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 § 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, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambhir (US2024/0022618) in view of Bjontgard (US2015/0262208), Brown et al (US2020/0128902) and Suppa et al (US2024/0169724).
Consider claims 1, 17, 19. Gambhir teaches an Information Handling System (IHS), comprising: a heterogeneous computing platform (the system in fig. 1A-C); and a memory coupled to the heterogeneous computing platform, wherein the memory comprises a plurality of sets of firmware instructions, wherein each of the sets of firmware instructions, upon execution by a respective device among a plurality of devices of the heterogeneous computing platform, enables the respective device to provide a corresponding firmware service (para 3, a data processing system having a processor and a memory in communication with the processor wherein the memory stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the data processing system to perform multiple functions), and wherein at least one of the plurality of devices operates as an orchestrator configured to: detect a streaming video session conducted using resources of the heterogeneous computing platform, wherein the user of the IHS is a participant in the streaming video session (para 22); determine a level of attentiveness of the user relative to the streaming video session (para 61, fig 4).
Gambhir does not explicitly teach in response to the IHS determining a presence of the user in proximity sensor of to the IHS during the streaming video session, determining a level of attentiveness of the user relative to the streaming video session based at least in part on retinal tracking capabilities of the IHS identifying the user's attention to portions of a display of the HIS; and selecting a first background image for display behind the user when based on the determined level of attentiveness of the user relative to the streaming video session is above a threshold level and select a second background image for display behind the user when the determined level of attentiveness drops below the threshold level.
Bjontgard teaches determining a presence of the user in proximity sensor of to the IHS during the streaming video session (para 66: level of engagement; para 65: Current context data is obtained using various sensors, sensor input, devices, image recognition or augmented reality residing in the connected device(s); para 169: determine context may involve different sensor input on a wide diversity of technical capabilities on mobile devices, on peer-to-peer enabled devices, on embedded sensors in accessories, clothing, glasses, microphones, headsets, gloves, shoes, watches, tablets as well as embedded sensors in the surrounding environment, devices in proximity and/or in transportation devices. Some may also include the ability to detect hostile environments such as pollutants and or toxins, unhealthy lighting or sound levels, elevated stress and anxiety levels; also para 43, fig 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Bjontgard into the teachings of Gambhir in order to provide systems and processes relate to the field of contextually intelligent communications that acquire and process data related to a user who is using or connected to a mobile communication device (para 1).
Gambhir in view of Bjontgard does not teach determining a level of attentiveness of the user relative to the streaming video session based at least in part on retinal tracking capabilities of the IHS identifying the user's attention to portions of a display of the HIS.
Brown teaches determining a level of attentiveness of the user relative to the streaming video session based at least in part on retinal tracking capabilities of the IHS identifying the user's attention to portions of a display of the HIS (para 285, 297).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Brown into the teachings of Gambhir in view of Bjontgard in order to optimize strategic game play awareness.
Additionally, Suppa teaches selecting a first background image for display behind the user when based on the determined level of attentiveness (e.g., idleness score) of the user relative to the streaming video session is above a threshold level (e.g., idleness score or extends beyond a predetermined threshold) and select a second background image for display behind the user when the determined level of attentiveness drops below the threshold level (para 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Suppa into the teachings of Gambhir in view of Bjontgard and Brown in order to ensure a meeting is engaging and time well spent for attending participants.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambhir (US2024/0022618) in view of Bjontgard (US2015/0262208), Brown et al (US2020/0128902) and Suppa et al (US2024/0169724) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shaburov et al (US2017/0019633).
Consider claim 2. Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa does not explicitly teach the heterogeneous computing platform comprises at least one of: a System-On-Chip (SoC), a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), or an Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC).
Shaburov teaches the heterogeneous computing platform comprises at least one of: a System-On-Chip (SoC), a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), or an Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) (para 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Shaburov into the teachings of Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa in order to provide methods and systems for real-time video processing can be used in video conferencing to modify image quality of background that can be used in small, portable devices such as laptop computer, game console, handheld gaming device, cellular phone, or smart phone.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambhir (US2024/0022618) in view of Bjontgard (US2015/0262208), Brown et al (US2020/0128902) and Suppa et al (US2024/0169724) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Files et al (US2022/0159166).
Consider claim 3. Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa does not explicitly teach the orchestrator comprises at least one of: a sensing hub, an Embedded Controller (EC), or a Baseboard Management Controller (BMC).
Files discloses wherein the orchestrator comprises at least one of: a sensing hub, an Embedded Controller (EC), or a Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) (para 15, Fig 1, illustrates an information handling system 100 including … an embedded controller (EC) 190, a vision system 194, and a low power (LP) camera 196. Also [0017] EC 190 can be referred to as a service processor, a baseboard management controller (BMC), and the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Files into the teachings of Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa in order to provide method and system to reduce the likelihood of an undesirable image and improve the appearance of the user over a contextual background.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambhir (US2024/0022618) in view of Bjontgard (US2015/0262208), Brown et al (US2020/0128902) and Suppa et al (US2024/0169724) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Monnier et al (US2008/0128177).
Consider claim 4. Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa does not clearly teach the orchestrator is further configured to: select a brightness of the first background image for display behind the user, wherein the selected brightness is commensurate with the level of attentiveness of the user relative to in the streaming video session.
Monnier teaches the orchestrator is further configured to: select a brightness of the first background image for display behind the user, wherein the selected brightness is commensurate with the level of attentiveness of the user relative to in the streaming video session (para 17-18; Further, while it is contemplated that the color change during the offline condition would be stable, it is recognized that the color change could instead be a "flashing" color change (e.g., the color of the background area 72 repeatedly changes back and forth between light blue and red during the offline condition). Moreover, such a flashing color condition feature could be implemented by repeatedly alternating between one or more color characteristics (i.e., hue, saturation and brightness). Additionally, the flashing condition could be implemented when a scale first goes offline until an operator recognizes the situation (e.g., as by closing the text box mentioned below) and thereafter the flashing condition could be discontinued in favor of a stable color change that remains in place as long as the scale remains offline).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Monnier into the teachings of Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa in order to provide a scale that provides a clear indication for operators when the scale goes offline.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambhir (US2024/0022618) in view of Bjontgard (US2015/0262208), Brown et al (US2020/0128902) and Suppa et al (US2024/0169724) as applied to claims 1, 17, 19 above, and further in view of Oh (US2023/0138424).
Consider claims 5, 7, 18, 20. Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa does not explicitly teach determine whether it is daytime or nighttime at the geographic location of the user, and wherein the first background image is further selected to reflect whether it is daytime or nighttime at the geographic location of the user.
Oh teaches determine whether it is daytime or nighttime at the geographic location of the user, and wherein the first background image is further selected to reflect whether it is daytime or nighttime at the geographic location of the user (para 78, At block 560, the video conference provider 310 causes the client device 330 to display a representation of the time zone-specific content. For example, if the time zone-specific content is combined with or contained in the video stream, then the video conference application can simply display the video conference stream. In other examples, the video conference application 360 may display a visual layer over the video stream that incorporates the time zone-specific content or may use the time zone-specific content to otherwise vary the display such that the user viewing the display is able to determine the time zone of other participants in the video conference. For example, and as described above, the background of the speaker window 432 may be varied by increasing or decreasing the brightness based on the time zone-specific content or may be replaced by a background that reflects information about the time zone or is specific to the location of the speaker 434).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Oh into the teachings of Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa in order to provide systems that provide numerous advantages over conventional ways of determining the time zone of participants in video conferences.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambhir (US2024/0022618) in view of Bjontgard (US2015/0262208), Brown et al (US2020/0128902) and Suppa et al (US2024/0169724) and Monnier et al (US2008/0128177) as applied to claims 1, 5 above, and further in view of Sharma et al (US2023/0316806).
Consider claim 6. Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown, Suppa and Monnier does not explicitly teach the geographic location of the user is determined to indicate the user is in transit and wherein the selected first background image comprises an indication that the user is in transit.
Sharma teaches the geographic location of the user is determined to indicate the user is in transit and wherein the selected first background image comprises an indication that the user is in transit (para 31, For example, a participant or user with a laptop may move from one location to another. The background may change, and thereby a new background descriptor generated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Sharma into the teachings of Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown, Suppa and Monnier in order to provide a system that validates the user identity against an identity management system and validates the face descriptor against a face descriptor repository.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambhir (US2024/0022618) in view of Bjontgard (US2015/0262208), Brown et al (US2020/0128902) and Suppa et al (US2024/0169724) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clarke et al (US2023/0367472).
Consider claim 8. Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa does not clearly teach the orchestrator is further configured to determine a weather condition at the user's location and wherein the selected first background image comprises an indication of the weather condition at the user's location.
Clarke teaches the orchestrator is further configured to determine a weather condition at the user's location and wherein the selected first background image comprises an indication of the weather condition at the user's location (para 466, 540)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Clarke into the teachings of Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa, such methods and interfaces reduce the number, extent, and/or nature of the inputs from a user and produce a more efficient human-machine interface.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambhir (US2024/0022618) in view of Bjontgard (US2015/0262208), Brown et al (US2020/0128902) and Suppa et al (US2024/0169724) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu et al (US2023/0421719).
Consider claim 9. Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa wherein the orchestrator is further configured to determine a subject matter of the streaming video session and wherein the first background image is selected based on the subject matter of the streaming video session.
Zhu teaches the orchestrator is further configured to determine a subject matter of the streaming video session and wherein the first background image is selected based on the subject matter of the streaming video session (para 7, 70: identifying a second virtual background based on the topic, and replacing the virtual background with the second virtual background. The operations can further comprise transforming audible conversation between conference attendees into text, identifying a topic from the text, determining content related to the topic, and overlaying the content on the virtual background).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Zhu into the teachings of Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa, so that an interface can also be provided to allow participants to request changes to a virtual environment, including addition or removal of content or changes to lighting or music associated with a virtual environment.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambhir (US2024/0022618) in view of Bjontgard (US2015/0262208), Brown et al (US2020/0128902) and Suppa et al (US2024/0169724) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Doken (US2023/0319221).
Consider claim 10. Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa does not teach the orchestrator is further configured to determine whether individuals other than the user are in proximity to the IHS during the streaming video session, and wherein the second background image is selected to reflect individuals other than the user in proximity to the HIS.
Doken teaches the orchestrator is further configured to determine whether individuals other than the user are in proximity to the IHS during the streaming video session, and wherein the second background image is selected to reflect individuals other than the user in proximity to the HIS (fig 1E, para 57, Selection of option 134 may cause each detected object (e.g., clock 122, door 124, poster 126) and each detected person (e.g., person 118, person 120) not to be occluded by XR portion 108 and thus blended into the video feed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Doken into the teachings of Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa, such video meetings enable colleagues in separate, geographically distributed physical locations to have a collaborative face-to-face conversation via a video conference, even if one or more of such users are on the go (e.g., utilizing a smartphone or a tablet).
Claim(s) 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambhir (US2024/0022618) in view of Bjontgard (US2015/0262208), Brown et al (US2020/0128902) and Suppa et al (US2024/0169724) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akkerman (US2023/0385768).
Consider claim 11. Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa does not explicitly teach wherein the orchestrator is further configured to determine the user is speaking as part of the collaborative session and wherein the first background image comprises an indication the user is speaking.
Akkerman discloses wherein the context of the user’s participation in the streaming video session comprises the user speaking as part of the collaborative session and wherein the background image comprises an indication the user is speaking (para [0032] The video thumbnail 45 shows the video stream 77 of one of the collaborating users and, in one aspect, an audio level indicator 89).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Akkerman into the teachings of Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa in order to provide a document collaboration system and computer-implemented method enabling users to work collaboratively in a workspace in which users can collaborate more easily by using the document collaboration system
Consider claim 13. Akkerman further teaches the orchestrator is further configured to determine muting of the user's audio within the streaming video session and wherein the second background image comprises an indication the user is muted (para [0032] The video stream 77 displayed in the video thumbnail 45 can further be configured to show a “microphone muted”-symbol, indicating that the corresponding audio stream 88 of the audio-visual media stream 75 is currently muted).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambhir (US2024/0022618) in view of Bjontgard (US2015/0262208), Brown et al (US2020/0128902), Suppa et al (US2024/0169724) and Akkerman (US2023/0385768) as applied to claims 1, 11 above, and further in view of Doken (US2023/0319221).
Consider claim 12. Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa does not teach the indication the user is speaking comprises display of an overlay on the selected first background image.
Doken teaches the indication the user is speaking comprises display of an overlay on the selected first background image (fig 1E, para 57, Selection of option 134 may cause each detected object (e.g., clock 122, door 124, poster 126) and each detected person (e.g., person 118, person 120) not to be occluded by XR portion 108 and thus blended into the video feed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Doken into the teachings of Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown, Suppa and Akkerman, such video meetings enable colleagues in separate, geographically distributed physical locations to have a collaborative face-to-face conversation via a video conference, even if one or more of such users are on the go (e.g., utilizing a smartphone or a tablet).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambhir (US2024/0022618) in view of Bjontgard (US2015/0262208), Brown et al (US2020/0128902) and Suppa et al (US2024/0169724) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al (US2021/0092170).
Consider claim 14. Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations of claim 14. However, Takahashi teaches the orchestrator is further configured to the user is not in proximity to the IHS and wherein the second background image comprises an indication the user is away from the streaming video session (e.g., status “offline”, “online”, para 138, 157).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Takahashi into the teachings of Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa in order to provide status of the users before sharing data between terminals, to avoid wasting of network resources.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambhir (US2024/0022618) in view of Bjontgard (US2015/0262208), Brown et al (US2020/0128902) and Suppa et al (US2024/0169724) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al (US2025/0173049).
Consider claim 15. Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations of claim 15. However, Wang teaches the orchestrator is further configured to determine whether an additional streaming video session is being played by the IHS comprises an attentiveness of the user and wherein the second background image comprises an indication of the user's additional streaming video session being played by the HIS (para 95, 100, 136).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Wang into the teachings of Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa, so that while browsing the information of the first session, can learn about the information of the second session, which helps the user to process the information of the second session as soon as possible and enhances the information interaction efficiency.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambhir (US2024/0022618) in view of Bjontgard (US2015/0262208), Brown et al (US2020/0128902) and Suppa et al (US2024/0169724) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rochette et al (US2022/0365633).
Consider claim 16. Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations of claim 16. Rochette teaches the orchestrator is further configured to determine a charge level of the IHS and wherein the first and second background images comprise an indication of the charge level of the HIS (para 141, battery status indicator; para 208).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Rochette into the teachings of Gambhir in view of Bjontgard, Brown and Suppa in order to present information about consenting users selected by the user of the electronic device in an aggregated matter that makes accessing and interacting with such information more efficient.
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 DUC M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7503. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30AM-3:45PM.
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, Duc M. Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. 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.
DUC NGUYEN
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights