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
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.
All assertions made herein with respect to obviousness shall be understood to mean obvious at the time the application was effectively filed unless otherwise stated. Moreover, any assertions of obviousness shall be understood to be assertions that something would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art unless otherwise stated.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20230012919, PTO-892 9/18/25) in view of Eliason (US 20200296147, PTO-892 9/18/25).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a method for providing indicators in a participant list to convey visually discernable sentiments, the method comprising: in a communication system involved in a real-time communication session between endpoints of two or more participants (“making a video call connection with at least one counterpart device by the electronic device” Park [0010]), during the real-time communication session (“making a video call connection with at least one counterpart device by the electronic device” Park [0010]), receiving an image captured of a participant of the participants by a first endpoint of the endpoints (Fig. 4, 430; Park); determining a current sentiment of the first participant from the image (Fig. 4, 440; Park); in response to determining the current sentiment (determine emotion type 440, fig 4), selecting an indicator representing the current sentiment (Fig. 4, 470; Park) and transmitting the indicator to a second endpoint of the endpoints (Fig. 4, 480; Park).
Park does not expressively teach “and displaying the indicator with an identifier of the first participant in a participant list for the real-time communication session.”
However, Eliason does teach and displaying the indicator with an identifier of the first participant in a participant list for the real-time communication session (Fig. 3G; Eliason).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park with Eliason to improve the participant awareness of the speaker or presenter. Having an identifier for each respective participant can allow the speaker or presenter to easily access the participant sentiment without having to unnecessarily click on specific buttons. This level of accessibility would thereby improve the participant awareness of the speaker or presenter.
Additionally, Park and Eliason do not explicitly teach that the selecting of an indicator and transmission of the indicator is in response to determining the current sentiment. Rather, Park shows an intermediate step (items 470 and 475, Park, fig 4) where the system gathers user confirmation of emotion object suggested by the system. Accordingly, this component of applicant’s system is met by that of Park except the selecting of an indicator and transmission of the indicator is in response to determining the current sentiment.
Applicant’s claimed system merely takes the human out of the decision loop by removing the step asking the human user for confirmation. See the comparison of figure 4 of Park and figure 4 of Park modified to meet applicant’s claim limitations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to omit the human confirmation step and just transmit (in step 480) the result of steps 460, 463, or 465 since doing so is the omission of an element (steps 470 and 475, Park, fig 4) where the function of the element (obtaining human confirmation of the computer decision) is not desired.
See MPEP 2144.04(II)(A) on which this rejection is based.
In contrast, MPEP 2144.04(II)(B) which addresses a similar situation of omission of an element which suggests nonobviousness. However, the examiner asserts that the situation falls into the situation of MPEP 2144.04(II)(A).
PNG
media_image1.png
1046
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1043
625
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Park, in view of Eliason, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein displaying the indicator comprises: replacing a default image corresponding to the first participant in the participant list with indicator (Fig 3G, 392g; Eliason).
Regarding claim 3, Park, in view of Eliason, discloses the method of claim 2, wherein transmitting the indicator comprises: determining a character code corresponding to the indicator (Fig. 4, 450, 453, 455; Park)); wherein the indicator comprises a graphic (display visual emotion object, 460, fig 4), and transmitting the character code (Fig. 4, 480; Park).
Regarding claim 4, Park, in view of Eliason, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the indicator comprises: identifying the current sentiment in a data structure of sentiments (Fig. 4, 440; Park) and corresponding indicators to the sentiments (Fig. 9, 9002-1; Park).
Regarding claim 5, Park, in view of Eliason, discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: receiving additional images captured of other participants of the participants by respective endpoints of the other participants (“The processor 120 may detect outline (for example, edge) of a face area in the camera image, separate a background area and the face area (or face contour area), and acquire coordinates of feature points (for example, eyes, nose, and mouth) in the face area on the basis of differential data between camera image frames.” Park [0116]); determining respective current sentiments for the other participants from the additional images (“In operation 435, the processor 120 may analyze user emotion based on the recognized user face information. The processor 120 may, for example, track changes in face feature points (for example, face (muscle) movement, eye movement, or mouth movement) and determine (or estimate) user emotion information on the basis of the change in the face area.” Park [0117]); aggregating the current sentiment and the respective current sentiments into aggregated sentiment information (“According to various example embodiments, the processor may be configured to analyze user emotion in every set period and average the analyzed user emotions to classify the emotion types.” Park [0056]); transmitting the aggregated sentiment information to the second endpoint (Fig. 4, 480; Park); and displaying the aggregated sentiment information in the participant list (Fig. 4, 460, 465; Park).
Regarding claim 6, Park, in view of Eliason, discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: highlighting the identifier when the current sentiment satisfies a highlighting criterion (“In operation 450, when the analyzed user motion information is the positive type, the processor 120 may display a visual emotion object indicating the positive emotion on the display (for example, the video call screen or the user display area) in operation 460.” Park [0123]. When a user wants to be notified of positive emotion types emulated by participants (criteria), the participant who has a positive emotion type is highlighted when the criteria is met).
Regarding claim 7, Park, in view of Eliason, discloses the method of claim 6, comprising: receiving the highlighting criterion from a user at the second endpoint, wherein the highlighting criterion indicates when the user wishes to be alerted to the current sentiment (Fig. 4, 475, Park).
Regarding claim 8, Park, in view of Eliason, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the image is a video image or a still image (“In some variations, one or more of the content representations are static representations (e.g., images, icons, thumbnails, textual descriptions, etc.). In some variations, one or more of the content representations are dynamic representations (e.g., streams, reduced resolution streams, reduced size streams, animated images, etc.)” Eliason [0040]).
Regarding claim 9, Park, in view of Eliason, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein indicator is an emoji (“at least one collaboration application displays the sentiment in association with the content element (e.g., displays a sentiment emoji, animation, textual description, image, etc.)” Eliason [0123]).
Regarding claim 10, Park, in view of Eliason, discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the emoji is animated (Fig. 3G, 392g; Eliason).
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses an apparatus for or providing indicators in a participant list to convey visually discernable sentiments, the apparatus comprising: during a real-time communication session between endpoints of two or more participants (“making a video call connection with at least one counterpart device by the electronic device” Park [0010]), capture an image of a first participant of the participants (Fig. 4, 430; Park); determine a current sentiment of the first participant from the image (Fig. 4, 440; Park); in response to determining the current sentiment (determine emotion type 440, fig 4), select an indicator representing the current sentiment (Fig. 4, 475; Park); and transmit the indicator to a second endpoint of the endpoints (Fig. 4, 480; Park).
Park does not expressively teach “one or more computer readable storage media; one or more processing systems operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that, when read and executed by the processing system, direct the apparatus to: wherein the second endpoint displays the indicator with an identifier of the first participant in a participant list for the real-time communication session.”
However, Eliason does teach one or more computer readable storage media (“the collaboration system 110 includes one or more of a CPU, a display device, a memory, a storage device” Eliason [0027]); one or more processing systems operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media (“processor of the corresponding participant system to perform processing of the respective module.” Eliason [0033]”); and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that, when read and executed by the processing system, direct the apparatus to (“In some variations, each module of the collaboration application is a set of machine-readable instructions executable by a processor of the corresponding participant system to perform processing of the respective module.” Eliason [0033]): wherein the second endpoint displays the indicator with an identifier of the first participant in a participant list for the real-time communication session (Fig. 3G; Eliason).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park with Eliason to improve the participant awareness of the speaker or presenter. Having an identifier for each respective participant can allow the speaker or presenter to easily access the participant sentiment without having to unnecessarily click on specific buttons. This level of accessibility would thereby improve the participant awareness of the speaker or presenter.
Additionally, Park and Eliason do not explicitly teach that the selecting of an indicator and transmission of the indicator is in response to determining the current sentiment. Rather, Park shows an intermediate step (items 470 and 475, Park, fig 4) where the system gathers user confirmation of emotion object suggested by the system. Accordingly, this component of applicant’s system is met by that of Park except the selecting of an indicator and transmission of the indicator is in response to determining the current sentiment.
Applicant’s claimed system merely takes the human out of the decision loop by removing the step asking the human user for confirmation. See the comparison of figure 4 of Park and figure 4 of Park modified to meet applicant’s claim limitations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to omit the human confirmation step and just transmit (in step 480) the result of steps 460, 463, or 465 since doing so is the omission of an element (steps 470 and 475, Park, fig 4) where the function of the element (obtaining human confirmation of the computer decision) is not desired.
See MPEP 2144.04(II)(A) on which this rejection is based.
In contrast, MPEP 2144.04(II)(B) which addresses a similar situation of omission of an element which suggests nonobviousness. However, the examiner asserts that the situation falls into the situation of MPEP 2144.04(II)(A).
Regarding claim 12, Park, in view of Eliason, discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein to display the indicator, the second endpoint replaces a default image corresponding to the first participant in the participant list with indicator (Fig 3G, 392g; Eliason).
Regarding claim 13, Park, in view of Eliason, discloses the apparatus of claim 12, wherein to transmit the indicator, the program instructions direct the processing system to: determine a character code corresponding to the indicator (Fig. 4, 450, 453, 455; Park); wherein the indicator comprises a graphic (display visual emotion object, 460, fig 4), and transmit the character code (Fig. 4, 480; Park).
Regarding claim 14, Park, in view of Eliason, discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein to select the indicator, the program instructions direct the processing system to: identifying the current sentiment in a data structure of sentiments (Fig. 4, 440; Park) and corresponding indicators to the sentiments (Fig. 9, 9002-1; Park).
Regarding claim 15, Park, in view of Eliason, discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the second endpoint highlights the identifier when the current sentiment satisfies a highlighting criterion (“In operation 450, when the analyzed user motion information is the positive type, the processor 120 may display a visual emotion object indicating the positive emotion on the display (for example, the video call screen or the user display area) in operation 460.” Park [0123]. When a user wants to be notified of positive emotion types emulated by participants (criteria), the participant who has a positive emotion type is highlighted when the criteria is met).
Regarding claim 16, Park, in view of Eliason, discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the image is a video image or a still image (“In some variations, one or more of the content representations are static representations (e.g., images, icons, thumbnails, textual descriptions, etc.). In some variations, one or more of the content representations are dynamic representations (e.g., streams, reduced resolution streams, reduced size streams, animated images, etc.)” Eliason [0040]).
Regarding claim 17, Park, in view of Eliason, discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein indicator is an emoji (“at least one collaboration application displays the sentiment in association with the content element (e.g., displays a sentiment emoji, animation, textual description, image, etc.)” Eliason [0123]).
Regarding claim 18, Park, in view of Eliason, discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the emoji is animated (Fig. 3G, 392g; Eliason).
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, Park, in view of Eliason, discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the program instructions direct the apparatus to: receive aggregated sentiment information, wherein the aggregated sentiment information is created from respective current sentiments of other participants of the participants (“According to various example embodiments, the processor may be configured to analyze user emotion in every set period and average the analyzed user emotions to classify the emotion types.” Park [0056]); and display the aggregated sentiment information in the participant list (Fig. 4, 460, 465; Park).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the third paragraph of page 8 of the remarks about the “claimed causal linkage between sentiment determination and indicator selection/transmission.” The examiner agrees that this amendment overcomes the prior rejection based on Park and Eliason. However, a new ground of rejection based on Park and Eliason is made which renders applicant’s arguments moot.
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 Kile Blair whose telephone number is (571)270-3544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/KILE O BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights