DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-14, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afrasiabi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0286625 (hereinafter Afrasiabi) combined with Huggar et al, U.S. Patent No. 12,028,389 (hereinafter Huggar) in further view of Trueblood, U.S. Patent No. 5,675,755 (hereinafter Trueblood).
Regarding claim 1, Afrasiabi discloses a method for providing on-video content during a video presentation by at least one user, the method comprising, during execution of one or more applications by an electronic device associated with at least a display unit (from Figure 1, see 102) and connected to a capture element (from Figure 1, see 103) having a field of view including the at least one user:
generating in a screen area of the display unit a first image layer comprising content associated with at least one of the one or more applications (from Figure 7, see 120);
generating in the screen area of the display unit a second image layer comprising an at least partially transparent content window, wherein the second image layer at least partially overlaps the first image layer (from Figure 7, see 220);
generating a location of the at least partially transparent content window within the screen area, the location within the screen area being aligned with the position of the capture element connected to the electronic device (from paragraph 0052, see a script within a field 220 may be displayed in a position near the presenter’s camera 103),
wherein content displayed in the at least partially transparent content window is provided in accordance with the at least one of the one or more applications (from Figure 7, see 240), and
wherein the location of the at least partially transparent content window within the screen area does not alter the field of view (from paragraph 0052, see field of view) of images captured by the capture element.
Further regarding claim 1, Afrasiabi does not clearly teach determining a position of the capture element connected to the electronic device, the position relative to the screen area of the display unit, the location adjacent to the position of the capture element connected to the electronic device. All the same, Huggar discloses determining a position of the capture element (from Figure 1, see 16) connected to the electronic device (from Figure 1, see 10), the position relative to the screen area of the display unit, the location (from Figure 1, see 18) adjacent to the position of the capture element connected to the electronic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Afrasiabi with determining a position of the capture element connected to the electronic device, the position relative to the screen area of the display unit as taught by Huggar. This modification would have improved flexibility by allowing the camera to be placed in different locations.
Again on the issue of claim 1, although Afrasiabi discloses the use of pre-determined locations (from paragraph 0007, see The content may be customizable as to location on the digital overlay screen or may have pre-determined locations), the combination of Afrasiabi and Huggar does not clearly teach the at least partially transparent content window is locked in placed on the screen area. All the same, Trueblood discloses the content window is locked (from abstract of Trueblood, see always visible) in place on the screen area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Afrasiabi and Huggar wherein the content window is locked in place on the screen area as taught by Trueblood. This modification would have improved reliability by ensuring that critical information is always visible to the user as suggested by Trueblood.
Regarding claim 2, Afrasiabi discloses wherein the location and/or orientation of the at least partially transparent content window within the screen area is automatically generated along a determined line of sight (from paragraph 0052, see line of sight) between the capture element and the at least one user.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Afrasiabi and Huggar discloses automatically ascertaining the position of the capture element relative to the screen area (from abstract of Huggar, see identify a location of a camera with respect to the display).
Regarding claim 5, Afrasiabi discloses the location and/or orientation of the at least partially transparent content window within the screen area is dynamically adjustable based on user input from the at least one user (from paragraph 0051, see Additionally or alternatively, the user may customize and save placement of the fields 220 so as to arrange script and boxes 220 in a desired location on the digital overlay screen 112 for display therein when an event occurs at a later time).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Afrasiabi and Huggar as modified by Trueblood discloses the at least partially transparent content window is locked in place on the screen area at a location and/or orientation based on user input from the at least one user (from abstract of Trueblood, see A user may designate one or more windows as always-visible windows).
Regarding claim 8, Afrasiabi discloses the content is displayed in the at least partially transparent content window according to one or more parameters set via user input from the at least one user (from paragraph 0049, see Moreover, different fields or boxes 220 may be configured with different parameters).
Regarding claim 9, Afrasiabi a system for providing on-video content during a video presentation by at least one user, the system comprising:
an electronic device (from Figure 1, see 110) comprising a processor (from Figure 1, see 109) functionally linked to at least a display unit (from Figure 1, see 102) and connected to a capture element (from Figure 1, see 103) having a field of view including the at least one user;
wherein the processor is configured, during execution of one or more applications via the electronic device, to:
generate in a screen area of the display unit a first image layer comprising content associated with at least one of the one or more applications (from Figure 7, see 120);
generate in the screen area of the display unit a second image layer comprising an at least partially transparent content window, wherein the second image layer at least partially overlaps the first image layer (from Figure 7, see 220);
generate a location of the at least partially transparent content window within the screen area, the location within the screen area being aligned with the position of the capture element connected to the electronic device (from paragraph 0052, see a script within a field 220 may be displayed in a position near the presenter’s camera 103);
wherein content displayed in the at least partially transparent content window is provided in accordance with the at least one or more applications (from Figure 7, see 240), and
wherein the location of the at least partially transparent content window within the screen area does not alter the field of view (from paragraph 0052, see field of view) of images captured by the capture element.
Further regarding claim 9, Afrasiabi does not clearly teach determining a position of the capture element connected to the electronic device, the position relative to the screen area of the display unit, the location adjacent to the position of the capture element connected to the electronic device. All the same, Huggar discloses determining a position of the capture element (from Figure 1, see 16) connected to the electronic device (from Figure 1, see 10), the position relative to the screen area of the display unit, the location (from Figure 1, see 18) adjacent to the position of the capture element connected to the electronic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Afrasiabi with determining a position of the capture element connected to the electronic device, the position relative to the screen area of the display unit as taught by Huggar. This modification would have improved flexibility by allowing the camera to be placed in different locations.
Again on the issue of claim 9, although Afrasiabi discloses the use of pre-determined locations (from paragraph 0007, see The content may be customizable as to location on the digital overlay screen or may have pre-determined locations), the combination of Afrasiabi and Huggar does not clearly teach the at least partially transparent content window is locked in placed on the screen area. All the same, Trueblood discloses the content window is locked (from abstract of Trueblood, see always visible) in place on the screen area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Afrasiabi and Huggar wherein the content window is locked in place on the screen area as taught by Trueblood. This modification would have improved reliability by ensuring that critical information is always visible to the user as suggested by Trueblood.
Regarding claim 10, Afrasiabi discloses the display unit (from Figure 1, see 102) and the capture element (from Figure 1, see 102) are integrated into the electronic device.
Regarding claim 11, Afrasiabi discloses the at least one of the one or more applications comprises a web conferencing platform (from paragraph 0003, see Zoom Microsoft Teams, BlueJeans, FaceTime, Skype, Webex Meetings, and GoToMeeting).
Regarding claim 12, Afrasiabi the system of claim 11, wherein the second image layer is generated via execution of an application (from Figure 1, see 101) of the one or more applications separate from the web conferencing platform (from Figure 1, see 100).
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
3. Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afrasiabi combined with Huggar and Trueblood in further view of Revach et al, U.S. Patent No. 11,048,372 (hereinafter Revach).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of references does not teach the at least partially transparent content window of the second image layer is generated with a level of transparency set according to input from the at least one user. All the same, Revach discloses this feature (from column 9, see The degree of transparency applied to the second application 515 may be configurable by user 160 according to their preferences). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of references wherein the level of transparency as taught by Revach. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by accounting for different colored data displays as suggested by Revach.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
4. Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afrasiabi combined with Huggar and Trueblood in view of Cossar et al, U.S. Patent No. 12,052,299 (hereinafter Cossar).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of references does not teach automatically ascertaining a location of the at least one user relative to the capture element. All the same, Cossar discloses automatically ascertaining a location of the at least one user relative to the capture element (from Figure 4B, see Lens Too). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of references with automatically ascertaining a location of the at least one user relative to the capture element as taught by Cossar. This modification would have made the experience more effective by providing proper framing as suggested by Cossar.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLISA ANWAH whose telephone number is 571-272-7533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8.30 AM to 6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on 571-270-7136. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2600.
Olisa Anwah
Patent Examiner
June 22, 2026
/OLISA ANWAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights