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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khot et al (US 8,717,408).
Claims 1, 14 and 18, Khot teches a method in a conferencing system terminal device comprising: a communication device in communication with one or more remote electronic devices during a videoconference; one or more sensors; and one or more processors operable with the communication device and the one or more sensors, the method comprising:
detecting, with one or more processors during a videoconference, a communication device electronically in communication with a plurality of remote electronic devices engaged in the videoconference; (Khot: multipoint control unit (MCU) may initially perform the first (or main) videoconference between a plurality of videoconference endpoints, col. 1, line 41-46);
also detecting, with one or more sensors during the videoconference, an authorized user of the conferencing system terminal device engaging in a side conversation; (Khot: FIG. 8 illustrates a diagrammatic representation of one embodiment of the method of FIG. 4A. As shown, there is a videoconference between four participants: A (organizer with MCU functionality), B, C, and D. During the videoconference, participant B requests a private meeting with C and the private meeting request is approved from participant C via the MCU at A. col. 8, lines 47-53);
and
causing, with the one or more processors, the communication device to transmit a video overlay for the authorized user of the conferencing system terminal device to the plurality of remote electronic devices while the side conversation occurs; wherein the video overlay conceals participation by the authorized user in the side conversation. (Per the current Specs, [0024]: video overlay conceals side conversation/activity. See Khot Fig. 7 and Examiner’s Response further below).
Claim 11-12. The method of claim 1, further comprising: reducing an output volume of the videoconference from an audio output device of the conferencing system terminal device while the side conversation is occurring; and precluding the communication device from transmitting audio signals received by an audio input device of the conferencing system terminal device to the plurality of remote electronic devices while the side conversation is occurring; and further comprising delivering, with the communication device, a notification to the plurality of remote electronic devices that the authorized user is engaged in the side conversation. (Khot: in this embodiment the participants of the private videoconference see each other as well as content of the main videoconference, but of course the participants of the main videoconference do not see the content of the private videoconference. In one embodiment, the plural subset of endpoints (the private videoconference participants) see the videoconferencing information of the main videoconference in a portion of their display, so that they can be assured that their private videoconference is in fact private. Col. 2, lines 23-31).
Claim 15. The conferencing system terminal device of claim 14, further comprising an audio output device, the one or more processors causing a volume of the videoconference emanating from the audio output device to decrease while the conversation outside the videoconference is occurring. (Khot: Fig. 7… not hearing or at least at a lower volume, col. 8, lines 37-39).
Claim 16. The conferencing system terminal device of claim 14, the one or more processors precluding transmission of audio signals from the conversation outside the videoconference from the communication device to the one or more remote electronic devices while the conversation outside the videoconference is occurring. (See claim 11).
Claims 17. The conferencing system terminal device of claim 14, the one or more processors detecting, from other signals from the one or more sensors, a cessation of the conversation occurring outside the videoconference and causing the communication device to cease transmission of the video overlay. ((Khot: in this embodiment the participants of the private videoconference see each other as well as content of the main videoconference, but of course the participants of the main videoconference do not see the content of the private videoconference. In one embodiment, the plural subset of endpoints (the private videoconference participants) see the videoconferencing information of the main videoconference in a portion of their display, so that they can be assured that their private videoconference is in fact private. Col. 2, lines 23-31).
Claim 19. The method of claim 18, wherein the video overlay depicts the authorized user but fails to depict the side conversation. (Khot: during a private videoconference, the video may be displayed for participants of the private videoconference, but the audio data may be muted or not transmitted to the other participants, col. 11, lines 33-36; Jones: Fig. 5, a public participant 106 may selectively change to the private mode to give the impression to the other public participants 106 of having disconnected from the online conference, [0030]).
Claim 20. The method of claim 19, further comprising muting, by the one or more processors, an audio input device of the conferencing system terminal device while the side conversation is occurring. (Khot: the audio data may be muted, col. 11, line 36: Jones: The audio streams from the private participants 108 (e.g., audio streams 120d and 120e) may be muted or otherwise disabled so that they are not presented to the public participants 106, [0025]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-4, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khot in view of Mareachen (US 2008/0136895) or Sims et al (US 2022/0288452).
Claim 2. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the video overlay comprises a loop of video depicting the authorized user engaged in the videoconference while precluding other participants engaged in the videoconference from having knowledge of the side conversation.
Mareachen teaches, via [0043], replacement module 245 may identify and replace the user's face captured in the live video with stored images of the user's face. The stored images of the user's face may be retrieved from the user's template in the gesture library 240. Replacing only the user's face will ensure that elements of the user's appearance that change over time, such as clothing, jewelry, hairstyles, etc. remain consistent during the transition from the live video to the virtual image 120. Therefore, the virtual image 120 will be a more realistic and accurate representation of the user's appearance immediately prior to the invocation of the mute function.
He further teaches, [0012] Instead of viewing the live video captured by the user's video device, in response to the selection of a mute function, other participants to the video application are presented with a virtual image. The virtual image may be any modification to the live images captured and presented during a video application. The virtual image may include a representation or partial representation of the user, including stored video or still images of the user, computer generated images of the user, modified live images of the user, and combinations thereof. The virtual image of the user may be generated by a variety of different methods, as described in more detail below. [0013] Other participants to the video application may not be notified or alerted that the user has invoked a mute function and replaced live video with a virtual image. In fact, the presentation of the virtual image of the user may be seamlessly integrated with the cessation of live images of the user such that other participants to the video application are unaware of the transition.
Sims teaches, real-time video overlay of reference motion and live client; option to add real-time video overlay of computer pose estimation, of client and/or reference, as an additional visual guide; time lapsed photos of executed motion for practitioner review; automatic comparison of computer pose estimations of client and reference figures, using distance between body points as a basis for analytics measuring the quality of client's motion; creation of new motion from video capture (and cropping) of one repetition which can later be looped an arbitrary number of times for display of multiple repetitions; and the ability to overlay computer pose estimation on time lapsed activity photos, showing either the client and/or the reference, to aid in practitioner or client review, [0049].
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Mareachen or Sims into the teaching of Khot for the purpose of repeating the various overlaying images to perform common movement on behalf of a user who may not actively participating in a video call and/or and to perform visual support for exercise compliance.
Claim 3. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the video overlay depicts the authorized user and conceals participation by the authorized user in the side conversation. (See claim 2).
Claim 4. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the video overlay comprises a loop depicting the authorized user looking an image capture device of the conferencing system terminal device .(See claim 2).
Claim 7. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the video overlay comprises previously recorded video of the authorized user applied as compensating content to conceal (see claim 2 specifically on Mareachen: The virtual image 120 may also be generated using previously recorded live images 111 received from the image capture device 205, [0019, 0035]).
Claim 8. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the video overlay comprises computer-generated imagery of the authorized user paying attention to the videoconference rather than.(Mareachen: The virtual image may include a representation or partial representation of the user, including stored video or still images of the user, computer generated images of the user, 0012, 0049]).
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khot in view of Hwang et al (US 2020/0005539).
Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting the authorized user engaging in the side conversation comprises detecting a change in pitch of a voice of the authorized user of the conferencing system terminal device. (Hwang: In some embodiments, the portion of the individual's speech transcribed and displayed may be determined based upon one or more pauses of at least a threshold duration by the individual when speaking, a tone or pitch of the user's speech, [0093]).
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting the authorized user engaging in the side conversation comprises detecting a change in tone of a voice of the authorized user of the conferencing system terminal device. (Hwang: In some embodiments, the portion of the individual's speech transcribed and displayed may be determined based upon one or more pauses of at least a threshold duration by the individual when speaking, a tone or pitch of the user's speech, [0093]).
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Khot to include the teaching of Hwang for the purpose of enhancing conversation with a near eye display (NED) for viewing virtual objects, referred to as “visual flair,” as well as expressing viewpoints or feelings in tine and pitch in user’s speech.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khot in view of Agrawal et al (US 2023/0276115).
Khot does not teach claim 9, “wherein the detecting the authorized user engaging in the side conversation comprises detecting one or more of a second person and/or a pet entering a field of view of an image capture device capturing images used in the videoconference”.
Agrawal teaches, “a child or pet coming into a room while the user is on a conference call, would cause the user's eye gaze to shift away from the device display; However, the user does not want to show to the other participants on the video conference the child or dog that has entered into the FOV of the rear camera(s), [0084]”.
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Agrawal into the teaching of Khot for the purpose of adjusting the eye focus/direction/gaze when an expected subject matter entering into the view.
Claim(s) 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khot in view of Cordourier Maruri et al. (US 2022/0014712 Hereinafter CM).
Claim 10 and 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting the authorized user engaging in the side conversation comprises detecting a voice of the authorized user and another voice with an audio input device of the conferencing system terminal device; and further comprising: detecting, by the one or more processors, termination of the side conversation during the videoconference; and causing, with the one or more processors, the communication device to cease transmission of the video overlay for the authorized user of the conferencing system terminal device to the plurality of remote electronic devices in response to the termination of the side conversation.
Khot teaches everything in claims 10 and 13 except “another voice”.
CM teaches “the binaural audio processing enhances intelligibility and avoids interference between the different voices of the audio channels by reducing perceptual crosstalk even if the main speaker and fellow participant(s) are talking at the same time. [0018] and In some examples, the user joins multiple secondary audio channels with multiple participants (e.g., different participants on each of the secondary audio channels). The secondary channel determination circuitry 210 selects different respective angles for different ones of the secondary audio channels. Thus, with multiple secondary audio channels, the different participants virtually appear to be speaking from different locations. This simulates a real world setting where voices from different participants have different origination points, [0037]. In another example, the user joins a secondary audio channel with multiple participants on the same channel. In this example, the multiple participants are in a joint conversation on the same secondary audio channel. In this example, the secondary channel determination circuitry 210 selects a number of angles corresponding to the number of different audio data (i.e., participants) included in the secondary audio channel excluding the user. Thus, the secondary channel determination circuitry 210 selects different angles for different voices in the secondary audio channel. Thus, with multiple participants on the secondary audio channel, the different participants virtually appear to be speaking from different locations. This simulates a real world setting were voices from different participants have different origination points, [0038].
It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of CM into the teaching of Khot for the purpose of resolving crosstalk when detecting another voice other than the main/current speaker.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/25 regarding the original independent claims and the original dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “Claim 1 recites the transmission of the video overlay when the side conversation is detected. Claim 14 makes clear that the video overlay conceals participation of a user when the side conversation is occurring. Claim 18 makes clear that this concealing operation occurs when replacement of the video feed depicting the user is made by substituting the video overlay. As set forth in other claims, e.g., claims 3 and 19, and as confirmed throughout the specification, e.g., at paragraphs [059], [060], [065], [072], [077], and [0134], the video overlay both depicts the authorized user and conceals the side conversation. The cited references fail to teach or suggest this feature.
Beginning with Khot, this reference merely superimposes a small "Private" text icon on a still-live composite video stream (see col. 8, 11. 60-67). The participants' actual video remains visible. Indeed, there is no replacement or overlay of the user's own feed. Even the Examiner acknowledges this fact at page five of the Office Action, noting that audio may merely be muted or video disabled. Neither constitutes the transmission of a video overlay. Khot never teaches transmitting a substitute video stream that depicts the user while masking local activity. Instead, the video feed is unaltered except for the addition of a text icon, and muting is limited to audio data (see col. 8, 11. 60-67). There is no disclosure of a video overlay that conceals the side conversation, nor any teaching of replacing the user's video feed with an overlay as claimed.
In sum, none of these references convey the claimed concept of sending a replacement video overlay that still shows the user yet masks local activity. The examiner's reliance on muting, blanking, or adding a "Private" icon conflates fundamentally different functionality with the claimed video overlay. Absent this distinct overlay feature, the references cannot anticipate claims 1, 3, 14, 18-20. See [MPEP § 2131.03] and Richardson v. Suzuki, 868 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (anticipation requires that the same device be described in sufficient detail to enable one skilled in the art to build and use it).
For the above reasons, none of Khot, Jones, or Lai anticipates the claimed invention. The references do not teach or suggest transmitting a video overlay that depicts the authorized user while concealing the side conversation. The claimed invention is patentably distinct, and reconsideration of the rejections is respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and wishes to point to Khot’s Fig. 7.
PNG
media_image1.png
574
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 and col. 8, lines 33-46 illustrates various embodiments very important and very relevant to this limitation, “causing….”
“As shown, the private videoconference is between Alice and Jane, which, in one embodiment, may only see each other. However, it should be noted that in alternate embodiments, Alice and Jane may continue to see (e.g., but not hear, or at least at a lower volume) the other participants, Joe and Mike. As also shown, Mike and Joe may continue the first videoconference, but may not see or hear Alice and Jane. Instead, in the embodiment shown, the text "private" may be displayed for the corresponding portions for Alice and Jane on Mike and Joe's displays. Thus, during the private videoconference Alice and Jane may privately discuss matters while Mike and Joe continue the first videoconference).
Clearly there is a concealment element as “Mike and Joe may continue the first videoconference, but may not see or hear Alice and Jane”. And certainly there is a transmission of a video overlay, i.e., text “private”. The current independent claims didn’t appear depicting the user at least not yet. While claim 2 comprises such depiction and examiner did propose to incorporate it into the independent claims to move the case to an allowance. Applicant instead made a counter-offer (per email 2/11/26). We did not come to an agreement.
As demonstrated above, examiner respectfully sustains the rejection.
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 PHUNG-HOANG J. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1949. The examiner can normally be reached Reg. Sched. 6:00-3:00.
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 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.
/PHUNG-HOANG J NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights