Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/721,437

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUGMENTED VIEWS IN AN ONLINE MEETING

Non-Final OA §102§103§DP
Filed
Jun 18, 2024
Examiner
VAUGHN JR, WILLIAM C
Art Unit
2481
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Canon U S A Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
21%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 21% of cases
21%
Career Allow Rate
9 granted / 42 resolved
-36.6% vs TC avg
Strong +57% interview lift
Without
With
+56.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
57
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.0%
-33.0% vs TC avg
§103
53.1%
+13.1% vs TC avg
§102
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§112
8.2%
-31.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 42 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §DP
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 . Status of Claims This Office Action is in response to the application filed on June 18, 2024. Claims 1-10 are pending in the application. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement (IIDS) submitted on June 18, 2024 filed in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, it has been considered by the examiner. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12 and 14-17 of copending Application No. 18/268,905. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Instant Application No: 18/721,437 Exemplary Claim 1 Co-pending Application No. 18/268,905 Claim 1 Claim 1: An apparatus configured to connect to a first server, the apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and Claim 1: A server for a remote meeting conducted between a plurality of clients connected via a network, the server comprising: one or more processors: and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed, configures the one or more processors, to: one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed, configures the one or more processors, to: receive a first video stream of a captured image captured by a first camera connected to the first server; and receive a second video stream of a part of the captured image captured by the first camera, wherein a participant ID is assigned to the first video stream and a virtual participant ID is assigned to the second video stream obtain a video stream from a predetermined camera positioned to capture a field of view at a physical location; specify, from the obtained video stream, one or more partial video streams representing objects from with the obtained video; store, in the one more memories, each of the obtained video stream and the specified one or more partial video streams in association with respective virtual participant ID information, join each of the respective virtual participant ID information to a virtual meeting session, the virtual meeting session including a virtual meeting identifier which associated with an online meeting session which controls an online meeting between the server and one or more client devices located remotely from the physical location, wherein the virtual meeting session is different than the online meeting session; and transmit, to the one or more clients join to and participating in the online meeting session, a link to the virtual meeting identifier and the respective virtual participant ID information associated with the virtual meeting identifier, the line enabling access, by each of the respective client devices, to the respective associated virtual participant ID information for each of the one or more of the obtained video stream and the one or more partial video streams representing objects from within the obtained video stream to generate a display on a respective client device associated with the user id information and the video associated with the virtual user id information. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Murata, US PGPUB 20240064271 A1. Regarding claim 1, Murata discloses an apparatus configured to connect to a first server (Abstract, 0004), the apparatus comprising: one or more processors (Murata, 0009); and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed, configures the one or more processors, (see Murata, 0009) to: receive a first video stream of a captured image captured by a first camera connected to the first server (see Murata, 0037-0039); and receive a second video stream of a part of the captured image captured by the first camera (see Murata, 0052); wherein a participant ID is assigned to the first video stream and a virtual participant ID is assigned to the second video stream (see Murata, Table 1 and 2, 0052). Regarding claim 2, Murata discloses the apparatus according to the claim 1, wherein the apparatus further configured to connect to a second server (see Murata, 0044-0045); wherein the instructions, when executed, configures the one or more processors, to: receive a third video stream of a captured image captured by a second camera connected to the second server (see Murata, 0032); and receive a fourth video stream of a part of the captured image captured by the second camera (see Murata, 0032, 0044-0046, Table 1 and Table 2); wherein a participant ID is assigned to the third video stream and a virtual participant ID is assigned to the fourth video stream (see Murata, 0032, 0044-0046, Table 1 and Table 2). Regarding claim 3, Murata discloses the apparatus according to the claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, configures the one or more processors (see rejection of claim 1), to: set a meeting session, wherein the first video stream is sent, via the meeting session, from the first server to the apparatus (see Murata. 0035); and set a virtual meeting session, wherein the second video stream is sent, via the virtual meeting session, from the first server to the apparatus (see Murata, 0044-0048). Regarding claim 4, Murata discloses the apparatus according to the claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed, configures the one or more processors (see rejection of claim 1), to: set a meeting session, wherein the first video stream is sent, via the meeting session, from the first server to the apparatus (inherent); receive, from the second server, a connection request (inherent to the invention); set a meeting session with the second server and a virtual meeting session with the second server, in a case where a connection is permitted in response to the connection request, wherein the third video stream is sent via the meeting session and the fourth video stream is sent via the virtual meeting session (inherent feature). Regarding claim 5. Murata discloses the apparatus according to the claim 4, wherein the instructions, when executed, configures the one or more processors (see rejection of claim 1), to: forward the received connection request to the first server, wherein the meeting session with the second server and a virtual meeting session with the second server are set, in a case where a connection is permitted by the first server in response to the connection request (see Murata, 0044-47). Claim 6-10 list all the same elements of claims 1-5, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-5 applies equally as well to claims 6-10. 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 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) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (Yang) EP 3585050 A1 in view of Desai, US PGPUB 20160134835. Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Yang discloses an apparatus configured to connect to a first server, the apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed, configures the one or more processors, to: receive a first video stream of a captured image captured by a first camera connected to the first server (see Yang, Fig. 4, Col. 23, lines 16-36). However, Yang does not explicitly disclose and receive a second video stream of a part of the captured image captured by the first camera; wherein a participant ID is assigned to the first video stream and a virtual participant ID is assigned to the second video stream. In the same field of endeavor, Desai discloses and receive a second video stream of a part of the captured image captured by the first camera; wherein a participant ID is assigned to the first video stream and a virtual participant ID is assigned to the second video stream (see Desai, 0047, Fig.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the teachings of Desai into the teachings of Yang for the purpose utilizing a processor for video content streaming, communicating, sharing and controlling video feeds with different devices that capture video feeds (see Desai, 0009). The motivation to combine that was utilized in claim 1, applies equally as well to claims 2 and 3. Regarding claim 2, Yang-Desai discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Yang-Desai discloses the apparatus according to the claim 1, wherein the apparatus further configured to connect to a second server; wherein the instructions, when executed, configures the one or more processors, to: receive a third video stream of a captured image captured by a second camera connected to the second server; and receive a fourth video stream of a part of the captured image captured by the second camera; wherein a participant ID is assigned to the third video stream and a virtual participant ID is assigned to the fourth video stream (see). Regarding claim 3, Yang-Desai discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Yang discloses the apparatus according to the claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, configures the one or more processors (see rejection of claim 1), to: set a meeting session, wherein the first video stream is sent, via the meeting session, from the first server to the apparatus; and set a virtual meeting session, wherein the second video stream is sent, via the virtual meeting session, from the first server to the apparatus (see Yang, Co. 4, lines 29-40., Col. 6, lines 53-58 and Col. 7, lines 1-58 and Col. 8). Claim 6-8 list all the same elements of claims 1-3, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-3 applies equally as well to claims 6-8. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang-Desai as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Galloway et al. (Galloway), US PBPUB 20200045264 A1. Regarding claim 4, Yang-Desai discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Yang-Desai discloses the apparatus according to the claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed, configures the one or more processors (see rejection of claim 1), to: set a meeting session, wherein the first video stream is sent, via the meeting session, from the first server to the apparatus (see rejection of claim 1). However, Yang-Desai does not explicitly discloses receive, from the second server, a connection request; set a meeting session with the second server and a virtual meeting session with the second server, in a case where a connection is permitted in response to the connection request, wherein the third video stream is sent via the meeting session and the fourth video stream is sent via the virtual meeting session. In the same field of endeavor, Galloway discloses receive, from the second server, a connection request; set a meeting session with the second server and a virtual meeting session with the second server, in a case where a connection is permitted in response to the connection request, wherein the third video stream is sent via the meeting session and the fourth video stream is sent via the virtual meeting session (Galloway, Fig. 9, Col. 12, claim 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the teachings Galloway with the teachings of Yang-Desai for the purpose not wasting resources such as memory during the initiation of a session (see Galloway, 0002). Regarding claim 5, Yang-Desai and Galloway discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Yang-Desai and Galloway discloses the apparatus according to the claim 4, wherein the instructions, when executed, configures the one or more processors (see rejection of claim 1), to: forward the received connection request to the first server, wherein the meeting session with the second server and a virtual meeting session with the second server are set, in a case where a connection is permitted by the first server in response to the connection request (see Galloway, Fig. 9, Col. 12, claim 16). Claim 9 and 10 list all the same elements of claims 4 and 5, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 4 and 5 applies equally as well to claims 9 and 10. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm. 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, Amy Johnson can be reached at 571-272-2238. 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. /WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 18, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587629
AUGMENTED SUPERSTEREOSCOPIC DISPLAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12537976
MOTION-COMPENSATED COMPRESSION OF DYNAMIC VOXELIZED POINT CLOUDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12469061
DUAL-CAMERA APPARATUS FOR DERIVING DIMENSIONAL MEASUREMENTS AND METHOD OF PERSONALIZING LENS SELECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
Patent 12470703
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DERIVING INTRA PREDICTION MODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
Patent 8958474
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EFFECTIVELY ENCODING AND DECODING A WIDE-AREA NETWORK BASED REMOTE PRESENTATION SESSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2015
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
21%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+56.6%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 42 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month