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 the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4-9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmaniemi (US Pub. No. 2008/0160977) in view of Muthukrishnan (WO-2021091775) and Casas (US Pub. No. 2021/0144021).
Regarding claim 1, Ahmaniemi shows a remote conference system in which at least three terminals are communicably connected and which distribute speeches received by these terminals to other terminals (see Figs. 3-4 and [0023]-[0025]), comprising a hardware-processor (at least implicitly disclosed as a necessary component of a computer-implemented system), wherein
the hardware-processor:
automatically selects a first terminal, a second terminal, and a third terminal among the at least three terminals based on a specific positional relationship among the at least three terminals (e.g., grouping a first and second local terminal together based on proximity detected via GPS, network location, Bluetooth, etc., while excluding a third remote terminal from the group: see Figs. 2B and 3, [0023]-[0024], and [0026]-[0028]),
in regard to a speech of the first terminal, controls distribution of the speech to a terminal or reproduction of the speech by a terminal such that a sound of reproduction by the second terminal is suppressed compared to a sound of reproduction by the third terminal (excluding or subtracting audio between the grouped local proximate terminals in the conference, while maintaining the audio for the third remote terminal in the conference: see Figs. 4, 6; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] and [0032]).
Ahmaniemi further shows selecting terminals in accordance with a user’s selection (e.g., “Other methods of determining terminal location may also be used including manual entry by a user of the terminal’s location and/or analysis of the terminal’s network address”: see [0034], emphasis added) does not explicitly show in a single embodiment the claimed two-step selection process including wherein the hardware-processor:
displays a list including the first terminal, the second terminal, and the third terminal in a selectable manner.
Muthukrishnan shows wherein a hardware-processor:
automatically selects a first terminal, a second terminal, and a third terminal among at least three terminals based on a specific relative positional relationship among the at least three terminals (e.g., identifying candidate proximate devices based on physical proximity as determined by network connections, acoustic signals, Bluetooth, etc.: see [0043], [0045]-[0046]);
displays a list including the first terminal, the second terminal, and the third terminal in a selectable manner (see Fig. 3C and [0051]-[0052]); and
selects the first terminal and the second terminal in accordance with a user’s selection (see Fig. 3C and [0052] and note that “multiple target device selection UI controls may be concurrently selected”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ahmaniemi with the teaching of Muthukrishnan in order to provide an intuitive user interface for Ahmaniemi’s existing manual entry while also making the process less cumbersome for the users by narrowing down proximate device candidates based on location.
Ahmaniemi in view of Muthukrishnan does not explicitly show:
that the sound volume level of reproduction is suppressed to be lower than a sound volume level of reproduction by a third terminal (rather, Ahmaniemi suppresses the sound entirely and does not reproduce it at all).
Casas shows:
suppressing a sound volume level of reproduction by a second terminal such that a sound volume reproduction by a second terminal among at least three terminals is lower than the sound volume of level of reproduction by a third terminal (including reducing the volume of a speaker or reducing the gain on a microphone to lower the volume of nearby participants rather than muting them entirely: see [0030], [0035]-[0036], [0042], [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Ahmaniemi with the teachings of Casas in order to keep proximate participants apprised of the conference audio while still reducing feedback.
Regarding claim 4, the combination shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the hardware-processor does not distribute a speech of the first terminal to the second terminal or does not cause the second terminal to reproduce the speech, but distributes the speech of the first terminal to the third terminal or causes the third terminal to reproduce the speech (see Ahmaniemi, Figs. 3 and 6; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] and [0032]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the hardware-processor distributes a speech of the first terminal to the third terminal or causes the third terminal to reproduce the speech, and distributes the speech of the first terminal to the second terminal with a sound volume level lower than a sound volume level of the speech distributed to the third terminal or causes the second terminal to reproduce the speech of the first terminal at a sound volume level lower than a sound volume level at which the third terminal reproduces the speech (see Ahmaniemi, Figs. 3 and 6; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] and [0032]; see also Casas, [0030], [0035]-[0036], [0042], [0053], as combined above).
Regarding claim 6, the combination shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the hardware-processor does not distribute a speech of the second terminal to another terminal or does not cause the another terminal to reproduce the speech (see Ahmaniemi, Figs. 3 and 6; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] and [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows a server communicably connected to the at least three terminals, wherein the server includes the hardware-processor (e.g., a conference switch: see Ahmaniemi, Fig. 2B, [0021]-[0023], [0025]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above but does not explicitly show wherein each of the at least three terminals includes the hardware-processor.
Casas shows wherein each of at least three terminals include a hardware-processor that controls distribution of speech (e.g., where participant terminals 110, 112, 114 identify audio groups and make corrective modifications: see [0030], [0035]-[0036], [0042], [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Ahmaniemi with the additional teachings of Casas in order to reduce the processing burden on the conferencing switch.
Regarding claim 9, Ahmaniemi shows non-transitory computer readable recording medium encoded with a remote conference program executed by a computer to which at least three terminals are communicably connected (e.g., a conference switch: see, Fig. 2B, [0021]-[0023], [0025]), the remote conference program causes the computer to execute:
automatically selecting a first terminal, a second terminal, and a third terminal among the at least three terminals based on a specific positional relationship among the at least three terminals (e.g., grouping a first and second local terminal together based on proximity detected via GPS, network location, Bluetooth, etc., while excluding a third remote terminal from the group: see Figs. 2B and 3, [0023]-[0024], and [0026]-[0028]),
distributing speeches respectively received by the at least three terminals to other terminal (see Figs. 2B and 3, [0023]-[0024], and [0026]-[0028]), wherein
the distributing, in a case in which a speech of the first terminal is distributed, includes suppressing a sound of reproduction by the second terminal such that the sound of reproduction is suppressed compared to a sound of reproduction by the third terminal (excluding or subtracting audio between the grouped local proximate terminals in the conference, while maintaining the audio for the third remote terminal in the conference: see Figs. 4, 6; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] and [0032]).
Ahmaniemi further shows selecting terminals in accordance with a user’s selection (e.g., “Other methods of determining terminal location may also be used including manual entry by a user of the terminal’s location and/or analysis of the terminal’s network address”: see [0034], emphasis added) does not explicitly show in a single embodiment the claimed two-step selection process including:
displaying a list including the first terminal, the second terminal, and the third terminal in a selectable manner.
Muthukrishnan shows:
automatically selecting a first terminal, a second terminal, and a third terminal among at least three terminals based on a specific relative positional relationship among the at least three terminals (e.g., identifying candidate proximate devices based on physical proximity as determined by network connections, acoustic signals, Bluetooth, etc.: see [0043], [0045]-[0046]);
displaying a list including the first terminal, the second terminal, and the third terminal in a selectable manner (see Fig. 3C and [0051]-[0052]); and
selecting the first terminal and the second terminal in accordance with a user’s selection (see Fig. 3C and [0052] and note that “multiple target device selection UI controls may be concurrently selected”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ahmaniemi with the teaching of Muthukrishnan in order to provide an intuitive user interface for Ahmaniemi’s existing manual entry while also making the process less cumbersome for the users by narrowing down proximate device candidates based on location.
Ahmaniemi in view of Muthukrishnan does not explicitly show:
that the sound volume level of reproduction is suppressed to be lower than a sound volume level of reproduction by a third terminal (rather, Ahmaniemi suppresses the sound entirely and does not reproduce it at all).
Casas shows:
suppressing a sound volume level of reproduction by a second terminal such that a sound volume reproduction by a second terminal among at least three terminals is lower than the sound volume of level of reproduction by a third terminal (including reducing the volume of a speaker or reducing the gain on a microphone to lower the volume of nearby participants rather than muting them entirely: see [0030], [0035]-[0036], [0042], [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Ahmaniemi with the teachings of Casas in order to keep proximate participants apprised of the conference audio while still reducing feedback.
Regarding claim 12, the combination shows the limitations of claim 9 as applied above and further shows wherein the remote conference program further causes the computer to execute a step of prohibiting a speech of the first terminal from being distributed to the second terminal or causing the second terminal not to reproduce the speech, but distributing the speech of the first terminal to the third terminal or causing the third terminal to reproduce the speech (see Ahmaniemi, Figs. 3 and 6; paragraphs [0023]-[0024], [0032], [0037]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination shows the limitations of claim 9 as applied above and further shows wherein the remote conference program further causes the computer to execute a step of distributing a speech of the first terminal to the third terminal or causing the third terminal to reproduce the speech, and distributing the speech of the first terminal to the second terminal with a sound volume level lower than a sound volume level of the speech distributed to the third terminal or causing the second terminal to reproduce the speech of the first terminal at a sound volume level lower than a sound volume level at which the third terminal reproduces the speech (see Ahmaniemi, Figs. 3 and 6; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] and [0032]; see also Casas, [0030], [0035]-[0036], [0042], [0053], as combined above).
Regarding claim 14, the combination shows the limitations of claim 9 as applied above and further shows wherein the remote conference program further causes the computer to execute a step of prohibiting a speech of the second terminal from being distributed to another terminal or causing the another terminal not to reproduce the speech (see Ahmaniemi, Figs. 3 and 6; paragraphs [0023]-[0024], [0032], [0037]).
Regarding claim 15, Ahmaniemi shows a non-transitory computer readable recording medium encoded with a remote conference program executed by a computer, and further shows controlling a terminal communicably connected to at least two terminals which are a first terminal and a second terminal (see Figs. 3-4 and [0023]-[0025]), the remote conference program causing the computer to execute:
automatically selecting the first terminal and the second terminal based on a specific relative positional relationship among the first terminal, the second terminal, and the computer (e.g., grouping a first and second local terminal together based on proximity detected via GPS, network location, Bluetooth, etc., while excluding a third remote terminal from the group: see Figs. 2B and 3, [0023]-[0024], and [0026]-[0028]),
distributing a received speech to the first terminal and the second terminal (see Figs. 2B and 3, [0023]-[0024], and [0026]-[0028]); and
reproducing a speech distributed from any one of the first terminal and the second terminal, wherein the reproducing includes suppressing a sound of reproduction of a speech distributed from the first terminal such that the sound is suppressed relative to a sound of reproduction of a speech distributed from the second terminal (excluding or subtracting audio between the grouped local proximate terminals in the conference, while maintaining the audio for the third remote terminal in the conference: see Figs. 4, 6; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] and [0032]).
Ahmaniemi further shows selecting terminals in accordance with a user’s selection (e.g., “Other methods of determining terminal location may also be used including manual entry by a user of the terminal’s location and/or analysis of the terminal’s network address”: see [0034], emphasis added) does not explicitly show in a single embodiment the claimed two-step selection process including:
displaying a list including the first terminal and the second terminal in a selectable manner.
Muthukrishnan shows:
automatically selecting a first terminal, a second terminal, and a third terminal among at least three terminals based on a specific relative positional relationship among the at least three terminals (e.g., identifying candidate proximate devices based on physical proximity as determined by network connections, acoustic signals, Bluetooth, etc.: see [0043], [0045]-[0046]);
displaying a list including the first terminal and the second terminal in a selectable manner (see Fig. 3C and [0051]-[0052]); and
selecting the first terminal and the second terminal in accordance with a user’s selection (see Fig. 3C and [0052] and note that “multiple target device selection UI controls may be concurrently selected”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ahmaniemi with the teaching of Muthukrishnan in order to provide an intuitive user interface for Ahmaniemi’s existing manual entry while also making the process less cumbersome for the users by narrowing down proximate device candidates based on location.
Ahmaniemi in view of Muthukrishnan does not explicitly show:
that the conference program is executed by a computer controlling a terminal; and
that the sound volume level of reproduction is suppressed to be lower than a sound volume level of reproduction by a third terminal (rather, Ahmaniemi suppresses the sound entirely and does not reproduce it at all).
Casas shows:
a conference program executed by a computer controlling a terminal (e.g., where participant terminals 110, 112, 114 identify audio groups and make corrective modifications: see [0030], [0035]-[0036], [0042], [0053]); and
suppressing a sound volume level of reproduction by a second terminal such that a sound volume reproduction by a second terminal among at least three terminals is lower than the sound volume of level of reproduction by a third terminal (including reducing the volume of a speaker or reducing the gain on a microphone to lower the volume of nearby participants rather than muting them entirely: see [0030], [0035]-[0036], [0042], [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Ahmaniemi with the teachings of Casas in order to reduce the processing burden on the conferencing switch and keep proximate participants apprised of the conference audio while still reducing feedback.
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmaniemi (US Pub. No. 2008/0160977) in view of Muthukrishnan (WO-2021091775).
Regarding claim 18, Ahmaniemi shows method for controlling a remote conference system (see Figs. 3-4 and [0023]-[0025]) comprising:
extracting terminals having a specific relative positional relationship among a plurality of terminals connected to the remote conference (e.g., grouping a first and second local terminal together based on proximity detected via GPS, network location, Bluetooth, etc., while excluding a third remote terminal from the group: see Figs. 2B and 3, [0023]-[0024], and [0026]-[0028]); and
in the remote conference, reproducing the audio of selected terminals in a manner different from the audio of other terminals (excluding or subtracting audio between the grouped local proximate terminals in the conference, while maintaining the audio for the third remote terminal in the conference: see Figs. 4, 6; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] and [0032]).
Ahmaniemi further shows selecting terminals (e.g., “Other methods of determining terminal location may also be used including manual entry by a user of the terminal’s location and/or analysis of the terminal’s network address”: see [0034], emphasis added) does not explicitly show in a single embodiment the claimed two-step selection process including:
displaying the extracted terminals in a selectable manner;
Muthukrishnan shows:
extracting terminals having a specific relative positional relationship among a plurality of terminals (e.g., identifying candidate proximate devices based on physical proximity as determined by network connections, acoustic signals, Bluetooth, etc.: see [0043], [0045]-[0046]);
displaying the extracted terminals in a selectable manner (see Fig. 3C and [0052] and note that “multiple target device selection UI controls may be concurrently selected”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ahmaniemi with the teaching of Muthukrishnan in order to provide an intuitive user interface for Ahmaniemi’s existing manual entry while also making the process less cumbersome for the users by narrowing down proximate device candidates based on location.
Regarding claim 19, the combination shows the limitations of claim 18 as applied above and further shows wherein the audio of the selected terminals is not reproduced, thereby reproducing the audio in a different manner from the other terminals (excluding or subtracting audio between the grouped local proximate terminals in the conference, while maintaining the audio for the third remote terminal in the conference: see Ahmaniemi, Figs. 4, 6; paragraphs [0023]-[0024] and [0032]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination shows the limitations of claim 18 as applied above and further shows wherein the extracted terminals are displayed in a list format that allows selection on each terminal (see, as combined above, Muthukrishnan, Fig. 3C and [0052] and note that “multiple target device selection UI controls may be concurrently selected”).
Regarding claim 21, the combination shows the limitations of claim 18 as applied above and further shows wherein the specific relative positional relationship is determined based on information from short-range wireless communication (e.g., Bluetooth,: see Ahmaniemi, [0026]; see also, as combined above, Muthukrishnan [0046]).
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 Christopher D. Biagini whose telephone number is (571)272-9743. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 9 AM - 5 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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
Christopher D. Biagini
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Christopher Biagini/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445