), in further view of Cutler (US 20080313713), in further view of Holmes et al. (US 20170357915).
Consider claim 6, Wiener, Bell, and Cutler do not, but Holmes discloses: communicating a notification to the user (Fig 19H element 1972 “Your meeting is ending soon”, [0556]); receiving an input from the user (user taps GUI element 1972A or 1972B, Fig 19H, [0556]); and determining whether to move the meeting session from a first device to a second device based on the input from the user (if the user taps 1972A, transferring the call to the user’s mobile phone, [0557]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wiener, Bell, and Cutler by communicating a notification to a user; receiving an input from the user; and determining whether to move the meeting session from a first device to a second device based on the input from the user in order to reduce the tedious and cognitively burdensome actions required by the user to manipulate a presentation, as suggested by Holmes ([0004], [0005]), predictably reducing energy waste, as suggested by Holmes ([0004], [0005]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of meeting assistance.
Consider claim 7, Wiener, Bell, Cutler, and Holmes do not specifically mention interpreting the input from the user using one of the following: speech recognition; or facial recognition.
However, Holmes elsewhere discloses interpreting an(other) input from the user using one of the following: speech recognition; or facial recognition (voice recognition, [0110], used to recognize a voice command, [0653]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wiener, Bell Cutler, and Holmes further by accepting a voice command for GUI elements 1972A or 1972B, Fig 19H, [0556], thereby interpreting the input from the user using speech recognition for reasons similar to those for claim 6.
Consider claim 13, Wiener, Bell, and Cutler do not, but Holmes discloses: communicating a notification to the user (Fig 19H element 1972 “Your meeting is ending soon”, [0556]); receiving an input from the user (user taps GUI element 1972A or 1972B, Fig 19H, [0556]); and determining whether to move the meeting session from the first device to the second device based on the input from the user (if the user taps 1972A, transferring the call to the user’s mobile phone, [0557]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wiener, Bell, and Cutler by communicating a notification to a user; receiving an input from the user; and determining whether to move the meeting session from a first device to a second device based on the input from the user for reasons similar to those for claim 6.
Consider claim 14, Wiener, Bell, Cutler, and Holmes do not specifically mention interpreting the input from the user using one of the following: speech recognition; or facial recognition.
However, Holmes elsewhere discloses interpreting an input from the user using one of the following: speech recognition; or facial recognition (voice recognition, [0110], used to recognize a voice command, [0653]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wiener, Bell, Cutler, and Holmes by accepting a voice command for GUI elements 1972A or 1972B, Fig 19H, [0556], thereby interpreting the input from the user using speech recognition for reasons similar to those for claim 6.
Consider claim 20, Wiener, Bell, and Cutler not, but Holmes discloses: communicating a notification to the user (Fig 19H element 1972 “Your meeting is ending soon”, [0556]); receiving an input from the user (user taps GUI element 1972A or 1972B, Fig 19H, [0556]); and determining whether to move the meeting session from a first device to a second device based on the input from the user (if the user taps 1972A, transferring the call to the user’s mobile phone, [0557]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wiener, Bell, and Cutler by communicating a notification to a user; receiving an input from the user; and determining whether to move the meeting session from a first device to a second device based on the input from the user for reasons similar to those for claim 6.
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.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached on 571/272-7516.
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.
/Jesse S Pullias/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655 12/19/25
Prosecution Insights