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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The response received on 10 February 2026 has been placed in the file and was considered by the examiner. An action on the merit follows.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 2/10/2026 have been fully considered. Response to these amendments is provided below.
Summary of Amendment/ Arguments and Examiner’s Response:
The applicant has amended the claims and has argued that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations.
All arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection, below.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 20140232814 (Malhotra et al) in view of “Method and system for tracking the focus area of a presenter and displaying the same during video conference” (Anonymous).
Regarding claim 12, Malhotra et al discloses a communication method (fig. 4) comprising: scanning, by a terminal apparatus (fig. 1, items 120-130) configured to remove a background from a first image (page 2, paragraph 22) captured in a first space (fig. 1, left space)in which a first user (fig. 1, item 132) is located to generate a second image, a background removed image (page 2, paragraph 22) to be displayed to a second user in a second space, the users watching in fig. 1, item 101B-101N, that is separate from the first space (fig. 1), an object in the first space by imaging item 31 in fig. 1, upon detecting a cue from the first user, i.e. a transition detection (page 2, paragraph 18, fig. 4, item 406); transmitting, from the terminal apparatus, an image of the scanned object together with the second image by superimposing the images (page 2, paragraph 21-22) via a network (fig. 1, item 110) such that the image of the scanned object and the second image are displayed together to the second user in the second space (page 4, paragraph 42). Malhotra discloses any displayed content is done so by transmitting, via the network, the content (page 4, paragraph 42, fig. 1)
Malhotra et al does not disclose expressly identifying a part of the object on which the first user is focusing; and displayed content includes focus information indicating the identified part.
Anonymous discloses identifying a part of the object on which the first user is focusing (page 3, part 3); and displayed content includes focus information indicating the identified part (page 3, parts 3, 8).
Malhotra et al and Anonymous are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. displaying of presented information.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to process focus information.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more user friendly system by presenting the important data more prominently.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Malhotra et al with the focus processing of Anonymous to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 12. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 12 are equally applicable to claim 1. Claim 1 distinguishes from claim 12 only in that claim 1 is a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program configured to cause a computer to execute operations as claimed in claim 12. Malhotra et al teaches further this feature, i.e. fig. 1, item 120, page 4, paragraph 39.
Regarding claim 3, Malhotra et al discloses the scanning includes detecting an object for which the first user is reaching as the object in the first space, i.e. pointing to (page 1, paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 5, Malhotra et al discloses the scanning includes detecting an object that the first user is pointing at as the object in the first space, (page 1, paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 7, Malhotra et al discloses the cue includes an instruction based on movement by the first user (page 1, paragraph 14).
Claim 2, 4, 6, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Malhotra et al in view of Anonymous, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230262101 (Desai et al).
Regarding claim 2, Malhotra (as modified by Anonymous) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above, and incorporated herein by reference.
Malhotra (as modified by Anonymous) does not disclose expressly the scanning includes detecting an object held by the first user in a hand as the object in the first space.
Desai et al discloses the scanning includes detecting an object held by the first user in a hand as the object in the first space (page 7, paragraph 80).
Malhotra (as modified by Anonymous) & Desai et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. video conferencing/ sharing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to detect an object in the hand.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more flexible, user friendly system by allowing different objects to be featured.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the computer readable medium of Malhotra (as modified by Anonymous) with the detecting an object in the hand to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Malhotra et al discloses the scanning includes detecting an object that the first user is gesturing at as the object in the first space (page 1, paragraph 14). Desai et al discloses looking at an object (fig. 6, user is looking at item 603).
Regarding claim 6, Desai et al discloses the cue includes a vocal instruction by the first user (page 7, paragraph 82).
Regarding claim 13, Desai et al discloses the image of the scanned object is a 2D image (page 10, paragraph 117).
Regarding claim 18, Desai et al discloses prompting the first user to move the object, i.e. the user prompting themselves to move the object through audio input (page 7, paragraph 82) or shift a finger or hand of the first user so that a portion of the object that is hidden by the finger or hand of the first user is captured. It is further noted that Malhotra et al discloses audio input can be from another user (page 1, paragraph 14).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Malhotra et al in view of Anonymous, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240259525 (Zhang et al).
Regarding claim 14, Malhotra (as modified by Anonymous) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above, and incorporated herein by reference.
Malhotra (as modified by Anonymous) does not disclose expressly the image of the scanned object is a 3D image.
Zhang et al discloses the image of the scanned object is a 3D image(page 1, paragraph 15).
Malhotra (as modified by Anonymous) & Zhang et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. video conferencing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a 3D image.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust system by allowing any type of image to be processed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the computer readable medium of Malhotra (as modified by Anonymous) with the 3D imaging of Zhang et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Malhotra et al in view of Anonymous, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20080181140 (Bangor et al)..
Regarding claim 15, Malhotra (as modified by Anonymous) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above, and incorporated herein by reference. Malhotra et al further discloses wherein the operations further comprise: upon detecting another cue (fig. 4, “complete?”->YES), transmitting an object deletion request requesting suspension of displaying of the image of the scanned object, together with the second image via the network by ending the process and thus ending the display (fig. 4, item 420, “END”).
Malhotra (as modified by Anonymous) does not disclose expressly the another cue that ends operations are from the first user/ presenter.
Bangor et al discloses the another cue that ends operations are from the first user/ presenter (page 6, paragraph 47).
Malhotra (as modified by Anonymous) & Bangor et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. conferencing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to detect the cue from a presenter.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust, user-friendly system by allowing the presenter control.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the computer readable medium of Malhotra (as modified by Anonymous) with the control of the presenter of Bangor et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Bangor et al discloses the another cue includes a vocal instruction by the first user (Page 6, paragraph 47).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 17 contains allowable subject matter regarding the claimed another cue from the first user that upon detection, transmits an object deletion request as claimed, includes moving the claimed object out of an angle of view of a camera by the claimed first user.
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 KATHLEEN YUAN DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M1:9am-5pm, th1:9am-1pm, fri1 9am-3pm, m2: 9am-5pm, t2:9-5 th2:9am-5pm, f2: 9am-5pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 3/11/2026