Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/7/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under Bhat have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ludwig (US 20010044826).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 3-7, 8, 9, 10-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 20120182384) in view of Ludwig (US 20010044826).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches, a system (Fig. 1, el. 100) including a server apparatus (Fig. 1, el. 102 and Paragraph 147: web server) and a first terminal (Fig. 1, el. 104, 106), comprising:
the server apparatus includes: a network interface coupled to, via a network (Fig. 1, el. 101), at least the first terminal and a second terminal (Fig. 1, el. 104, 106, 107, 105); a memory to store a first name and a first attendance state which are associated with the first terminal, and to store a second name and a second attendance state which are associated with the second terminal (Paragraph 146, 370, 372: name and Paragraph 138, 202-203: state and 146); first circuitry configured to:
update the first attendance state to a state indicating that the first terminal is attending a video communication, based on an attendance request to attend the video communication which is sent from the first terminal (Paragraph 63, 283, 289, 233: status icon is update to indicate the status);
update the second attendance state to a state indicating that the second terminal is attending the video communication, when the second terminal attends the video communication (Paragraph 233, 236, 283);
and send, to the first terminal via the network, a list including the first name and the second name, the first name corresponding to the first terminal which the first attendance state is updated (Fig. 6, el. 609), and the second name corresponding to the second terminal which the second attendance state is updated (Fig. 6, el. 609); the first terminal includes: second circuitry configured to:
receive an instruction to attend the video communication from a user; based on the received instruction, send the attendance request to the server apparatus via the network; receive the list including the first name and the second name from the server apparatus via the network; and in response to receiving a user operation, display the list received on a display (Paragraph 285: the system checks for an attendee request, the system checks for an attendee request, Fig. 12, 6-7).
Anderson does not teach Display, on a display, video images from each terminal attending the video communication.
Ludwig in the same art of endeavor teaches (display, video images from each terminal attending the video communication (Fig. 2A and 8B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Anderson with Ludwig in order to improve the system and display video of users to enhance the user’s experience.
Regarding claim 2, Anderson in view of Ludwig teaches, wherein the second circuitry of the first terminal is further configured to display, on the display, video images from terminal attending the video communication (Ludwig: Fig. 2A and 8B).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson in view of Ludwig teaches, wherein the first circuitry of the server apparatus sends the list to the first terminal in response to receiving from a request from the first terminal, and wherein the second circuitry of the first terminal is further configured to send the request to the server apparatus in response to receiving the user operation, and wherein the second circuitry of the first terminal receives the list as responding to the request (Anderson Paragraph 146, 160 request to the server and Paragraph 423, 429, 493).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson in view of Ludwig teaches, wherein the memory further stores a first identifier identifying the first terminal and a second identifier identifying the second terminal, wherein the first name and the first attendance state being stored in association with the first identifier, and the second name and the second attendance state being stored in association with the second identifier (Anderson Paragraph 252: identifier and Paragraph 352).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson in view of Ludwig teaches, wherein the list includes only names which are attending the video communication (Anderson Paragraph 85, 140).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson in view of Ludwig teaches, wherein the second circuitry of the first terminal displays the list within a screen on the display, the screen displaying at least one video image from at least any one of each terminal attending the video communication (Anderson Fig. 6, el. 609).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson in view of Ludwig teaches, wherein the first name is a name of the first terminal, and the second name is a name of the second terminal (Anderson Fig. 6, names).
Regarding claim 8, see claim 1 rejection.
Regarding claim 9, Anderson in view of Bhat teaches, wherein the circuitry is further configured to display on the display, video images from each terminal attending the video communication simultaneously (Ludwig: Fig. 2A, 8B).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson in view of Ludwig teaches, wherein the circuitry is further configured to send, to the server apparatus, a request to acquire the list in response to receiving the user operation, and wherein the circuitry receives the list as responding to the request and displays the received list on the display (Anderson Paragraph 309).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson in view of Ludwig teaches, wherein the list includes only names which are attending the video communication (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Anderson in view of Ludwig teaches, wherein the circuitry displays the list within a screen on the display, the screen displaying at least one video image from at least any one of each terminal attending the video communication (Fig. 6-7).
Regarding claim 13, Anderson in view of Ludwig teaches, wherein the first name is a name of the first terminal, and the second name is a name of the second terminal (Fig. 6-7).
Regarding claim 14, see claim 1 rejection.
Regarding claim 15, see claim 10 rejections.
Regarding claim 16, see claim 4 rejections.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 11 rejections.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 13 rejections.
Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 20120182384) in view of Ludwig (US 20010044826) in view of Chang (US 20030149724).
Regarding claim 19, Anderson in view of Ludwig teaches, the claimed method.
Anderson in view of Ludwig does not explicitly teach wherein a video image of a terminal transmitting sound data among terminals attending a video conference is displayed on a screen that displays the list.
Chang teaches wherein a video image of a terminal transmitting sound data among terminals attending a video conference is displayed on a screen that displays the list (Paragraph 7: Another technique involves a "talker and graphic contention resolution process" to display only one talker's (participating location's) image based upon an algorithm which selects only one talker and only one graphic image. However, single image displays are less effective in highly interactive conferences than they are in a lecture-style video conference).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Anderson in view of Ludwig with Chang in order to improve the system and display video of users to enhance the user’s experience.
Claim 20-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 20120182384) in view of Ludwig (US 20010044826) in view of Mock (US 20060259552).
Regarding claim 20, Anderson in view of Ludwig teaches, the claimed method.
Anderson in view of Ludwig does not teach wherein a video image of a terminal selected by a user among terminals attending a videoconference is displayed on a screen that displays the list.
Mock in the same art of endeavor teaches wherein a video image of a terminal selected by a user among terminals attending a videoconference is displayed on a screen that displays the list (Paragraph 52: In response, the videoconferencing device 120 may display the icons, and the user may then select the desired icon in order to select the corresponding local video input signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Anderson in view of Ludwig with Mock in order to improve the system and enhance the user’s experience.
Regarding claim 21, Anderson in view of Ludwig teaches, the claimed method.
Anderson in view of Ludwig does not teach wherein whether the list is displayed or not is switched a according to a user operation.
Mock in the same art of endeavor teaches wherein whether the list is displayed or not is switched a according to a user operation (abstract: user select what to be displayed “which video input”, image, text, PowerPoint, etc and Fig. 5A, 6A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Anderson with Mock in order to improve the system and enhance the user’s experience.
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
Prosecution Insights