DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 09/17/2026, which has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 6-7, 10-11, 14-15, and 20-21 have been amended. No Claim is presently cancelled. No Claim is presently added. Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending in the application.
The ODB rejections of Claim 11 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to Claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,11, and 15, and the dependent claims 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.
Applicant’s arguments directed to amended limitation have been addressed in the detail rejection below with new reference by Lal et al. and Goldsmith et al.
In response to applicant's argument that “the Office has not articulated a sufficient rationale to combine Kare and Olivieri.”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant submits that “Kare describes that the generated virtual background "may also create a unified environment for the participants" (Kare, !]{[0018]), and that "a common user experience can be created for the attendees of the video conference," which "may help drive the video conference forward and keep attendees and/or participants engaged, organized, and on schedule." (Kare, !]{[0051]). This is further illustrated by FIGS. 7 A-7B. Accordingly, modifying Kare to "cause a video stream of the first participant device to use the updated virtual background image during the video conference while a video stream of the second participant device uses a background other than the virtual background image," as recited in claim 1, would render Kare unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” (Remarks, p. 11).
The Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s premises and conclusion.
Kare discloses a consistent virtual background for all meeting participants in one example, and a different virtual background for each individual participant in another example, see ¶19. The office action explained the suggestions/motivations to combine Kare and Olivieri would have been that “It would be advantageous to have an improved methods, systems, and devices to make the presentation of background or overlay indicia during videoconferences simpler and more efficient.” (Olivieri,¶3)
The arguments regarding dependent claims for the virtue of their dependency are moot because the independent claims are not allowable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kare et al. (US 20240056551 A1), and in view of Olivieri et al. (US 20230117301 A1), and further in view of Lal et al. (US 20240235872 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kare discloses A method (ABST reciting “Methods and systems”), comprising:
determining, by generative artificial intelligence software during a video conference to which a first participant device and a second participant device are connected, one or more key points related to the video conference; (ABST reciting “A virtual background generator may monitor a user's calendar and/or inbox for meetings. The virtual background generator may analyze the context of calendar invites and/or scheduled meetings to generate one or more virtual backgrounds for a video conference.” FIG. 6 shows a flow chart of a process for updating a background during a meeting. Fig. 6, step 610. ¶58 reciting “In step 610, a computing device may receive one or more streams of data from one or more devices attending the meeting.” Further, ¶62 reciting “The machine learning model may analyze the inputs using a generative adversarial network, a bidirectional generative adversarial network, an adversarial autoencoder, or an equivalent thereof.” Furthermore, ¶37 reciting “In step 310, the computing device may train a machine learning model to generate one or more backgrounds based on one or more criteria contained in a scheduled meeting and/or a meeting invite. . . The machine learning model may support a generative adversarial network, a bidirectional generative adversarial network, an adversarial autoencoder, or an equivalent thereof.” ¶41-47 disclosing determining one or more key points using natural language techniques, and ¶47 reciting “Natural language processing may be used to parse the body of the meeting invitation 410. Natural language processing may identify keywords contained in the body field 410, while disregarding nonce words.” Fig. 1 showing a first user device 110 and a second user device 120 are connected to a video conference 132)
updating, by the generative artificial intelligence software, a virtual background image of the first participant device to include one or more visual elements representing the one or more key points; (¶48 reciting “In step 340, the computing device may input each of the word embeddings described above into the machine learning model. The machine learning model may analyze the one or more word embeddings, from the set of word embeddings, to generate one or more backgrounds” Fig. 5 showing three updated virtual background 510, 520, 530 including visual elements of a corporate logo, a title of the meeting, and/or an agenda for the meeting.)
asserting the updated virtual background image against a video stream of the participant during the video conference. (Fig. 3, step 370: cause the virtual background to be displayed. ¶49 reciting “the computing device may cause a first background, of the one or more backgrounds, to be displayed during the video conference. . . cause each of the different selections to be displayed on the respective user devices during the video conference ”)
However, Kare does not explicitly disclose asserting the virtual background image against only the first participant device while a video stream of the second participant device uses a background other than the virtual background image.
Olivieri teaches “electronic devices capable of providing video conferencing features.” (¶1). Fig. 1 shows an explanatory conferencing system including multiple participant devices. More specifically, ¶158 recites “At 1019, one or more processors of 1018 generate the virtual background in real time as a videoconference associated with the video conferencing content is occurring. At 1020, the one or more processors of 1018 generate a plurality of virtual backgrounds as a function of the contextual information for each videoconference feed received from the plurality if conferencing system terminal devices, wherein each virtual background is different from each other virtual background.” In other words, Olivieri teaches generating a virtual background image based on contextual information for each participant device, wherein each virtual background is different from each other virtual background.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method (taught by Kare) to assert the virtual background image against only the first participant device while a video stream of the second participant device uses a background other than the virtual background image (taught by Olivieri). The suggestions/motivations would have been that “It would be advantageous to have an improved methods, systems, and devices to make the presentation of background or overlay indicia during videoconferences simpler and more efficient.” (¶3), and to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
However, Kare in view of Olivieri does not explicitly disclose determining, by the generative artificial intelligence software based on a conversational context of the video conference, that a speaker within the video conference is addressing a key point of the one or more key points that was previously addressed during the video conference; and
further updating, by the generative artificial intelligence software, the updated virtual background image to emphasize a visual element of the one or more visual elements that represents the key point that was previously addressed.
Lal teaches “Systems, methods and apparatuses are described for providing a summary associated with a virtual meeting.” (ABST). Lal teaches emphasizing a visual element of the one or more visual elements that represents the key point that was previously in the summary, and recites “The summary generator system may generate the word cloud to identify the most frequently used words or terms or phrases during one or more virtual meetings, as such words or terms or phrases may be likely to represent important portions of the virtual meeting. For example, if the participants of the virtual meetings are talking about movies, such as “Star Wars,” an illustrative word distribution 601 of such virtual meeting may be determined, with a font size being an indicator of frequency that a word, term or phrase is used.” (¶78) Further, ¶86 teaches updating the virtual background image with the summary, and recites “summary 710 may be a pop-up summary, provided to User 6 at computing device 708 during the ongoing virtual meeting” (¶86). Furthermore, ¶88 recites “ during a virtual meeting, the summary generator system may monitor for and analyze audio signals uttered by one or more users (or other audio signals) by digitizing audio signals received in analog form by one or more microphones of one or more devices joined to the virtual meeting, and may perform parsing of the audio input.” In addition, ¶62 teaches “In some embodiments, separate machine learning models may be used to classify different types of inputs, e.g., a first machine learning model may be configured to receive input associated with features of a captured image, a second machine learning model may be configured to receive input associated with features of captured audio. In some embodiments, the same or a different machine learning model may analyze text or metadata associated with an input image or input audio or an input video.”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings from Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal to determine, by the generative artificial intelligence software based on a conversational context of the video conference, a speaker in the conference is speaking one or more key points and to update the summary in the virtual background accordingly. The suggestions/motivations would have been “The summary generator system may generate the word cloud to identify the most frequently used words or terms or phrases during one or more virtual meetings, as such words or terms or phrases may be likely to represent important portions of the virtual meeting.” (¶78), and to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2. Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining the one or more key points related to the video conference comprises:
deriving the one or more key points from screen share content shared to the video conference.
(Kare, ¶6 reciting “The method may include training a machine learning model to generate one or more backgrounds based on criteria contained in a scheduled meeting and/or a calendar invite. The criteria may include information included in the meeting invitation (e.g., attachment(s) to the meeting, agenda associated with the meeting, list of attendees, message body, etc.), as well as topics discussed during the meeting (e.g., words or phrases spoken by participants, gestures made by participants, messages sent in chat by participants, etc.)”)
Regarding Claim 3, Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining the one or more key points related to the video conference comprises:
deriving the one or more key points from an agenda of the video conference.
(Kare, ¶6 reciting “The method may include training a machine learning model to generate one or more backgrounds based on criteria contained in a scheduled meeting and/or a calendar invite. The criteria may include information included in the meeting invitation (e.g., attachment(s) to the meeting, agenda associated with the meeting”)
Regarding Claim 4. Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining the one or more key points related to the video conference comprises:
determining the one or more key points based on one or more of a body language, speech emphasis, or language usage of a speaker during the video conference.
(Kare, ¶6 reciting “The method may include training a machine learning model to generate one or more backgrounds based on criteria contained in a scheduled meeting and/or a calendar invite. The criteria may include information included in the meeting invitation (e.g., attachment(s) to the meeting, agenda associated with the meeting, list of attendees, message body, etc.), as well as topics discussed during the meeting (e.g., words or phrases spoken by participants, gestures made by participants, messages sent in chat by participants, etc.)”)
Regarding Claim 5. Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal discloses The method of claim 1, wherein updating the virtual background image of the first participant device to include the one or more visual elements representing the one or more key points comprises:
determining, by the generative artificial intelligence software, an arrangement of the one or more visual elements based on one or more of a substance of the one or more key points, an order in which the one or more key points are addressed within the video conference, or an inferred importance of the one or more key points.
(Kare, Fig. 5 showing the arrangement of the visual elements, e.g. a corporate logo, a title of the meeting, and/or an agenda for the meeting, based on one or more of a substance of the key points, an order in which the one or more key points are addressed within the video conference, or an inferred importance of the one or more key points.)
Regarding Claim 6. Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal discloses The method of claim 1, wherein updating the virtual background image of the first participant device to include the one or more visual elements representing the one or more key points comprises:
emphasizing a visual element of the one or more visual elements based on an inferred importance of a key point of the one or more key points corresponding to the visual element.
(Lal, ¶78 reciting “The summary generator system may generate the word cloud to identify the most frequently used words or terms or phrases during one or more virtual meetings, as such words or terms or phrases may be likely to represent important portions of the virtual meeting. For example, if the participants of the virtual meetings are talking about movies, such as “Star Wars,” an illustrative word distribution 601 of such virtual meeting may be determined, with a font size being an indicator of frequency that a word, term or phrase is used.” The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 1 rejections.)
Regarding Claim 10. Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal discloses The method of claim 1, comprising:
determining, by the generative artificial intelligence software during the video conference, one or more previous key points related to a previous portion of the video conference or of a previous video conference;
additionally updating, by the generative artificial intelligence software, the updated virtual background image to include one or more second visual elements representing the one or more previous key points; and
asserting the additionally updated virtual background image against only the first participant device to cause the video stream of the first participant device to use the further updated virtual background image during the video conference.
(Kare, Figs. 7A and 7B. ¶64 reciting “The example shown in FIG. 7B continues the example that started above with the description of FIG. 7A. As shown in FIG. 7B, the second background may include additional agenda items that have been discussed.” Also see Claim 1 rejections for detailed analysis)
Regarding Claim 11, it is similar in scope to Claim 1 except it is A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations (Kare, ¶65 reciting “One or more aspects discussed herein may be embodied in computer-usable or readable data and/or computer-executable instructions, such as in one or more program modules, executed by one or more computers or other devices as described herein.”)
(See Claim 1 rejections for detailed analysis)
Regarding Claim 12. Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal discloses The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein determining the one or more key points related to the video conference comprises:
determining the one or more key points based on one or more of screen share content shared to the video conference, an agenda of the video conference, or activity of a speaker during the video conference.
(See Claim 2-4 rejections for detailed analysis)
Regarding Claim 13. Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal discloses The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein one or more of an arrangement or an emphasis of the one or more visual elements is based on one or more of a substance of the one or more key points, an order in which the one or more key points are addressed within the video conference, an active discussion of the one or more key points, or an inferred importance of the one or more key points.
(See Claim 5-6 rejections for detailed analysis)
Regarding Claim 14. Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal discloses The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the visual background image is updated multiple times during the video conference to change the one or more virtual elements.
(Kare ¶57 reciting “Users may wish to have the background update during the meeting based on topics being discussed during the meeting. For instance, a user who has a presentation as their background may wish to have the presentation advance to the next slide by saying a phrase, such as “next slide,””. Figs. 7A and 7B. ¶58, ¶64. )
Regarding Claim 15. Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal discloses A system (Kare, ABST reciting “Systems”), comprising:
a memory subsystem; and processing circuitry configured to execute instructions stored in the memory subsystem to: (Kare, ¶65 reciting “One or more aspects discussed herein may be embodied in computer-usable or readable data and/or computer-executable instructions, such as in one or more program modules, executed by one or more computers or other devices as described herein.”)
(See Claim 1 rejections for detailed analysis)
Regarding Claim 16. Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal discloses The system of claim 15, wherein the one or more key points are derived based on one or more of screen share content shared to the video conference, an agenda of the video conference, or activity of a speaker during the video conference.
(See Claim 2-4 rejections for detailed analysis)
Regarding Claim 17. Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal discloses The system of claim 15, wherein the one or more visual elements are arranged within the virtual background image based on one or more of a substance of the one or more key points, an order in which the one or more key points are addressed within the video conference, or an inferred importance of the one or more key points.
(See Claim 5-6 rejections for detailed analysis)
Regarding Claim 18. Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal discloses The system of claim 15, wherein a visual element of the one or more visual elements is emphasized using one or more font modifiers. (Lal, ¶78)
Regarding Claim 20. Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal discloses The system of claim 15, wherein the virtual background image is additionally updated during the video conference according to input obtained by the generative artificial intelligence software.
(Kare, ¶57 reciting “Users may wish to have the background update during the meeting based on topics being discussed during the meeting. For instance, a user who has a presentation as their background may wish to have the presentation advance to the next slide by saying a phrase, such as “next slide,” or performing a swiping gesture.”)
Claim(s) 7 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kare et al. (US 20240056551 A1) in view of Olivieri and Lal as applied to claims 1, 11, and 15 above, and further in view of Goldsmith et al. (US 20150193141 A1).
Regarding Claim 7. Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal discloses The method of claim 1.
However, Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal does not explicitly disclose wherein updating the virtual background image of the participant of the video conference to include the one or more visual elements representing the one or more key points comprises:
removing one or more previously determined visual elements from the virtual background image based on a meeting of a space threshold for the virtual background image.
Goldsmith teaches “The third example of FIG. 9 illustrates two stages 930-935 in which the device 900 uses a 2-character buffer to determine when to fade out a particular character. In particular, stage 930 illustrates the user has input the handwritten characters "ABC" into the handwriting area 950. However, unlike both examples one and two described above, the device 900 has not yet removed any of the handwritten input from the handwriting area 950. Since this scenario illustrates a 2-character buffer, it is not until stage 935, which illustrates the device 900 receiving a 4.sup.th letter "D", that the device 900 begins the process of removing the character "A" from the handwriting area 950 by fading out the drawing of this character. For devices that provide a larger amount of screen space for receiving a handwritten input, the device may apply a higher character threshold since a user will likely have more room to continue to input characters prior to returning to the beginning of the handwriting area.” (¶85).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings from Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal and Goldsmith to remove one or more previously determined visual elements from the virtual background image based on a meeting of a space threshold for the virtual background image. The suggestions/motivations would have been to adapt to the device screen space (¶85), and to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 21. Kare in view of Olivieri, Lal, and Goldsmith discloses The system of claim 15, wherein the virtual background image is updated to remove one or more previously determined visual elements from the virtual background image based on a meeting of a space threshold for the virtual background image. (See Claim 7 and 15 rejections)
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kare et al. (US 20240056551 A1) in view of Olivieri and Lal as applied to claims 1, 11, and 15 above, and further in view of Nelson et al. (US 20190273767 A1).
Regarding Claim 9. Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal discloses The method of claim 1.
However, Kare in view of Olivieri Lal does not explicitly disclose comprising: outputting the one or more visual elements to a whiteboard or document associated with the video conference.
Nelson teaches “conducting electronic meetings over computer networks using interactive whiteboard appliances (IWBs)” (¶2). More specifically, ¶117 recites “Embodiments further include improvements to the presentation of content on interactive whiteboard appliances, providing meeting services for meeting attendees, agenda extraction”. In other words, Nelson teaches outputting the one or more visual elements (i.e. agenda extraction) to a whiteboard.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method (taught by Kare in view of Olivieri and Lal) to output the one or more visual elements (e.g. agenda extraction) to a whiteboard (taught by Nelson). The suggestions/motivations would have been for “an improvement in conducting electronic meetings over computer networks using Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) appliances” (¶6), and to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 19. Kare in view of Olivieri, Lal and Nelson discloses The system of claim 15, wherein the one or more visual elements are output to a source external to the video conference. (Nelson, teaches outputting the one or more visual elements (i.e. agenda extraction) to a whiteboard in ¶117. In addition, ¶6 teaching the interactive whiteboard (IWB) appliances are external to the video conference, and reciting “The meeting manager causes the translated text in the second language to be transmitted over the one or more computing devices to the IWB appliance, wherein the IWB appliance displays the translated text in the second language during the electronic meeting. ” The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 9 rejections.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6022. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/YI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
