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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12-14, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shayne et al. (US Pub. 2023/0133750), herein referenced as Shayne.
Regarding claim 1, Shayne discloses “A method of presenting a video stream that is to be received by one or more content consumers ([0005], [0036], [0057], Figs. 1, 3, i.e., providing a video conference to one more participants), comprising:
receiving, by a first electronic device used by a content consumer, the video stream generated from a first camera device connected to a second electronic device in communication with the first electronic device ([0036], [0057], Figs. 1, 3, 5, i.e., conferencer 111 is participating in a videoconference using audio and video. The conferencer 111 views video on a screen 118 of the computing device. Image data may depict the conferencer 111 looking in the direction of the screen 118. The image data may also include images of one or more conference participants depicted on the screen 118), the first electronic device displaying the video stream on a graphical user interface of the first electronic device ([0212], [0214], Figs. 1, 3, 5, i.e., user devices 540, 550 display user interfaces);
collecting by a second camera device connected to the first electronic device, by use of a first program executed by a first processor of the first electronic device, content consumer data corresponding to the content consumer that is receiving the video stream ([0136], Figs. 1, 3, 5, i.e., user monitor 324 can perform facial analysis to determine a level of attention and interest of the conferencer 111);
receiving, by use of the first program, the content consumer data; sending, by use of the first program, first instructions based on the content consumer data to the first processor, wherein the first instructions are based on detecting a loss of attention of the content consumer by comparing the content consumer data with previously collected content consumer data ([0066], [0136], [0147], [0204], [0206], Figs. 1, 3, 5, i.e., control unit 130 can send the conference system data 122, the sensor data 142, or both to a monitoring server over a long-range data link. The monitoring server 560 may store sensor and image data received from the monitoring system and perform analysis of sensor and image data received from the monitoring system. Based on the analysis, the monitoring server 560 may communicate with and control aspects of the control unit 510 or the one or more user devices 540 and 550); and
updating a visible characteristic of the graphical user interface of the first electronic device based on the sent first instructions to recapture the loss of attention of the content consumer, wherein updating a visible characteristic of the graphical user interface comprises generating a screen flash or providing a warning to the content consumer, while the video stream is provided to the content consumer.” ([0147], [0153], [0204], [0207], Figs. 1, 3, 5, i.e., actions can be performed to attract the attention of the user to the conference. For example, the actions can include displaying a notification on the screen 118 and/or on a display of a mobile device 316 associated with the conferencer 111. In some examples, the notification can include text asking the user if he or she is distracted, or reminding the user to pay attention to the conference. In some examples, the actions include flashing a light or sound to attract the attention of the user).
Regarding claim 3, Shayne discloses “wherein the content consumer data includes an emotional state of the content consumer.” ([0136], i.e., the user monitor 324 can perform facial analysis to determine a level of attention and interest of the conferencer 111. The user monitor 324 can also analyze the camera data 306 to perform analysis of the posture of the conferencer 111. The user monitor 324 can detect other signs of fatigue, e.g., images of the conferencer 111 drinking coffee or rubbing eyes).
Regarding claim 4, Shayne discloses “wherein the content consumer data comprises biodata of the content consumer ([0135]-[0137], i.e., eye analysis, facial analysis, voice analysis) and scheduling information of the content consumer ([0142], i.e., conference monitor 322 can determine, based on application usage data 344 from the calendar application, a conference schedule for the conferencer 111).
Regarding claim 5, Shayne discloses “wherein the emotional state of the content consumer comprises at least one of a level of confusion, a level of attentiveness, and a level of comprehension of the content consumer.” ([0134], [0136], i.e., the user monitor 324 can perform facial analysis to determine a level of attention and interest of the conferencer 111).
Regarding claim 10, Shayne discloses “A video streaming system comprising: a first electronic device used by a content consumer that is configured to receive a video stream generated from a first camera device connected to a second electronic device in communication with the first electronic device, the first electronic device comprising a first program that is executed by a first processor of a second camera device ([0036], [0057], Figs. 1, 3, 5, i.e., conferencer 111 is participating in a videoconference using audio and video. The conferencer 111 views video on a screen 118 of the computing device. Image data may depict the conferencer 111 looking in the direction of the screen 118. The image data may also include images of one or more conference participants depicted on the screen 118), the first electronic device displaying the video stream on a graphical user interface of the first electronic device ([0212], [0214], Figs. 1, 3, 5, i.e., user devices 540, 550 display user interfaces), the first program configured to:
receive content consumer data corresponding to the content consumer that is receiving the video stream captured by the second camera device and collected by the first processor ([0136], Figs. 1, 3, 5, i.e., user monitor 324 can perform facial analysis to determine a level of attention and interest of the conferencer 111); and
send first instructions based on the content consumer data to the first processor, wherein the first instructions are based on detecting a loss of attention of the content consumer by comparing the content consumer data with previously collected content consumer data, and the first processor is configured to update a visible characteristic of a graphical user interface of the first electronic device based on the first instructions to recapture the loss of attention of the content consumer without modifying content of the video stream, wherein updating a visible characteristic of the graphical user interface comprises generating a screen flash or providing a warning to the content consumer.” ([0147], [0153], [0204], [0207], Figs. 1, 3, 5, i.e., actions can be performed to attract the attention of the user to the conference. For example, the actions can include displaying a notification on the screen 118 and/or on a display of a mobile device 316 associated with the conferencer 111. In some examples, the notification can include text asking the user if he or she is distracted, or reminding the user to pay attention to the conference. In some examples, the actions include flashing a light or sound to attract the attention of the user).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, Shayne discloses “A first electronic device comprising: a program executed by a processor of a first camera device (Figs. 1, 3, 5), the program configured to:
receive content consumer data corresponding to a content consumer captured by the first camera device and collected by the processor ([0136], Figs. 1, 3, 5, i.e., user monitor 324 can perform facial analysis to determine a level of attention and interest of the conferencer 111); and
send instructions based on the content consumer data to the processor, wherein the instructions are based on detecting a loss of attention of the content consumer by comparing the content consumer data with previously collected content consumer data, and the processor is configured to update a visible characteristic of a graphical user interface of the first electronic device to recapture the loss of attention of the content consumer without modifying content of the video stream, wherein updating a visible characteristic of the graphical user interface comprises generating a screen flash or providing a warning to the content consumer, and that is generated from a second camera device connected to a second electronic device in communication with the first electronic device based on the instructions.” ([0147], [0153], [0204], [0207], Figs. 1, 3, 5, i.e., actions can be performed to attract the attention of the user to the conference. For example, the actions can include displaying a notification on the screen 118 and/or on a display of a mobile device 316 associated with the conferencer 111. In some examples, the notification can include text asking the user if he or she is distracted, or reminding the user to pay attention to the conference. In some examples, the actions include flashing a light or sound to attract the attention of the user).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection claim 4.
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 2, 7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shayne in view of Gates, III et al. (US Pub. 2014/0040932), and in further view of Aronsson et al. (US Pub. 2013/0283162), herein referenced as Gates and Aronsson, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Shayne discloses “updating an audible characteristic of the video stream being provided to the content consumer or the graphical user interface…” ([0147], i.e., actions include flashing a light or sound to attract the attention of the user).
Shayne fails to explicitly disclose wherein updating the audible characteristic comprises increasing a volume of the video stream, adding subtitles to the graphical user interface, reducing an amount of content provided in the video stream, and combinations thereof.
Gates teaches the technique of reducing an amount of content provided in the video stream ([0079]-[0080], [0089], [0135], i.e., removing profanity). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of reducing an amount of content provided in the video stream as taught by Gates, to improve the video conferencing system of Shayne for the predictable result of providing a more family-friendly presentation that is appropriate for all attendees.
The combination still fails to disclose wherein updating the audible characteristic comprises increasing a volume of the video stream.
Arronson teaches the technique of providing wherein updating the audible characteristic comprises increasing a volume of the video stream ([0079], [0085], [0089], Fig. 7, i.e., the music volume is increased). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein updating the audible characteristic comprises increasing a volume of the video stream as taught by Aronsson, to improve the video conferencing system of Shayne for the predictable result of determining if a viewer is engaged or not to better tailor content to their preferences.
Therefore, the combination teaches “updating an audible characteristic of the video stream being provided to the content consumer or the graphical user interface, wherein updating the audible characteristic comprises increasing a volume of the video stream, adding subtitles to the graphical user interface, reducing an amount of content provided in the video stream, and combinations thereof.”
Regarding claim 7, the combination fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the suggestions include a suggestion to increase a volume of audio of the video stream, slow down a cadence of audio of the video stream, provide recommendations to the content consumer, or combinations thereof.”
Aronsson teaches the technique of providing wherein the suggestions include a suggestion to increase a volume of audio of the video stream, slow down a cadence of audio of the video stream, provide recommendations to the content consumer, or combinations thereof ([0079]-[0080], [0085], [0089], i.e., based on the modification instructions the music volume increased). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein the suggestions include a suggestion to increase a volume of audio of the video stream, slow down a cadence of audio of the video stream, provide recommendations to the content consumer, or combinations thereof as taught by Aronsson, to improve the video conferencing system of Shayne for the predictable result of determining if a viewer is engaged or not to better tailor content to their preferences.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection claim 2.
Claims 6, 8-9, 15-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shayne in view of Gates.
Regarding claim 6, Shayne fails to explicitly disclose “providing, by use of the first processor, status signals to a second program in the second electronic device used by a content producer based on the first instructions; providing, by use of the second program in the second electronic device, second instructions to a second processor in the second electronic device based on the status signals; and providing, by use of the second processor, suggestions to the content producer on how to update an audible or visible characteristic of the video stream or graphical user interface based on the second instructions.”
Gates teaches the technique of providing, by use of the first processor, status signals to a second program in the second electronic device used by a content producer based on the first instructions; providing, by use of the second program in the second electronic device, second instructions to a second processor in the second electronic device based on the status signals; and providing, by use of the second processor, suggestions to the content producer on how to update an audible or visible characteristic of the video stream or graphical user interface based on the second instructions ([0042]-[0044], Fig. 5, i.e., one or more core content providers 510 receive the one or more selection inputs 512 (or default inputs if specific inputs are not provided), and modify an audio-visual core portion using the one or more dynamic customization systems 512 to provide a dynamically customized audio-visual content 470 to a display 472 visible to one or more viewers 440, 442 in a viewing area 460).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing, by use of the first processor, status signals to a second program in the second electronic device used by a content producer based on the first instructions; providing, by use of the second program in the second electronic device, second instructions to a second processor in the second electronic device based on the status signals; and providing, by use of the second processor, suggestions to the content producer on how to update an audible or visible characteristic of the video stream or graphical user interface based on the second instructions as taught by Gates, to improve the video conferencing system of Shayne for the predictable result of dynamically tailoring content to provide a degree of accommodation.
Regarding claim 8, Shayne fails to explicitly disclose “collecting, by use of the first program, content consumer metadata corresponding to the content consumer prior to initiation of the video stream; sending, by use of the first program, second instructions based on the content consumer metadata to the first processor in the first electronic device; and updating, by use of the first processor, an audible or visible characteristic of the video stream or graphical user interface based on the second instructions.”
Gates teaches the technique of collecting, by use of the first program, content consumer metadata corresponding to the content consumer prior to initiation of the video stream; sending, by use of the first program, second instructions based on the content consumer metadata to the first processor in the first electronic device; and updating, by use of the first processor, an audible or visible characteristic of the video stream or graphical user interface based on the second instructions ([0129]-[0133], [0136]-[0137], Figs. 30-31, i.e., providing dynamically customized audio-visual content based on a viewing history).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of collecting, by use of the first program, content consumer metadata corresponding to the content consumer prior to initiation of the video stream; sending, by use of the first program, second instructions based on the content consumer metadata to the first processor in the first electronic device; and updating, by use of the first processor, an audible or visible characteristic of the video stream or graphical user interface based on the second instructions as taught by Gates, to improve the video conferencing system of Shayne for the predictable result of dynamically tailoring content to provide a degree of accommodation.
Regarding claim 9, Shayne fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the content consumer metadata is based on content consumer data collected and processed during previous video streams.”
Gates teaches the technique of providing wherein the content consumer metadata is based on content consumer data collected and processed during previous video streams ([0129]-[0133], [0136]-[0137], Figs. 30-31, i.e., providing dynamically customized audio-visual content based on a viewing history). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein the content consumer metadata is based on content consumer data collected and processed during previous video streams as taught by Gates, to improve the video conferencing system of Shayne for the predictable result of dynamically tailoring content to provide a degree of accommodation.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, Shayne fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the first camera device and the program are disposed within the first electronic device.”
Gates teaches the technique of providing wherein the first camera device and the program are disposed within the first electronic device ([0022], [0127], Figs. 1-3, i.e., sensor 150 may be a separate component or may alternately be integrated into the same component with the display 130 or the processing component 110, wherein sensor may be a Microsoft Kinect). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein the first camera device and the program are disposed within the first electronic device as taught by Gates, to improve the video conferencing system of Shayne for the predictable result of providing a compact design with a smaller form factor.
Regarding claim 19, Shayne fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the camera device is external to the electronic device and the program is disposed within the camera device.”
Gates teaches the technique of providing wherein the camera device is external to the electronic device and the program is disposed within the camera device ([0022], [0127], Figs. 1-3, i.e., sensor 150 may be a separate component or may alternately be integrated into the same component with the display 130 or the processing component 110, wherein sensor may be a Microsoft Kinect). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein the camera device is external to the electronic device and the program is disposed within the camera device as taught by Gates, to improve the video conferencing system of Shayne for the predictable result of providing a portable camera device that can be communicate and function with a plurality of electronic devices.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Q Huerta whose telephone number is (571)270-3582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/ALEXANDER Q HUERTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 July 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights