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 claim(s) 1,8 and 15 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 § 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1,4,6,8,11,13,15,18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tennoe et al (US 12204810) in view of Pell (US 20220060659) and Stahl et al. (EP 2672376) and further in view Henderson et al. (2024/0104877A1)
5 Claims 1, 8 and 15. Tennoe discloses a computer system and a processor-implemented method, the system and method comprising:
one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage media, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories (Figs. 1, 13, 14), wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method comprising:
receiving shared content during a screen sharing session (Abstract);
extracting topical elements within the received shared content (Abstract);
identifying a location of one or more objects and/or one or more text elements in the shared content (an area containing the visual object (or a different area on the screen), col. 3, lines 35-52); and
modifying a viewing area of the shared content on a display screen of the user device (replaces an area containing the visual object (or a different area on the screen) with second content, col. 3, lines 35-52).
Tennoe does not identifying one or more device characteristics for a user device associated with a user and one or more user profile characteristics for the user. However, Pell discloses identifying one or more user profile characteristics for a user ([0010]), and Stahl discloses one or more identifying one or more device characteristics for a user device associated with a user (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Pell's and Stahl's identifying features in the invention of Tennoe to improve presentations of display images in the user device.
Tonnoe, Pell, and Stahl do not teach: wherein the modifying comprises increasing a brightness level of the one or more objects and decreasing a brightness level of all other objects displayed in the shared content.
However, Henderson teaches See Paragraph (0717) FIG. 22J displays visual indication 2272a indicating that the shared environment has changed to a new environment, for example, as presented in a computer system 101b. In some embodiments, visual indication 2272a additionally or alternatively notifies the user of computer system 101a that changes in level of immersion of the shared content, a change in mode of the three dimensional environment, and/or changes to shared content, such as an initiation of display, ceasing, and/or one or more change to the characteristics of the shared content, such as brightness, position, and/or a simulated dimming affect, have been applied to the shared content and/or the shared three-dimensional environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Henderson’s identifying features in the combined invention of Tennoe, Pell and Stahl to improve presentations of display images in the user device.
Claims 4, 11 and 18. The combined references Tennoe, Pell, Stahl and Henderson discloses the location relates to pixel coordinates for one or more comers, perimeter locations, or a geographic center of an object or a series of text within the shared content as identified through one or more of optical character recognition, video image object detection, and image segmentation (Tennoe; col. 3, lines 35-52; col. 11) );
Claims 6, 13 and 20. The combined references Tennoe, Pell, Stahl and Henderson discloses capturing and storing user preferences either during or before the screen sharing session, wherein the user preferences are selected through a group consisting of preconfigured font size preference, preconfigured image size preference, speaker volume preferences, microphone volume preferences, topics and keywords of interest from historical communications, contrast settings, brightness settings, screen zoom settings, and image quality preference (Pell, [0009], [0068]).
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tennoe et al (US 12204810) in view of Pell (US 20220060659), Stahl et al. (EP 2672376) and Henderson et al. (2024/0104877A1)
as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Jones et al. (US 20110270609).
In regard to Claims 2, 9 and 16. The combined references Tennoe, Pell, Stahl and Henderson do not teach: integrating speech-to-text , but Jones discloses
integrating speech-to-text ([0005], [0182]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Jones' speech-to-text feature in the invention of the combined Tennoe, Pell, Stahl, Henderson and Jones to convert speech to texts for any users who need to read text.
In regard to Claims 3, 10 and 17. The combined references Tennoe, Pell, Stahl, Henderson and Jones discloses a type of the user device (Stahl, Abstract) and an available screen area (Jones, [0371]).See the rational of claim 1,8 and 15.
Claims 5, 12 and 19. The combined, Tennoe, Pell, Stahl, Henderson and Jones discloses the modification is selected from a group consisting of zooming into the location based on the type and the available screen area, adjusting one or more contrast settings, adjusting one or more volume settings, and adjusting one or more brightness settings (Pell, [0023], [0068]). See the rational of claim 1,8 and 15.
Claims 7 and 14. The combined Tennoe, Pell, Stahl, Henderson and Jones discloses the modification is specific to the location of the one or more objects and/or the one or more text elements (Tennoe, col. 3, lines 35-52 and Henderson Para. 0717). See the rational of claim 1,8 and 15.
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 TEMESGHEN GHEBRETINSAE whose telephone number is (571)272-3017. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4.00 p.m..
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, TEMESGHEN GHEBRETINSAE can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/TEMESGHEN GHEBRETINSAE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2626
3/11/26