DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-3, 12-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fieldman, U.S. Patent No. 11,562,657 (hereinafter Fieldman) in view of Bhaskaran, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0095398 (hereinafter Bhaskaran) and Anderson et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0205667 (hereinafter Anderson).
Regarding claim 1, Fieldman discloses a method of operating a web-based (from Figure 3A, goboard.com) video calling system, the method comprising:
detecting initiation (from Figure 3B, see 304 or 302) of a web calling session from a web calling client executing within a web browser on a user device, the web calling session comprising a user and one or more participants;
responsive to detecting the initiation of the web calling session, causing display of a first user interface (UI) comprising video feed (from Figure 4, see 323) from a digital image sensor of a camera of the user device;
detecting activation, by an additional participant, of an invitation to join the web calling session from the user (from Figure 22, see 622);
in response to detecting the activation, adding (from Figure 19,
see 415) the additional participant to the web calling session (from Figure 19, see 400) and facilitating messaging between the additional participant and the user (from Figure 19, see 410) via a chat panel (from Figure 46, see 858).
Further regarding claim 1, Fieldman does not teach automatically obscuring the video feed upon detecting that foreground focus, on a display of the user device, has been removed from the web calling client and has been replaced by a second UI. All the same, Bhaskaran discloses automatically obscuring the video feed (from Figure 5, see 54a) upon detecting that foreground focus, on a display (from Figure 5, see 51) of the user device, has been removed from the web calling client (from Figure 5, see 54) and has been replaced by a second UI (from Figure 5, see 52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fieldman with automatically obscuring the video feed upon detecting that foreground focus, on a display of the user device, has been removed from the web calling client and has been replaced by a second UI as taught by Bhaskaran. This modification would have improved efficiency by saving bandwidth as suggested by Bhaskaran.
Again on the issue of claim 1, the combination of Fieldman and Bhaskaran does not explicitly teach that the removal from the web calling client is for a predetermined period of time. All the same, Anderson discloses the removal from the web calling client is for a predetermined period of time (from paragraph 0056, see period). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Fieldman and Bhaskaran wherein the removal from the web calling client is for a predetermined period of time as taught by Anderson. This modification would have improved the system’s reliability by reducing false positives.
Regarding claim 2, Fieldman as modified by Bhaskaran discloses the obscuring of the video feed (from Figure 4 of Fieldman, see 323) includes altering visibility of the video feed using blurring (from Figure 5 of Fieldman, see 54a).
Regarding claim 3, Fieldman discloses the video feed is displayed in a preview mode (from Figure 4 of Fieldman, see 323) that allows users to adjust their appearance before joining the web calling session.
Regarding claim 12, Fieldman discloses a contacts panel within the UI that displays information identifying users available (from Figure 12, see Patrick, Poppy, Cayne and Jessica) for a video call.
Regarding claim 13, Fieldman discloses that initiating a video call session includes selecting a user from the contacts panel and activating a user-selectable element (from Figure 13, see Mute/Unmute) associated with the selected user.
Regarding claim 14, Fieldman discloses the web calling client supports multi-user video calls (from Figure 12, see Patrick, Poppy, Cayne and Jessica), allowing simultaneous video feeds from multiple user devices.
Regarding claim 15, Fieldman discloses providing real-time notifications (from abstract, see real-time status updates) to the user regarding changes in a video call status or actions taken by other participants in the video.
Regarding claim 16, Fieldman discloses the system is configured to allow sharing of screen content (from Figure 50, see 876) among participants during a video call.
Regarding claim 17, Fieldman discloses a system (from Figure 56, see 900) comprising:
one or more processors (from Figure 56, see 902); and
memory (from Figure 56, see MEMORY) storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause to system to perform operation comprising:
detecting initiation (from Figure 3B, see 304 or 302) of a web calling session from a web calling client executing within a web browser on a user device, the web calling session comprising a user and one or more participants;
responsive to detecting the initiation of the web calling session, causing display of a first user interface (UI) comprising video feed (from Figure 4, see 323) from a digital image sensor of a camera of the user device;
detecting activation, by an additional participant, of an invitation to join the web calling session from the user (from Figure 22, see 622);
in response to detecting the activation, adding (from Figure 19, see 415) the additional participant to the web calling session (from Figure 19, see 400) and facilitating messaging between the additional participant and the user (from Figure 19, see 410) via a chat panel (from Figure 46, see 858).
Further regarding claim 17, Fieldman does not teach automatically obscuring the video feed upon detecting that foreground focus, on a display of the user device, has been removed from the web calling client and has been replaced by a second UI. All the same, Bhaskaran discloses automatically obscuring the video feed (from Figure 5, see 54a) upon detecting that foreground focus, on a display (from Figure 5, see 51) of the user device, has been removed from the web calling client (from Figure 5, see 54) and has been replaced by a second UI (from Figure 5, see 52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fieldman with automatically obscuring the video feed upon detecting that foreground focus, on a display of the user device, has been removed from the web calling client and has been replaced by a second UI as taught by Bhaskaran. This modification would have improved efficiency by saving bandwidth as suggested by Bhaskaran.
Again on the issue of claim 17, the combination of Fieldman and Bhaskaran does not explicitly teach that the removal from the web calling client is for a predetermined period of time. All the same, Anderson discloses the removal from the web calling client is for a predetermined period of time (from paragraph 0056, see period). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Fieldman and Bhaskaran wherein the removal from the web calling client is for a predetermined period of time as taught by Anderson. This modification would have improved the system’s reliability by reducing false positives.
Regarding claim 18, Fieldman discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (from Figure 56, see 922) having instructions stored thereon, which when executed by one or more processors of a web-based video calling system, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
detecting initiation (from Figure 3B, see 304 or 302) of a web calling session from a web calling client executing within a web browser on a user device, the web calling session comprising a user and one more participants;
responsive to detecting the initiation of the web calling session, causing display of a first user interface (UI) comprising video feed (from Figure 4, see 323) from a digital image sensor of a camera of the user device
detecting activation, by an additional participant, of an invitation to join the web calling session from the user (from Figure 22, see 622);
in response to detecting the activation, adding (from Figure 19,
see 415) the additional participant to the web calling session (from Figure 19, see 400) and facilitating messaging between the additional participant and the user (from Figure 19, see 410) via a chat panel (from Figure 46, see 858).
Further regarding claim 18, Fieldman does not teach automatically obscuring the video feed upon detecting that foreground focus, on a display of the user device, has been removed from the web calling client and has been replaced by a second UI. All the same, Bhaskaran discloses automatically obscuring the video feed (from Figure 5, see 54a) upon detecting that foreground focus, on a display (from Figure 5, see 51) of the user device, has been removed from the web calling client (from Figure 5, see 54) and has been replaced by a second UI (from Figure 5, see 52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fieldman with automatically obscuring the video feed upon detecting that foreground focus, on a display of the user device, has been removed from the web calling client and has been replaced by a second UI as taught by Bhaskaran. This modification would have improved efficiency by saving bandwidth as suggested by Bhaskaran.
Again on the issue of claim 18, the combination of Fieldman and Bhaskaran does not explicitly teach that the removal from the web calling client is for a predetermined period of time. All the same, Anderson discloses the removal from the web calling client is for a predetermined period of time (from paragraph 0056, see period). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Fieldman and Bhaskaran wherein the removal from the web calling client is for a predetermined period of time as taught by Anderson. This modification would have improved the system’s reliability by reducing false positives.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Fieldman and Bhaskaran discloses un-obscuring the video feed upon detecting the foreground focus, on the display of the user device, has been restored to the web calling client; and automatically obscuring the video feed upon detecting user inactivity (from paragraph 0038 of Bhaskaran, see The monitoring of the static and dynamic properties of client 13, e.g., laptop 13c and the resulting defocusing of select data being sent to, or decoded by, the client 13 continues during network session. That is, the data that is defocused changes in real-time as the monitoring reveals changed circumstances on the client 13).
Regarding claim 21, Fieldman discloses the additional participant is a chat participant (from Figure 46, see 858) not actively participating in the web calling session.
3. Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fieldman combined with Bhaskaran and Anderson in further view of Balaji et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0007189 (hereinafter Balaji).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of base references does not teach integrating augmented reality (AR) components into the UI that allow for real-time modification of the video feed based on user input. All the same, Balaji discloses integrating augmented reality (AR) components into the UI that allow for real-time modification of the video feed based on user input (from paragraph 0070, see a selection by the participant of a video effects option). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of base references with integrating augmented reality (AR) components into the UI that allow for real-time modification of the video feed based on user input as taught by Balaji. This modification would have improved the system’s flexibility by addressing monotony as suggested by Balaji.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of base references as modified by Balaji discloses that the AR components include at least one of overlays of images, animations, or three-dimensional effects (from paragraph 0082 of Balaji, see Three-dimensional object modeling).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of base references as modified by Balaji discloses presentation of the augmented reality components is caused responsive to detection of a user action with respect to the video feed (from paragraph 0070 of Balaji, see a selection by the participant of a video effects option).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of base references as modified by Balaji discloses the user action is a hover (from paragraph 0070 of Balaji, see hovering) action with respect to a video feed area.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of base references as modified by Balaji discloses the AR component comprises a collection (from abstract of Balaji, see variety) of assets to apply a selected augmented reality experience to an image or a video feed.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of base references as modified by Balaji discloses that the AR components comprise image processing operations corresponding to at least one of an image modification, filter (from paragraph 0008, see filter), media overlay, or transformation.
4. Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fieldman combined with Bhaskaran and Anderson in further view of Trocki, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0042332 (hereinafter Trocki).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of base references does not teach that the web calling client is a Progressive Web Application (PWA) that is installable on the user device. All the same, Trocki discloses that the web calling client is a Progressive Web Application (PWA) that is installable on the user device (from abstract, see PWA). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of base references wherein the web calling client is a Progressive Web Application (PWA) that is installable on the user device as taught by Trocki. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by allowing the application to be accessed by different operating systems as suggested by Trocki (see paragraph 0003).
5. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fieldman combined with Bhaskaran and Anderson in further view of Wolf et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0165964 (hereinafter Wolf).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of references does not clearly teach adapting the UI based on predefined conditions to maintain privacy further comprises obscuring conversation information with a chat panel of the web calling client while maintaining the chat panel in response to detecting that foreground focus, on the display of the user device, has been removed from the web calling client. All the same, Wolf discloses adapting the UI based on predefined conditions to maintain privacy further comprises obscuring information with a panel of the web calling client while maintaining the chat panel in response to detecting that foreground focus, on the display of the user device, has been removed from the web calling client (from paragraph 0018, see Text within a selected portion could be blurred while the remainder of the selected portion is in focus). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of references with adapting the UI based on predefined conditions to maintain privacy further comprises obscuring information with a panel of the web calling client while maintaining the chat panel in response to detecting that foreground focus, on the display of the user device, has been removed from the web calling client as taught by Wolf. This modification would have improved concentration by reducing fatigue, eye strain and headaches as suggested by Wolf.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant argues there is no disclosure in any of the cited references of detecting activation, by an additional participant, of an invitation to join the web calling session from the user and in response to detecting the activation, adding the additional participant to the web calling session and facilitating messaging between the additional participant and the user via a chat panel. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Because Fieldman discloses a new student requests to join (from Figure 22, see 622) and a Professor Chat (from Figure 46, see 858), Fieldman discloses detecting activation, by an additional participant, of an invitation to join the web calling session from the user and in response to detecting the activation, adding the additional participant to the web calling session and facilitating messaging between the additional participant and the user via a chat panel.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLISA ANWAH whose telephone number is 571-272-7533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8.30 AM to 6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on 571-270-7136. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2600.
Olisa Anwah
Patent Examiner
June 29, 2026
/OLISA ANWAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights