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 request that the double patent will be held in abeyance. Examiner maintains the DP ejection.
Applicant argues claim 1, however, claim 1 was cancelled, Examiner believe that applicant meant claim 24 and it is a typo.
Applicant argues that the Fieldman does not teach that merging the first and second video streams from the client device into overlap video.
in response, examiner does not agree, Fieldman Fig. 16A display video of the presenter overlapping a video of a presentation (Paragraph 571: presentation content 1662 (such as, for example, PowerPoint slides, electronic whiteboard(s), images of a physical documents, iPad/tablet displays, graphics, etc.) associated with the presentation content video feed may be interchangeably referred to as “presentation content” or “whiteboard content” or “presentation whiteboard content” or “notes/document/annotation content”) and 16C, Paragraph 587: overlapped regions (e.g., 1663) between the displayed Presenter video feed (e.g., 1664c) and the displayed presentation content (1662). For example, as illustrated in the example embodiment of FIG. 16C, region 1663 represents one such portion of overlapped region. In at least one embodiment, the Video Presentation System may be configured or designed to detect and identify region(s) of overlap (e.g., 1663) between the displayed Presenter video feed.
Fieldman teaches (Paragraph 851: client (or end user) computer system 200 within which a set of instructions, for causing the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein), therefore), paragraph 588-589: GUI with tools to control the display of videos and presentation. 0907] Audio/Video device(s) 339 such as, for example, components for recording, editing, and/or displaying audio/visual media which, for example, may include cameras, Presenters, microphones, media presentation components, wireless transmitter/receiver devices for enabling wireless audio and/or visual communication between the client system 300 and remote devices. Therefore, processing the videos for display is performed by the receiving device.
Applicant argues that same remarks for claim 24 are apply to independents claims 33 and 42, and for same reasons above, examiner maintains the rejection. Examiner also noted that claims 33, 42 is broader than claim 24, i.e., claims 33, 42 do not teach “by receiving device” or “mask segmentation data”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims amendment (receiving, at the receiving device and from the client device, segmentation mask data corresponding to the second video stream of the video conference) “regarding claim 24 and dependent claims 25-32” have been considered. The rejection of claims 24-32 has been withdrawn.
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.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 24-43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,765311. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because for example both claim 1 in the patent and claim 24 in the instant application teaches { receiving, at a device, a first video stream of a video conference; receiving, at the device, a second video stream of the video conference, wherein the second video stream includes an indicated location for video of the second video stream relative to video of the first video stream “reads on segmentation mask data” ; merging, by the device, the first video stream and the second video stream into an overlapped video having the video of the second video stream located at the indicated location relative to the video of the first video stream; and providing, by the device, the overlapped video for display}. The instant application teaches additional limitation (wherein the video of the first video stream comprises video data captured by a desktop sharing function, and wherein the video of the second video stream comprises video data captured by a camera); however, this limitation is taught in claim 4 in the patent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to ne with ordinary skull in the art to obtain the patent.
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 33-34, 37, 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faulkner (US 20170244930) in view of Fieldman (US 20170039867) in view of Shen (US 20120062688).
Regarding claim 33, Faulkner teaches, an apparatus, comprising: one or more network interfaces; a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces and configured to execute one or more processes; and a memory configured to store a process that is executable by the processor (abstract, Fig. 2) , the process when executed configured to:
receive, from a client device, a first video stream of a video conference (Paragraph 31)
receive, from the client device, a second video stream of the video conference (Paragraph 32),
wherein video of the second video stream comprises second video data captured by a camera associated with the client device and the second video stream includes an indicated location for the video of the second video stream relative to the video of the first video stream (Paragraph 70 “indication reads on layout parameter);
merge the first video stream from the client device and the second video stream from the client device into an overlapped video having the video of the second video stream located at the indicated location relative to the video of the first video stream (Paragraph 70 and Fig. 8-9); and provide the overlapped video for display (Paragraph 70 and Fig. 8-9).
Fieldman in the same art of endeavor teaches in a video conference, receive first and second video streams and merging, by the device, the first video stream and the second video stream into an overlapped video (Paragraph 587), wherein video of the first video stream comprises video data captured by a desktop sharing function and wherein video of the second video stream comprises video data captured by a camera (Fieldman: Fig. 16A and Paragraph [0600] A first video recording device (e.g., Camera 1, 1708), which may be used to capture and generate a video feed of the Presenter 1704. [0601] A second video recording device (e.g., Camera 2, 1706), which may be used to capture and generate a video feed of the presentation whiteboard (1712), notes, annotations, documents, etc.) and also see response to argument.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulkner with Fieldman in order to enhance the conference experience.
Faulkner with Fieldman teaches video data represent presentation and second video stream comprising video captured by camera (see Fieldman Fig. 6).
Faulkner with Fieldman does not explicitly teach wherein video of the first video stream comprises video data captured by a desktop sharing function executed by a client device to capture at least portion of a screen of the first client device.
Shen in the same art of endeavor teaches during a video conference (abstract), video of the first video stream comprises video data captured by a desktop sharing function executed by a client device to capture at least portion of a screen of the first client device (Paragraph 133: After all the devices 12 participating in the conferencing session are coupled to the VAS 20, each device 12 may obtain the list of the other devices 12 in the conferencing session from the VAS 20. As shown in FIG. 3, a device 12 may share images of at least a portion of its screen 140, e.g., a window, a region of the screen or the full screen, with other devices 12, via the sharing application. As an example, during an active video conferencing session, a user actuates, via a "right" click, for example, the icon 142 which launches a dialog box comprising a menu with available sharing options. The menu options may be grouped into categories and separated by an appropriate delimiter, such as a horizontal bar. The available sharing options may include, but are not limited to, "Desktop snapshot", "Partial desktop snapshot", and "Share desktop").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulkner with Fieldman with Shen in order to enhance the conference experience and user’s convenience and options.
Regarding claim 34, Faulkner in view of Fieldman in view of Shen teaches, wherein the second video stream includes an indicated location for the video of the second video stream relative to the video of the first video stream (Faulkner: Paragraph 70: In response to receiving the layout parameters, the receiving terminal may then render the two video streams such that the first video stream, s1, is displayed at a first location of the grid (e.g. the left-hand unit of the grid), and the second video stream, s2, is displayed at a second location of the grid (e.g. the right-hand unit of the grid)).
Regarding claim 37, Faulkner in view of Fieldman in view of Shen teaches, wherein the indicated location comprises a predefined location identifier or a location offset value (Faulkner: Paragraph 70).
Regarding claim 42, see claim 33.
Regarding claim 43, see claim 34.
Claim 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Unpatentable over Faulkner (US 20170244930) in view of Fieldman (US 20170039867) in view of Shen in view of Ivashin (US 20050264648).
Regarding claim 35, Faulkner in view of Fieldman in view of Shen teaches, indication of the location.
Faulkner in view of Fieldman in view of Shen does not teach, wherein the indicated location comprises a width or height value relative to the video of the first video stream.
lvashin in the same art of endeavor teach in a video conferencing selecting a layout, wherein a value of width, height is transmitted (Paragraph 71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify
Faulkner with Fieldman with Ivashin in order to enhance the conference experience and the user interface display.
Claim 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faulkner (US 20170244930) in view of Fieldman (US20170039867) in view of Shen in view of Wang (US 20140072051).
Regarding claim 38, Faulknerin view of Fieldman in view of Shen teaches, indication of the location.
Faulkner in view of Fieldman in view of Shen does not teach wherein the indicated location is included in a H.264 Supplemental Enhancement Information (SEI) payload of the second video stream or in an AVi Open Bitstream Unit (OBU) of the second video stream.
Wang teaches using including data in H.264 Supplemental Enhancement Information (SEI) payload of the video (Paragraph 55, 118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulkner with Fieldman with Wang in order to supports high definition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-32 are allowed if overcome the DP.
None of the cited arts alone or in reasonable combination teaches “merging by the receiving device, using the segmentation mask data, the first video stream from the client device and the second video stream from the client device into an overlapped”.
Claims 36, 39-41 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA EL-ZOOBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Carolyn Edward can be reached at (571)270-7136. 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.
/MARIA EL-ZOOBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692