DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the remarks filed 06/24/2026. Claims 1 – 13, 15 – 16 and 18 - 22 are pending and have been examined. Claims 14 and 17 have been cancelled.
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’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 6, 9, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tandon et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0198629, hereinafter “Tandon”) in view of Ivashin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0091778, hereinafter “Ivashin”) and Vendrow et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0205767, hereinafter “Vendrow”).
Regarding Claim 1, Tandon teaches
A method (see Tandon Paragraph [0002], method), comprising:
receiving, by a conferencing server, content streams from presenting devices connected to a conference, each content stream being received from a respective one of the presenting devices (see Tandon Figure 6, item 602, receive a plurality of media streams for a multimedia conference event, and Paragraph [0017], the online multimedia conference or meeting system includes a multimedia conference server configured to receive each of the media streams during an online meeting via a network);
transmitting, by the conferencing server, the content streams to a viewing device connected to the conference (see Tandon Figure 6, item 602, receive a plurality of media streams for a multimedia conference event, item 604 map each of the plurality of media streams to a corresponding display frame, and Paragraph [0017], the online multimedia conference or meeting system includes a multimedia conference server configured to receive each of the media streams during an online meeting via a network and send the received media streams to each participant);
receiving a request to designate one of the presenting devices as a primary presenting device (see Tandon Figure 6, item 606, select a display frame as the primary display frame and Paragraph [0032], the media selection component 113-1 . . . 113-N is also configured to enable a multimedia conference participant to select a media stream received from multimedia conference server 130 and processed by media content manager component 112-1 . . . 112-N as the primary media stream for all the participants of the conference. For example, a participant in the multimedia conference utilizing client device 110-2 has the ability, via media selection component 112-2 to select a media stream from the participant utilizing client device 110-3 as the primary media stream for all the participants in the conference); and
transmitting an indication of the primary presenting device to the viewing device (see Tandon Figure 6, item 612, display the primary display frame on a display device, and Paragraph [0034], The multimedia conference server receives the media content streams 310-1 . . . 310-N and performs mixing operations for the multiple types of media information. The multimedia conference server 130 outputs mixed media content streams 320. Each of the client devices 110-1 . . . 110-N receives the mixed media content streams 320 from multimedia conference server 130 via network 12).
Tandon does not expressively teach
receiving, by the conferencing server, a request to designate one of the presenting devices as a primary presenting device;
transmitting, by the conferencing server, an indication of the primary presenting device to the viewing device;
receiving, by the conferencing server, input from the viewing device indicating that at least one of the content streams is not to be transmitted to the viewing device; and
stopping, by the conferencing server, transmission of the at least one of the content streams to the viewing device based on the input, such that the at least one of the content streams is not received at the viewing device.
However, Ivashin teaches
receiving, by the conferencing server, a request to designate one of the devices as a presenting device (see Ivashin Paragraph [0010], Each conference client communicates with the conference server over a network connection, the conference server thereby effectuating communication between and among the plurality of conference clients. The conference server is configured to designate one conference participant attending a teleconference using the teleconferencing system as a presenter-participant); and
transmitting, by the conferencing server, an indication of the presenting device to the viewing device (see Ivashin Paragraph [0010], Each conference client communicates with the conference server over a network connection, the conference server thereby effectuating communication between and among the plurality of conference clients. The conference server is configured to designate one conference participant attending a teleconference using the teleconferencing system as a presenter-participant. The presenter-participant being a local user of one conference client of the plurality of conference clients. The one conference client is configured to enter a presenter mode in response to the designation. The one conference client is further configured to accept a layout modification from the local user, the layout modification altering a selection or arrangement of conference components in a user interface. The conference client, when in the presenter mode, is further configured to determine whether the layout modification is a significant layout modification or an insignificant layout modification, and to transmit a command to the conference server containing a representation of the layout modification only when the layout modification is a significant layout modification. The conference server is configured to broadcast the command to another of the plurality of conference clients).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tandon with the above teaching of Ivashin to move the designation handling from the client to the server in order to centralize control and ensure consistency across participants (see Ivashin Paragraph [0010]).
Tandon in view of Ivashin does not expressively teach
receiving, by the conferencing server, input from the viewing device indicating that at least one of the content streams is not to be transmitted to the viewing device; and
stopping, by the conferencing server, transmission of the at least one of the content streams to the viewing device based on the input, such that the at least one of the content streams is not received at the viewing device.
However, Vendrow teaches
receiving, by the conferencing server, input from the viewing device indicating that at least one of the content streams is not to be transmitted to the viewing device (see Vendrow Paragraph [0033], The forwarding conditions can also be set dynamically during the conference session. For example, the target user device may transmit an instruction to stop viewing one of the participants' presentations. The forwarding conditions can be set to stop forwarding video data from a particular user device to the target user device, Paragraph [0040], conference client application 202 may also inform video application servers 216 to stop selective forwarding unit 212 from transmitting video data stream and/or audio data stream from conference client application 204); and
stopping, by the conferencing server, transmission of the at least one of the content streams to the viewing device based on the input, such that the at least one of the content streams is not received at the viewing device (see Vendrow Paragraph [0055], the thumbnail windows can also be turned off to stop receiving video data from a participant device. For example, based on a certain user input (e.g., a right-click on a thumbnail window), a pop-up window 312 can appear and ask whether the selected thumbnail window is to be disabled. In some embodiments, conference client interface 300 can also detect a scrolling action to move thumbnail window 308 out of the screen. If conference client application 202 detects, via conference client interface 300, that a thumbnail window (e.g., thumbnail window 308) is to be disabled (e.g., by detecting a selection in pop-up window 312, the scrolling action, etc.), conference client application 202 can control, over signaling data 230, selective forwarding unit 212 to stop transmitting media data from the source participant device for thumbnail window 308, and thumbnail window 308 can be minimized).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tandon with the above teaching of Ivashin to move the designation handling from the client to the server in order to centralize control and ensure consistency across participants (see Ivashin Paragraph [0010]).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a conference server that receives content streams from presenting devices, sends them to a viewing device, and designates one presenting device as the primary presenter (as taught in Tandon in view of Ivashin), with a conference server that stops transmitting selected content streams to a device upon request (as taught in Vendrow), the motivation being to allow a customizable user interface in which a user is able to personally configure their display (see Vendrow Paragraph [0055]).
Regarding Claim 3, Tandon in view of Ivashin and Vendrow teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the conferencing server, whether to transmit at least some of the content streams to the viewing device based on input received from the viewing device (see Tandon Figure 6, item 606, select a display frame as the primary display frame and Paragraph [0032], the media selection component 113-1 . . . 113-N is also configured to enable a multimedia conference participant to select a media stream received from multimedia conference server 130 and processed by media content manager component 112-1 . . . 112-N as the primary media stream for all the participants of the conference. For example, a participant in the multimedia conference utilizing client device 110-2 has the ability, via media selection component 112-2 to select a media stream from the participant utilizing client device 110-3 as the primary media stream for all the participants in the conference and Paragraph [0038], one or more application data files in any display frame may be selected as the primary visible element in visual composition 400).
Regarding Claim 6, Tandon in view of Ivashin and Vendrow teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting, by the conferencing server, an indication of a focus display of the primary presenting device (see Tandon Figure 6, item 612, display the primary display frame on a display device, and Paragraph [0034], The multimedia conference server receives the media content streams 310-1 . . . 310-N and performs mixing operations for the multiple types of media information. The multimedia conference server 130 outputs mixed media content streams 320. Each of the client devices 110-1 . . . 110-N receives the mixed media content streams 320 from multimedia conference server 130 via network 12 and Paragraph [0038], The visual composition 400 may include a display frame 430-N comprising a primary viewing area to display the media stream associated with display frame 430-1 as the primary media stream as selected by the participant. The display frame 430-N is in a primary position in the middle of visual composition 400 occupying a relatively large portion of the visual composition as compared to the other display frames (e.g. 430-2 and 430-3)).
Regarding Claim 9, it is rejected similarly as Claim 1. The system can be found in Tandon (Paragraph [0001], system).
Regarding Claim 15, it is rejected similarly as Claim 1. The non-transitory computer readable media can be found in Tandon (Paragraph [0064], computer-readable storage media).
Regarding Claim 19, Tandon in view of Ivashin and Vendrow teaches
The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise:
selectively transmitting a content stream of the content streams to one of a first viewing device or a second viewing device (see Tandon Figure 6, item 602, receive a plurality of media streams for a multimedia conference event, item 604 map each of the plurality of media streams to a corresponding display frame, and Paragraph [0017], the online multimedia conference or meeting system includes a multimedia conference server configured to receive each of the media streams during an online meeting via a network and send the received media streams to each participant).
Claims 2, 10, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tandon et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0198629, hereinafter “Tandon”) in view of Ivashin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0091778, hereinafter “Ivashin”), Vendrow et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0205767, hereinafter “Vendrow”) and Han et al. (WO Pub. No. 2023/014496, hereinafter “Han”).
Regarding Claim 2, Tandon in view of Ivashin and Vendrow teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach
The method of claim 1, wherein the presenting devices comprise the primary presenting device and a secondary presenting device, further comprising:
in response to receiving the request to designate the one of the presenting devices as the primary presenting device, transmitting to the secondary presenting device a request to increase a compression rate with respect to content streams transmitted by the secondary presenting device.
However, Han teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the presenting devices comprise the primary presenting device and a secondary presenting device, further comprising:
in response to receiving the request to designate the one of the presenting devices as the primary presenting device, transmitting to the secondary presenting device a request to increase a compression rate with respect to content streams transmitted by the secondary presenting device (See Han Paragraph [0049], At step 204, the system receives, from a first participant, a request to initiate sharing of one or more screen elements from a user device associated with the first participant, Paragraph [0056], At step 208, the system receives, from one or more additional participants, additional requests to initiate sharing of one or more additional screen elements from the user devices associated with the additional participants. In some embodiments, the additional requests may be received in a similar or identical fashion to the system receiving a request to initiate sharing in 204, Paragraph [0057], requests from additional participants can be received at any time upon the request from the first request being received. In some cases, one or more participants can request to share their screen immediately after a first participant shares the screen, or at the same time as the first participant and Paragraph [0059], the concurrent display of multiple screen elements from multiple users requires one or more techniques or steps which function to enable the concurrency to be possible for each participant of the communication session and/or each user device associated with each participant. Such techniques or steps may include or involve, for example, video compression in order to reduce the required bandwidth of the video stream, techniques for low latency encoding, decoding, and display of screens with interactive elements, streaming techniques, reduction of frame rate or setting of a maximum frame rate, lowering video resolution, parallel processing, performing operations on video content frames and data, image data extraction and processing, or any other suitable technique or combination thereof).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a conferencing server that transmits content streams to a viewing device, designates a primary presenting device, and stops selected streams upon the viewing device’s request (as taught in Tandon in view of Ivashin and Vendrow), with increasing compression rate of one out of two simultaneous shared screens (as taught in Han), the motivation being to address the issue of required bandwidth of the video stream during concurrent display of multiple shared screens (see Han Paragraph [0059]).
Regarding Claim 10, it is rejected similarly as Claim 2. The system can be found in Tandon (Paragraph [0001], system).
Regarding Claim 12, Tandon in view of Ivashin, Vendrow and Han teaches
The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to:
transmit a content stream of the content streams to a first viewing device but not to a second viewing device (see Han Paragraph [0060], In some embodiments, the system provides to one or more participants, via the communication interface for the participant, control over configuration of the screen element(s) as well as the additional screen elements. In some embodiments, this control may include, e.g., size or orientation of each screen element within the participant’s configuration interface. In some embodiments, this control may include a selection of which screen elements to display and which to not display. In some embodiments, only a participant with certain permissions or privileges within the communication platform may be authorized to control certain configuration features with respect to the screen elements).
Regarding Claim 16, it is rejected similarly as Claim 2. The non-transitory computer readable media can be found in Tandon (Paragraph [0064], computer-readable storage media).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tandon et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0198629, hereinafter “Tandon”) in view of Ivashin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0091778, hereinafter “Ivashin”), Vendrow et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0205767, hereinafter “Vendrow”), Abraham (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0054044) and Hinckley et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0408142, hereinafter “Hinckley”).
Regarding Claim 4, Tandon in view of Ivashin and Vendrow teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
recording, by the conferencing server, one of the content streams at a first resolution; and
transmitting, by the conferencing server, the one of the content streams at a second resolution that is lower than the first resolution.
However, Abraham teaches
recording, by the conferencing server, one of the content streams (see Abraham Paragraph [0090], a moderator of a conference call can start and stop recording during the conference call at any time. Similar to determining which screen shares to display, a moderator of a conference call can determine which screen shares to record during the conference call)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a conferencing server that transmits content streams to a viewing device, designates a primary presenting device, and stops selected streams upon the viewing device’s request (as taught in Tandon in view of Ivashin and Vendrow), with recording content streams in a video conference (as taught in Abraham), the motivation being to allow participants to playback previous meetings (see Abraham Paragraph [0090]).
Tandon in view of Ivashin, Vendrow and Abraham do not expressively teach
one of the content streams at a first resolution; and
transmitting, by the conferencing server, the one of the content streams at a second resolution that is lower than the first resolution.
However, Hinckley teaches
one of the content streams at a first resolution; and
transmitting, by the conferencing server, the one of the content streams at a second resolution that is lower than the first resolution (see Hinckley Paragraph [0093], a sub-subset 1106 of the content can be selected from device 106(2) for display on device 106(1). Instance Three shows the sub-subset 1106 of content shown at a higher resolution. Thus, taken collectively, the devices can display content of interest at different levels of granularity)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a conferencing server that transmits content streams to a viewing device, designates a primary presenting device, and stops selected streams upon the viewing device’s request (as taught in Tandon in view of Ivashin and Vendrow), with recording content streams in a video conference (as taught in Abraham), the motivation being to allow participants to playback previous meetings (see Abraham Paragraph [0090]).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a conferencing server that transmits content streams to a viewing device, designates a primary presenting device, and stops selected streams upon the viewing device’s request and may record content streams (as taught in Tandon in view of Ivashin, Vendrow and Abraham), with transmitting video conference streams at different resolutions (as taught in Hinckley), the motivation being to address differing network speeds and device capabilities among users in a video conference by using higher resolution for higher priority content (see Hinckley Paragraph [0093]).
Claims 5, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tandon et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0198629, hereinafter “Tandon”) in view of Ivashin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0091778, hereinafter “Ivashin”), Vendrow et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0205767, hereinafter “Vendrow”) and Abraham (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0054044).
Regarding Claim 5, Tandon in view of Ivashin and Vendrow teach all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
recording, by the conferencing server, at least some of the content streams based on a recording template.
However, Abraham teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising: recording, by the conferencing server, at least some of the content streams based on a recording template (see Abraham Paragraph [0090], The recording module 325 can be managed automatically (e.g., automatically recording during certain conference calls (pre-configured)) and/or by one or more of the participants of the conference call).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a conferencing server that transmits content streams to a viewing device, designates a primary presenting device, and stops selected streams upon the viewing device’s request (as taught in Tandon in view of Ivashin and Vendrow), with recording content streams in a video conference (as taught in Abraham), the motivation being to allow participants to playback previous meetings (see Abraham Paragraph [0090]).
Regarding Claim 13, Tandon in view of Ivashin, Vendrow and Abraham teaches
The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to:
receive, from another viewing device, a request to record the conference (see Abraham Paragraph [0020], request to start recording the conference call);
receive, from the another viewing device, an indication that a content stream of the content streams is not to be transmitted to the another device (see Vendrow Paragraph [0055], the thumbnail windows can also be turned off to stop receiving video data from a participant device. For example, based on a certain user input (e.g., a right-click on a thumbnail window), a pop-up window 312 can appear and ask whether the selected thumbnail window is to be disabled. In some embodiments, conference client interface 300 can also detect a scrolling action to move thumbnail window 308 out of the screen. If conference client application 202 detects, via conference client interface 300, that a thumbnail window (e.g., thumbnail window 308) is to be disabled (e.g., by detecting a selection in pop-up window 312, the scrolling action, etc.), conference client application 202 can control, over signaling data 230, selective forwarding unit 212 to stop transmitting media data from the source participant device for thumbnail window 308, and thumbnail window 308 can be minimized);
and include the content stream of the content streams in a recording of the conference (see Abraham Paragraph [0006], Participants may record any aspect of the video conference; thus, participants may record any data (including not only audio, video, and/or text, but also any screen shares) provided during the video conference. Any combination of audio, video, text, and screen shares may be recorded regardless of what the moderator is viewing (or how the moderator is otherwise accessing any audio, video, text, and/or screen shares) and regardless of how the audio, video, text, and screen shares are being managed).
Regarding Claim 20, Tandon in view of Ivashin, Vendrow and Abraham teaches
The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise:
including only one of the content streams in a recording of the conference (see Abraham Paragraph [0090], a moderator of a conference call can start and stop recording during the conference call at any time. Similar to determining which screen shares to display, a moderator of a conference call can determine which screen shares to record during the conference call), wherein the only one of the content streams is associated with a focus display (see Tandon Figure 6, item 612, display the primary display frame on a display device, and Paragraph [0034], The multimedia conference server receives the media content streams 310-1 . . . 310-N and performs mixing operations for the multiple types of media information. The multimedia conference server 130 outputs mixed media content streams 320. Each of the client devices 110-1 . . . 110-N receives the mixed media content streams 320 from multimedia conference server 130 via network 12 and Paragraph [0038], The visual composition 400 may include a display frame 430-N comprising a primary viewing area to display the media stream associated with display frame 430-1 as the primary media stream as selected by the participant. The display frame 430-N is in a primary position in the middle of visual composition 400 occupying a relatively large portion of the visual composition as compared to the other display frames (e.g. 430-2 and 430-3)).
Claims 7, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tandon et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0198629, hereinafter “Tandon”) in view of Ivashin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0091778, hereinafter “Ivashin”), Vendrow et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0205767, hereinafter “Vendrow”) and Devarao et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0222236, hereinafter “Devarao”).
Regarding Claim 7, Tandon in view of Ivashin and Vendrow teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting, by the conferencing server, metadata indicating respective presenting devices associated with the content streams to the viewing device
However, Devarao teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting, by the conferencing server, metadata indicating respective presenting devices associated with the content streams to the viewing device (see Devarao Paragraph [0070], The screen sharing session 450 may include other information, such as metadata (not depicted) that describes the screen sharing session 450. The metadata may include, a title, a host username, a timestamp, and the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a conferencing server that transmits content streams to a viewing device, designates a primary presenting device, and stops selected streams upon the viewing device’s request (as taught in Tandon in view of Ivashin and Vendrow), with transmitting metadata associated with a screen sharing session (as taught in Devarao), the motivation being to improve performance and user interaction in a video conference by providing enhanced navigation and descriptive content (see Devarao Paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 8, Tandon in view of Ivashin, Vendrow and Devarao teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting, by the conferencing server, metadata indicating respective presenting participants associated with the content streams to the viewing device (see Devarao Paragraph [0070], The screen sharing session 450 may include other information, such as metadata (not depicted) that describes the screen sharing session 450. The metadata may include, a title, a host username, a timestamp, and the like).
Regarding Claim 11, it is rejected as a combination of Claims 7 – 8. The system can be found in Tandon (Paragraph [0001], system).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tandon et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0198629, hereinafter “Tandon”) in view of Ivashin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0091778, hereinafter “Ivashin”), Vendrow et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0205767, hereinafter “Vendrow”) and Rajamani et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0367801, hereinafter “Rajamani”).
Regarding Claim 18, Tandon in view of Ivashin and Vendrow teaches all the limitations of claim 15, but does not expressively teach
The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving respective metadata from the presenting devices indicative of respective shared displays at the presenting devices;
aggregating the respective metadata into an aggregate metadata; and transmitting the aggregate metadata to the viewing device.
However, Rajamani teaches
The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving respective metadata from the presenting devices indicative of respective shared displays at the presenting devices (see Rajamani Figure 4, meeting metadata is sent and received);
aggregating the respective metadata into an aggregate metadata (see Rajamani Paragraph [0060], aggregation unit 214 may be configured to aggregate the plurality of the meeting snippets based on the meeting metadata and Paragraph [0027], the central server 102 may transmit the unique keys and/or the meeting metadata to the computing devices 104); and
transmitting the aggregate metadata to the viewing device (see Rajamani Paragraph [0060], aggregation unit 214 may be configured to aggregate the plurality of the meeting snippets based on the meeting metadata and Paragraph [0027], the central server 102 may transmit the unique keys and/or the meeting metadata to the computing devices 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a conferencing server that transmits content streams to a viewing device, designates a primary presenting device, and stops selected streams upon the viewing device’s request (as taught in Tandon in view of Ivashin and Vendrow), with receiving metadata relating to a video conference and aggregating the metadata (as taught in Rajamani), the motivation being to improve data quality and usability by organizing the data from video conferences (see Rajamani Paragraph [0059]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tandon et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0198629, hereinafter “Tandon”) in view of Ivashin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0091778, hereinafter “Ivashin”), Vendrow et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0205767, hereinafter “Vendrow”) and Feng (U.S. Patent No. 11,582,506).
Regarding Claim 21, Tandon in view of Ivashin and Vendrow teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
capturing and transmitting, by the conferencing server, a focus display of the primary presenting device at a higher frame rate than a frame rate at which other ones of the content streams are transmitted.
However, Feng teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
capturing and transmitting, by the conferencing server, a focus display of the primary presenting device at a higher frame rate than a frame rate at which other ones of the content streams are transmitted (see Feng Column 7, lines 46 – 54, The bandwidth dynamic adjustment module 26 is configured to track the focus of the user's eyes or consider a current layout position to increase the bandwidth of the video stream that the user is concerned about, increase the resolution, frame rate and other parameters, reduce the bandwidth of the video stream that the user is not concerned about, reduce resolution, frame rate and other parameters, and maximize the user's visual experience while maintaining the overall bandwidth unchanged).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a conferencing server that transmits content streams to a viewing device, designates a primary presenting device, and stops selected streams upon the viewing device’s request (as taught in Tandon in view of Ivashin and Vendrow), capturing and transmitting a focus display of a presenting device at a higher frame rate than a frame rate at which other ones of the content streams are transmitted (as taught in Feng), the motivation being to maximize the user's visual experience while maintaining the overall bandwidth unchanged (see Feng Column 7, lines 53 - 54).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tandon et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0198629, hereinafter “Tandon”) in view of Ivashin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0091778, hereinafter “Ivashin”), Vendrow et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0205767, hereinafter “Vendrow”) and Sexton (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0249108).
Regarding Claim 22, Tandon in view of Ivashin and Vendrow teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach
The method of claim 1, wherein the input from the viewing device is received based on a selection from a tabbed interface that includes, for at least some conference participants, a respective element for selecting a corresponding one of the content streams.
However, Sexton teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the input from the viewing device is received based on a selection from a tabbed interface that includes, for at least some conference participants, a respective element for selecting a corresponding one of the content streams (see Sexton Figure 14 and Paragraph [0124], the content delivery apparatus has the ability to present multiple content streams associated with multiple channels at a display. In this exemplary embodiment, the channel tab 1410 is selected, Paragraph [0125], The channel tab 1415, upon selection, may provide new content representations 1425-1440 because the tab may be associated with different content streams. As a result, at least one of the content streams associated with the channel tab 1615 may begin buffering upon receiving a selection of the tab at the display 1400. Thus, the new content streams associated with the channel tab 1415 can be presented at the display 1400).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a conferencing server that transmits content streams to a viewing device, designates a primary presenting device, and stops selected streams upon the viewing device’s request (as taught in Tandon in view of Ivashin and Vendrow), with selecting content streams to view on a display from a tabbed user interface (as taught in Sexton), the motivation being to provide a quick, organized way to navigate among multiple streams (see Sexton Figure 14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARISSA A JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-1677. The examiner can normally be reached Telework M-F 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM CT.
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 5712727503. 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.
/CARISSA A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights