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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendment filed on 3/23/26 has been entered. Claims 1-22 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-22 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 19 and 22 being independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-7, 10-14, 17-19, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0142462 to Johnston et al. (“Johnston”).
As to claims 1 and 19, Johnston discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a process to be executed by a computer operating as a server of a web conferencing system and a method [paragraphs 0049-50], the process comprising: identifying a group of participants sharing a microphone to be used for voice input [Fig. 1:104, 103: “Dial-in MIC”, paragraphs 0014: “participants 105(1)-105(n) are all located in conference room 104 described as “SJ-Bld J”. There are microphones 103(1) and 103(2) associated with the conference phone to detect audio from the participants on the conference room 104”, also see paragraphs 0018, 0030]; and identifying, based on reception of volume information transmitted from a terminal in which voice input is set to off [paragraphs 0035-0036: “although the user device microphone is used to determine who is currently speaking, the audio signal from the user device microphone may not be used (or played) to the other participants…”], if the volume information indicating a volume equal to or greater than a reference value from the terminal operating in a volume input mode [paragraphs 0035-0036] and not connected to the microphone from among terminals of the participants belonging to the group is inputted while a voice from the group is being inputted [paragraphs 0034-35: “…determines the best audio signal”, “The “best” audio signal may be one that has the best overall quality, best signal strength, or satisfy any one or more other attributes”, reference value can be comparing audios from other participant to determine who has the best audio based on signal strength (e.g. higher volume], also see paragraphs 0036, 0039], the participant whose terminal corresponds to the transmission origin of the information as a speaking person [paragraphs 0034-0036, 0057].
As to claim 2, Johnston discloses displaying participant information about the participant corresponding to the terminal on a shared screen [Figs. 1-2: 110, paragraphs 0021-0025].
As to claim 3, Johnston discloses wherein in the displaying, in a case where the participant identified as the speaking person belongs to the group, the participant information is displayed with a different appearance compared to case where the participant identified as the speaking person does not belong to the group [Fig. 2: 111, 113, paragraphs 0020-0023: “The participant identifiers 115 for each participant determined to be in the conference room location associated with room name indicator 113 may be presented in a list format (e.g., Jim, Bjorn, David, Jason, Ly, Stephanie) surrounded by solid line 118 of visual location indicator 111”].
As to claim 4, Johnston discloses displaying participant information about a participant belonging to a group with a different appearance from another participant not belonging to the group [Fig.2:113, 116, 118, paragraphs 0020-0023].
As to claim 5, Johnston discloses wherein if a plurality of groups are included, the displaying includes displaying differences between the groups [paragraphs 0022-0024, 0034, 0051: “multiple locations and separate groups of attendees for each of these multiple locations may be created and visually displayed”].
As to claim 6, Johnston discloses displaying, on a screen for initiating participation in a web conference, a button used to set transmission of information indicating volume [Fig. 2, paragraphs 0021-0024].
As to claim 7, Johnston discloses wherein the button is displayed if a voice input setting is set to OFF [Fig. 2: muted symbol].
As to claim 10, Johnston discloses wherein in the identifying of the group, a participant in whose terminal a setting for transmitting the volume information indicating volume is enabled is linked to the group on a screen for initiating participation in a web conference [Fig. 2:113, 114, paragraphs 0023-0025].
As to claim 11, Johnston discloses wherein in the identifying of the group, the group to which each participant belongs is identified on a basis of a location, on a network, of the terminal of the participant linked to the group [paragraphs 0011, 0034, 0051].
As to claim 12, Johnston discloses wherein in the identifying of the participant as the speaking person, the participant whose terminal has transmitted the volume information indicating a loudest volume within the same group is identified as the speaking person [paragraphs 0035, 0039].
As to claim 13, Johnston discloses wherein in the identifying of the participant as the speaking person, if volume information indicating the volume equal to or greater than the reference value is not inputted from the terminal of the participant belong to the group while the voice from the group is being inputted, the participant linked to the terminal transmitting the voice is identified as the speaking person [paragraphs 0019, Fig. 1-2, paragraphs 0037-0040: “if it is determined at 404 that the best audio signal is not received from any user device microphone, at 407, the conference server 101 visually indicates that the user associated with the dial-in line is currently speaking (e.g., Jim, in the example of FIG. 2)”].
As to claim 14, Johnston discloses wherein in the identifying of the participant as the speaking person, if the voice input from the participant not belonging to the group is detected, the participant is identified as the speaking person [paragraphs 0041: “When it is determined that the best audio is from the microphone of the user device for the participant at the particular location, the conference server generates for display an indicator that indicates which of the multiple participants at the particular location is/are speaking”, Fig. 4: system samples audio from attendees’ microphones from each room and decide who is speaking based on the best audio. This can happen from a participant from first group (not belonging to an another group) at first location and/or from an another participant from another group (not belonging to the first group) at second location, also see paragraphs 0034-0041].
As to claim 17, Johnston discloses transmitting an instruction to set the voice input to OFF and an instruction for setting the volume information to ON to terminals other than the terminal in which the voice input is set to ON among the terminals of participants belonging to the group [paragraphs 0017, 0039, Volume should be set to ON when non speaking user connected with their earpiece/headphones].
As to claim 18, Johnston discloses recording participant information about the participant corresponding to the terminal in association with the voice [Fig. 2, paragraphs 0022-25].
As to claim 22, Johnston discloses a terminal of a participant in a web conference [Fig. 1, paragraphs 0015, 0017 (“user devices”)]; and a server that establishes communication between terminals [Fig. 1: 101: “conference server”], wherein if a voice input is set to ON, the terminal transmits a voice to the server [paragraphs 0034-0036, 0039], whereas if the voice input is set to OFF, the terminal transmits information indicating a volume to the server [paragraphs 0034-0036, 0039-0040, Fig. 4], and based on i) reception of volume information transmitted from the terminal operating in a volume input mode in which the voice input is set to off [paragraphs 0035-0036: “although the user device microphone is used to determine who is currently speaking, the audio signal from the user device microphone may not be used (or played) to the other participants…”], ii) the volume information indicating the volume equal to or greater than a reference value and iii) the terminal not being connected to a microphone to be used for inputting the voice input from among terminals of participants belonging to a group sharing the microphone [Fig. 1:104, 103: “Dial-in MIC”, paragraphs 0014: “participants 105(1)-105(n) are all located in conference room 104 described as “SJ-Bld J”. There are microphones 103(1) and 103(2) associated with the conference phone to detect audio from the participants on the conference room 104”, also see paragraphs 0018, 0030] while a voice from the group is being inputted [paragraphs 0034-36: “…determines the best audio signal”, “The “best” audio signal may be one that has the best overall quality, best signal strength, or satisfy any one or more other attributes”, reference value can be comparing audios from other participant to determine who has the best audio based on signal strength (e.g. higher volume), also see paragraphs 0036, 0039], the server identifies the participant whose terminal corresponds to the transmission origin of the volume information as a speaking person [paragraphs 0034-0036, 0057].
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0142462 to Johnston et al. (“Johnston”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0187884 to Minor et al. (“Minor”).
As to claim 8, Johnston discloses the medium according to claim 6 [See rejection of claim 1]. Johnston further discloses setting voice input setting to ON [paragraphs 0036, 0039, also see Fig. 2].
Johnston does not expressly disclose the button is displayed in a non-operable state. Even though, it is extremely obvious and well known in the art to provide visual representation of volume information based on specific voice input.
In the same or similar field of invention, Minor discloses a feature of displaying button in a non-operable state [Minor Fig. 4: 403, paragraph 0063].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnston to have the feature of displaying button in a non-operable state as taught by Minor. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide flexible communication system that can be configured from the perspective of a first user so that an open plan environment can be simulated between users but managed so that the first users can control audio volume level output of one or more other users but without necessarily breaking the simulated open-plan environment [Minor paragraph 0007].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0142462 to Johnston et al. (“Johnston”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0198635 to Jones et al. (“Jones”).
As to claim 9, Johnston discloses the medium according to claim 6 [See rejection of claim 1]. Johnston further discloses displaying button for volume information [[Fig. 2, paragraphs 0021-0024].
Johnston does not expressly disclose the button is displayed when a mode for sharing the microphone with another participant is selected.
In the same or similar field of invention, Jones discloses a feature of displaying button when a mode for sharing the microphone with another participant is selected [Jones Fig.9, 11-13, paragraphs 0043-0046].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnston to have the feature of displaying button when a mode for sharing the microphone with another participant is selected as taught by Jones. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide improved conference, meeting, grouping or other types of gathering systems, methods, and computer programs [Jones paragraph 0003].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0142462 to Johnston et al. (“Johnston”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0099146 to Lee et al. (“Lee”).
As to claim 15, Johnston discloses the medium according to claim 1 [See rejection of claim 1].
Johnston does not expressly disclose wherein making a microphone sensitivity uniform among the terminals of the participants belonging to the same group.
In the same or similar field of invention, Lee discloses wherein making a microphone sensitivity uniform among the terminals of the participants belonging to the same group [Lee paragraph 0078].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnston to have the feature of making a microphone sensitivity uniform among the terminals of the participants belonging to the same group as taught by Lee. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide for an improved computer-based user interface that improves the functionality and ease of use of the devices [Lee paragraph 0085].
Claims 16, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0142462 to Johnston et al. (“Johnston”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0398064 to Desai et al. (“Desai”).
As to claim 16, Johnston discloses the medium according to claim 1 [See rejection of claim 1].
Johnston discloses identifying a group of participants sharing conference room [paragraphs 0014, 0018, 0030, Fig. 1].
Johnston does not expressly disclose issuing a notification if an input of the volume information is detected from the terminal of the participant belonging to the group but the input of the voice from the same group is not detected, the notification indicating that the voice of a participant is not detected
In the same or similar field of invention, Desai discloses issuing a notification if an input of the volume information is detected from the terminal of the participant belonging to the group but the input of the voice from the same group is not detected, the notification indicating that the voice of a participant is not detected [Desai Abstract, paragraphs 0012, 0045, 0050].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnston (who teaches identifying a group of participants sharing conference room) to have the feature of issuing a notification if an input of the volume information is detected from the terminal of the participant belonging to the group but the input of the voice from the same group is not detected, the notification indicating that the voice of a participant is not detected as taught by Desai. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide innovation, which reduces loss of verbal communication between participants in a communication session when a local participant attempts to speak without manually unmuting a microphone of the electronic device [Desai paragraph 0010].
As to claim 20, Johnston discloses the medium according to claim 19 [See rejection of claim 19].
Johnston does not expressly disclose processing an expression of the participant captured by a camera of the terminal, and detecting whether the participant is speaking; and transmitting volume information indicating speech to a server if the participant is detected to be speaking but the volume information indicating the volume equal to or greater than the reference value is not detected.
In the same or similar field of invention, Desai discloses processing an expression of the participant captured by a camera of the terminal, and detecting whether the participant is speaking; and transmitting volume information indicating speech to a server if the participant is detected to be speaking but the volume information indicating the volume equal to or greater than the reference value is not detected [Desai paragraphs 0034, 0036, 0043, 0044, Figs. 2B, 3B].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnston to have the feature of processing an expression of the participant captured by a camera of the terminal, and detecting whether the participant is speaking; and transmitting volume information indicating speech to a server if the participant is detected to be speaking but the volume information indicating the volume equal to or greater than the reference value is not detected as taught by Desai. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide innovation, which reduces loss of verbal communication between participants in a communication session when a local participant attempts to speak without manually unmuting a microphone of the electronic device [Desai paragraph 0010].
As to claim 21, Desai discloses wherein in the detecting of whether the participant is speaking, a transmission of an image captured by the camera to a server is executed even if transmission indicating the volume to the server is set to OFF [Desai paragraphs 0034, 0036, 0043, 0044, Figs. 2B, 3B:307a]. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 3/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of applicant’s remark, the applicant argues the following:
“The above-cited features clarify the discrete functions of the terminal to include a voice input mode and a volume input mode. Here, the terminal transmits the volume information (volume input mode) while the voice input from the same terminal is set to off. In contrast, Johnston discloses binary logic that includes transmission or non-transmission of audio stream by the same terminal. Here, Johnston fails to disclose transmission of discrete volume information and voice input. The other cited art fails to remedy the deficiencies of Johnston.”
“Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's arguments for the following reasons: Johnston discloses terminal transmits the volume information (volume input mode) while the voice input from the same terminal is set to off [see paragraphs 0034-0036]. As per Johnston, user device microphone is used to determine who is currently speaking (e.g. volume input mode), the audio signal from the user device microphone may not be used (e.g. voice input from the same terminal is set to off) [see paragraph 0036]. Thus, Johnston clearly discloses transmission of discrete volume information and voice input. Further, Johnston discloses all the limitation of independent claims including “identifying, based on reception of volume information transmitted from a terminal in which voice input is set to off, if the volume information indicating a volume equal to or greater than a reference value from the terminal operating in a volume input mode and not connected to the microphone from among terminals of the participants belonging to the group is inputted while a voice from the group is being inputted, the participant whose terminal corresponds to the transmission origin of the volume information as a speaking”. See prior art rejection for more detail.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANTIM G SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-5214. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANTIM G SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights