DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the remarks filed 12/17/2025:
Claims 1 – 20 are pending and have been examined.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to remarks filed 12/17/2025, all claim limitations were considered in Final Rejection dated 11/25/2025, and the rationale used to combine prior art references in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1 – 20 was: some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. A prima facie case of obviousness was established as the cited references used in the rejection of claim 1 do teach, suggest, or otherwise enable one of ordinary skill in the art as to all the features of claim 1. Applicant argues on Page 10 of remarks filed 12/17/2025, that Gray alone/or the combination of Chen-Hasting-Gray fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise enable one of ordinary skill in the art as to “establishing, using a first protocol for establishing a session and a second protocol for maintaining the session, a connection between a first server of the first video conferencing platform and a second server of the second video conferencing platform” features of claim 1. As stated in Final Rejection dated 11/25/2025, Gray teaches “establishing, using a first protocol for establishing a session and a second protocol for maintaining the session (see Gray Paragraph [0027], a protocol conversion component 201 that packs and unpacks the Standard IP Telephony protocols), a connection between a first server of the first video conferencing platform and a second server of the second video conferencing platform (see Gray Paragraph [0007], The present invention describes a bridge for enabling a teleconference for telecollaboration event between two or more participants. The participants are connected to two or more servers. The servers cooperate in order to support efficient multi-media multi-point event. One or more of the servers can be a hosting server and one or more other servers can be on-premise servers, wherein each server is connected to an at least one other server, and each participant device is connected to one server. The participants can use any phone, or any computing platform, or a combination thereof)”. IP telephony uses separate protocols for call signaling (starting and managing a call) and for the actual transmission of the voice media. A protocol conversion component manages these different protocols to enable communication between dissimilar networks or devices. As seen in Final Rejection dated 11/25/2025, Gray teaches this limitation above, and additionally teaches connection between separate servers associated with multiple, individual video conferencing platforms. Therefore, argument is not persuasive and Final Rejection of 11/25/2025 is maintained, as seen below.
In regards to Claim 6, Applicant argues that Weiser in combination with Chen-Hasting-Gray does not teach the limitations of Claim 6. Weiser teaches a request to modify a session, such as by terminating or a bye request, between different real-time communication protocol-using endpoints (See Weiser, Abstract). Therefore, argument is not persuasive and Final Rejection of 11/25/2025 is maintained, as seen below.
In regards to Claim 13, Applicant argues that Ahmed in combination with Chen-Hasting-Gray does not teach the limitations of Claim 13. Ahmed teaches The computer program product, wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system, program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request, and program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use (see Ahmed, Claim 17). Therefore, argument is not persuasive and Final Rejection of 11/25/2025 is maintained, as seen below.
Response to Amendment
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.
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 12, and 14 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (TW Pub. No. I799229, hereinafter “Chen”) in view of Hasting et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0385856, hereinafter “Hasting”) and Gray et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0112336, hereinafter “Gray”).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches
A computer-implemented method (see Chen Page 1, online conference system serial connection method) comprising:
establishing a unified conferencing protocol (UCP) mediator wherein the UCP mediator is configured to establish a connection between two or more video conferencing platforms (see Chen Page 1, providing a cross-platform conference system series connection to connect a first video conference room and a second video conference room (in which each room may be using a different video conference platform such as Google Meet and Microsoft Teams, as an example (Page 3) and can connect N different video rooms, N being an integer greater than or equal to 2 (Page 4)), and the application provides a connection device, including: a processor, a memory and a network communication interface. The memory is electrically connected to the processor and used to store computer executable instructions; the network communication interface is electrically connected to the processor. The processor reads the computer executable instructions and executes the cross-platform conference system serial connection method of this application through the network communication interface);
receiving, via the UCP mediator, a request to communicate with a first video conferencing platform from a second video conferencing platform (see Chen Page 1, the connecting device based on the first conference invitation from the first video conference platform, joins the first video conference room; the connecting device joins the second video conference room based on the second meeting invitation from the second video conferencing platform);
Chen does not expressively teach
approving, via the UCP mediator, the request to communicate with the first video conferencing platform from the second video conferencing platform; and
establishing, using a first protocol for establishing a session and a second protocol for maintaining the session, a connection between a first server of the first video conferencing platform and a second server of the second video conferencing platform.
However, Hasting teaches
approving, via the UCP mediator, the request to communicate with the first video conferencing platform from the second video conferencing platform (see Hasting Figure 8 and Paragraph [0042] and [0043], conference platform gateway system pushes request for access point for the gateway by the connecting peer, then video conference begins process of connecting, in which first, a check may be performed to determine to further process the connection, and is passed or approved in order to establish connection); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a method comprising a connection device that establishes a connection between two or more conferencing platforms in which a request to communicate is received, and a connection is established between the video conference platforms (as taught in Chen), with approving a request to communicate across video conference platforms (as taught in Hasting), the motivation being to bridge together users that operate on different platforms, when conventionally users will all use one platform to communicate (see Hasting Paragraph [0005]).
Chen in view of Hasting does not expressively teach
establishing, using a first protocol for establishing a session and a second protocol for maintaining the session, a connection between a first server of the first video conferencing platform and a second server of the second video conferencing platform.
However, Gray teaches
establishing, using a first protocol for establishing a session and a second protocol for maintaining the session (see Gray Paragraph [0027], a protocol conversion component 201 that packs and unpacks the Standard IP Telephony protocols), a connection between a first server of the first video conferencing platform and a second server of the second video conferencing platform (see Gray Paragraph [0007], The present invention describes a bridge for enabling a teleconference for telecollaboration event between two or more participants. The participants are connected to two or more servers. The servers cooperate in order to support efficient multi-media multi-point event. One or more of the servers can be a hosting server and one or more other servers can be on-premise servers, wherein each server is connected to an at least one other server, and each participant device is connected to one server. The participants can use any phone, or any computing platform, or a combination thereof).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a method comprising a connection device that establishes a connection between two or more conferencing platforms in which a request to communicate is received, and a connection is established between the video conference platforms (as taught in Chen), with approving a request to communicate across video conference platforms (as taught in Hasting), the motivation being to bridge together users that operate on different platforms, when conventionally users will all use one platform to communicate (see Hasting Paragraph [0005]).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a method comprising a connection device that establishes a connection between two or more conferencing platforms in which a request to communicate is received and approved, and a connection is established between the video conference platforms (as taught in Chen in view of Hasting), with establishing a connection for a teleconference using a first protocol to establish the communication and a second protocol to maintain the communication, in which the connection is between a first server of a first communication platform and a second server of a second communication platform (as taught in Gray), the motivation being to bridge together users that operate on different platforms, and address the demand of load allocation and bandwidth demands (see Gray Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen in view of Hasting and Gray teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising translating the request to communicate with the first video conferencing platform from the second video conferencing platform from a second platform-specific invitation request to a first platform-specific invitation request (see Hasting Paragraph [0023], The gateway component A201 may distribute signaling between the conference endpoint A200 (a first video conferencing platform) and the web based client A205 (a second video conferencing platform) by translating incoming signaling from the conference endpoint A200 into actions performed by the web based client A205. The incoming signal from the conference endpoint A200 may be distributed using a standard based protocol (e.g., SIP, H.323, WebRTC, and the like) and the translated signal generated by the gateway component A201 in the web based client A205 may be an action to connect to a W3C Based conference in the web browser compatible meeting service A203).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen in view of Hasting and Gray teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the first platform-specific invitation request is encoded according to a first session initiation protocol corresponding to the first video conferencing platform and the second platform-specific invitation request is encoded according to a second session initiation protocol corresponding to the second video conferencing platform (see Hasting Paragraph [0023], The transcoder A202 resolves the incompatibility of the media codecs by unwrapping and decoding incoming data from one codec and encapsulating and encoding data for distribution using another codec, and The gateway component A201 may distribute signaling between the conference endpoint A200 (a first video conferencing platform) and the web based client A205 (a second video conferencing platform) by translating incoming signaling from the conference endpoint A200 into actions performed by the web based client A205. The incoming signal from the conference endpoint A200 may be distributed using a standard based protocol (e.g., SIP, H.323, WebRTC, and the like) and the translated signal generated by the gateway component A201 in the web based client A205 may be an action to connect to a W3C Based conference in the web browser compatible meeting service A203).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen in view of Hasting and Gray teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising establishing a session initiation protocol mapping, wherein the session initiation protocol mapping defines a relationship between the first session initiation protocol and the second session initiation protocol, and wherein translating the request to communicate with the first video conferencing platform from the second video conferencing platform is accomplished via the session initiation protocol mapping (see Hasting Paragraph [0036], To interwork between the two different web browser compatible meeting services A602 and A607, the conference platform gateway system may use a uniform resource locator (URL) to URL mapping schema to interwork between the two different web browser compatible meeting services. Each URL in the URL to URL mapping schema may be an entry point for a meeting on one of the web browser compatible meeting services A602 and A607).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen in view of Hasting and Gray teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising maintaining the connection between the first video conferencing platform and the second video conferencing platform (see Hasting Paragraph [0060], network communications instructions 1216 may establish and maintain network connections (e.g., software for implementing communication protocols, such as TCP/IP, HTTP, Ethernet, telephony, etc.)).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen in view of Hasting and Gray teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising handling one or more discrepancies between the first video conferencing platform and the second video conferencing platform (see Hasting Paragraph [0022], transcoder may resolve the incompatibility of the media codes that exist between the technologies of the conference endpoint (a first video conferencing platform) and the browser client (a second video conferencing platform by making different codec formats interchangeable. For example, digital media from a conference call from the conference endpoint A200 may be distributed using a G.711 ulaw audio codec, a G.718 audio codec, a G.719 audio codec, a G.722 audio codec, a G.722.1 audio codec, a G.723 audio codec, a G.723.1 audio codec, a G.726 audio codec, a G.728 audio codec, a G.729 audio codec, a G.729.1 audio codec, a H.261 video codec, a H.263 video codec, a H.264 High Profile video codec, a H.265 video codec, or a VC-2 video codec, and/or any other codec that is compatible with the point-to-point conferencing platform hosting the conference endpoint).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen in view of Hasting and Gray teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising transcoding media between the first video conferencing platform and the second video conferencing platform (see Hasting Paragraph [0022], transcoder may resolve the incompatibility of the media codes that exist between the technologies of the conference endpoint (a first video conferencing platform) and the browser client (a second video conferencing platform by making different codec formats interchangeable. For example, digital media from a conference call from the conference endpoint A200 may be distributed using a G.711 ulaw audio codec, a G.718 audio codec, a G.719 audio codec, a G.722 audio codec, a G.722.1 audio codec, a G.723 audio codec, a G.723.1 audio codec, a G.726 audio codec, a G.728 audio codec, a G.729 audio codec, a G.729.1 audio codec, a H.261 video codec, a H.263 video codec, a H.264 High Profile video codec, a H.265 video codec, or a VC-2 video codec, and/or any other codec that is compatible with the point-to-point conferencing platform hosting the conference endpoint).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen in view of Hasting and Gray teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising establishing a connection between the first video conferencing platform, the second video conferencing platform, and a third video conferencing platform (see Chen Page 4, the cross-platform conference system serial connection method 200 can horizontally connect N different video conference rooms, each utilizing a video conferencing platform. In the video conference room of the video conferencing platform, N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2, and Page 2, The "video conferencing platform" mentioned in this application refers to video conferencing software that users can initiate or participate in video conference rooms through a web browser, such as Zoom, Skype, Microsoft Teams, WebEx or Google meet).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen in view of Hasting and Gray teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising establishing a connection between the first video conferencing platform, the second video conferencing platform, the third video conferencing platform, and a fourth video conferencing platform (see Chen Page 4, the cross-platform conference system serial connection method 200 can horizontally connect N different video conference rooms, each utilizing a video conferencing platform. In the video conference room of the video conferencing platform, N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2, and Page 2, The "video conferencing platform" mentioned in this application refers to video conferencing software that users can initiate or participate in video conference rooms through a web browser, such as Zoom, Skype, Microsoft Teams, WebEx or Google meet).
Regarding Claim 11, they are rejected similarly as Claim 1. The computer program product can be found in Hasting (Paragraph [0062], computer programs that may be executable on a programmable system).
Regarding Claim 12, Chen in view of Hasting and Gray teaches
The computer program product of claim 11, wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are transferred over a network from a remote data processing system (see Chen Page 1, connection device, including: a processor, a memory and a network communication interface. The memory is electrically connected to the processor and used to store computer executable instructions; the network communication interface is electrically connected to the processor. The processor reads the computer executable instructions and executes the cross-platform conference system serial connection method of this application through the network communication interface).
Regarding Claims 14, 15, 16, and 17, they are rejected similarly as Claims 2, 3, 4, and 7, respectively. The computer program product can be found in Hasting (Paragraph [0062], computer programs that may be executable on a programmable system).
Regarding Claims 18, 19, and 20, they are rejected similarly as Claims 1, 7, and 8, respectively. The system can be found in Hasting (Abstract, system).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (TW Pub. No. I799229, hereinafter “Chen”) in view of Hasting et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0385856, hereinafter “Hasting”), Gray et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0112336, hereinafter “Gray”) and Weiser et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0151623, hereinafter “Weiser”).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen in view of Hasting and Gray teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, but does not expressively teach
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising terminating the connection between the first video conferencing platform and the second video conferencing platform.
However, Weiser teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising terminating the connection between the first video conferencing platform and the second video conferencing platform (see Weiser Paragraph [0202], the request may comprise a request to modify a session, such as a terminate or bye request, between different real-time communication protocol-using endpoints (Abstract)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a method comprising a connection device that establishes a connection between two or more conferencing platforms (as taught in Chen in view of Hasting and Gray), with further terminating the connection of video conferencing platforms (as taught in Weiser), the motivation being to disconnect the connection between endpoints in order to end a video conference (see Weiser Paragraph [0202]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (TW Pub. No. I799229, hereinafter “Chen”) in view of Hasting et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0385856, hereinafter “Hasting”), Gray et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0112336, hereinafter “Gray”) and Ahmed et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0272132, hereinafter “Ahmed”).
Regarding Claim 13, Chen in view of Hasting and Gray teaches all the limitations of Claim 11, but does not expressively teach
The computer program product of claim 11, wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system, further comprising:
program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request; and
program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use.
However, Ahmed teaches
The computer program product of claim 11, wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system, further comprising (see Ahmed Claim 17, The computer program product of claim 15, wherein the stored program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system, and wherein the stored program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system, further comprising):
program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request (see Ahmed Claim 17, program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request); and
program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use (see Ahmed Claim 17, program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a method comprising a connection device that establishes a connection between two or more conferencing platforms (as taught in Chen in view of Hasting and Gray), with program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request and generate an invoice (as taught in Ahmed), the motivation being to provide cost tracking as resources are utilized within the computing environment, and billing or invoicing for consumption of these resources (see Ahmed Paragraph [0069]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARISSA A JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-1677. The examiner can normally be reached Telework M-F 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM CT.
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 5712727503. 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.
/CARISSA A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691