DETAILED ACTION1.
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
2. 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldman et al (Pub. No. US 2019/0306541 A1; hereinafter Goldman) in view of Yarosh et al (Pub. No. US 2014/0313277 A1; hereinafter Yarosh)
Consider claim 1, Goldman clearly shows and discloses a videoconferencing device comprising: an elongated housing comprising a first end and a second end opposite of the first end (the telepresence terminal may further comprise a microphone assembly including a first microphone positioned on a first side of the display and a second microphone positioned on a second side of the display;) (paragraphs: 0009); a microphone array (a telepresence terminal includes a display that has a microlens array disposed in front of a grid of pixels) (paragraphs: 0004 and 0009); one or more loudspeakers (a speaker assembly including a first speaker positioned on the first side of the display and a second speaker positioned on the second side of the display) (paragraphs: 0009); and a plurality of cameras, wherein at least one camera of the plurality of cameras is disposed at the first end of the housing and at least another camera of the plurality of cameras is disposed at the second end of the housing (fig. 3B show three camera units 182 disposed proximate to display 125, other implementations may include more or fewer camera units 182. In addition, while the implementations shown in FIGS. 3A and 3Bdepict camera units 182 of camera assembly 180 at fixed locations, camera units 182 may be adjustable) (paragraphs: 0052-0054 and fig. 3A-fig. 3B); however, Goldman does not disclose for a plurality of cameras (more than three cameras), wherein at least one camera of the plurality of cameras is disposed at the first end of the housing and at least another camera of the plurality of cameras is disposed at the second end of the housing.
In the same field of endeavor, Yarosh clearly specifically discloses a plurality of cameras (more than three cameras), wherein at least one camera of the plurality of cameras is disposed at the first end of the housing and at least another camera of the plurality of cameras is disposed at the second end of the housing (abstract, paragraphs: 0055-0056, and fig. 6, labels: 608a for first end of the housing, 608c for right cameras for the second end of the housing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Yarosh into teaching of Goldman for the purpose of using a plurality of cameras (more than three cameras).
Consider claim 2, Goldman and Yarosh clearly show the videoconferencing device, wherein the plurality of cameras comprises a first pair of substantially identical cameras; wherein a first camera of the first pair of cameras is disposed at the first end of the housing and a second camera of the first pair of cameras is disposed at the second end of the housing; and wherein the first camera and the second camera of the first pair of cameras are positioned symmetrically relative to each other and relative to a plane positioned substantially equidistant from the first and second ends of the housing (Yarosh: paragraphs: 0055-0056, and fig. 6, labels: 608a and 608c).
Consider claim 3, Goldman and Yarosh clearly show the videoconferencing device, wherein the plurality of cameras further comprises a second pair of substantially identical cameras; wherein a first camera of the second pair of cameras is disposed at the first end of the housing and a second camera of the second pair of cameras is disposed at the second end of the housing; wherein the first camera and the second camera of the second pair of cameras are positioned symmetrically relative to each other and relative to the plane positioned substantially equidistant from the first and second ends of the housing; and wherein the second pair of cameras differs from the first pair of cameras in at least one of: viewing angle, look direction, pixel density, focal length, optical zoom capability, and electromechanical actuation (Yarosh: paragraphs: 0019, 0023, 0026, 0038 and fig. 1, fig. 3, fig. 5B).
Consider claim 4, Goldman and Yarosh clearly show the videoconferencing device, wherein a look direction of the first camera of the first pair of cameras intersects with a look direction of the second camera of the first pair of cameras (Goldman: fig. 7A; Yarosh: paragraphs: 0020-0021, 0023, and 0032).
Consider claim 5, Goldman and Yarosh clearly show the videoconferencing device, wherein the look direction of the first camera of the first pair of cameras and the look direction of the second camera of the first pair of cameras intersect in front of the videoconferencing device and between the first and second cameras of the first pair of cameras (Goldman: fig. 7A- fig. 7B; Yarosh: paragraphs: 0020-0021, 0023, and 0032).
Consider claim 6, Goldman and Yarosh clearly show the videoconferencing device, wherein a look direction of the first camera of the first pair of cameras intersects with a look direction of the second camera of the first pair of cameras (Goldman: fig. 7A- fig. 7B; Yarosh: paragraphs: 0020-0021, 0023, and 0032).
Consider claim 7, Desserrey and Li clearly show the method, wherein the look direction of the first camera of the first pair of cameras and the look direction of the second camera of the first pair of cameras intersect in front of the videoconferencing device and between the first and second cameras of the first pair of cameras (Goldman: fig. 7A- fig. 7B; Yarosh: paragraphs: 0020-0021, 0023, and 0032 and fig. 8).
Consider claim 8, Goldman and Yarosh clearly show the videoconferencing device, further comprising a camera disposed near a center of the housing (Goldman: fig. 3A- fig. 3B; Yarosh: fig. 6, labels: 608B).
3. Consider claim 9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goldman et al (Pub. No. US 2019/0306541 A1; hereinafter Goldman) in view of Yarosh et al (Pub. No. US 2014/0313277 A1; hereinafter Yarosh) and further in view of Shumard et al (Pub. No. US 2022/0337946 A1; hereinafter Shumard)
Consider claim 9, Goldman and Yarosh clearly show and disclose the above claims invention but lack teaching the limitation wherein the microphone array comprises a plurality of microphone sets arranged in a linear pattern relative to a first axis and configured to cover a plurality of frequency bands, each microphone set comprising a first microphone arranged along the first axis and a second microphone arranged along a second axis orthogonal to the first microphone, wherein a distance between adjacent microphones along the first axis is selected from a first group consisting of whole number multiples of a first value, and wherein within each microphone set, a distance between the first and second microphones along the second axis is selected from a second group consisting of whole number multiples of a second value.
In the same field of endeavor, Shumard clearly discloses the videoconferencing device, wherein the microphone array comprises a plurality of microphone sets arranged in a linear pattern relative to a first axis and configured to cover a plurality of frequency bands, each microphone set comprising a first microphone arranged along the first axis and a second microphone arranged along a second axis orthogonal to the first microphone, wherein a distance between adjacent microphones along the first axis is selected from a first group consisting of whole number multiples of a first value, and wherein within each microphone set, a distance between the first and second microphones along the second axis is selected from a second group consisting of whole number multiples of a second value (abstract, paragraphs: 0012-0016, 0044-0045, 0065 and fig. 1, fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Shumard into teaching of Goldman and Yarosh for the purpose of providing the microphone array comprises a plurality of microphone sets arranged in a linear pattern relative to a first axis.
4. Consider claim 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goldman et al (Pub. No. US 2019/0306541 A1; hereinafter Goldman) in view of Yarosh et al (Pub. No. US 2014/0313277 A1; hereinafter Yarosh) and further in view of Ku et al (Pub. No. US 2019/0273872 A1; hereinafter Ku)
Consider claim 10, Goldman and Yarosh clearly show and disclose the above claims invention but lack teaching the limitation further comprising a plurality of processors, wherein at least one processor of the plurality of processors is in communication with and disposed proximate to the at least one camera and at least another processor of the plurality of processors is in communication with and disposed proximate to the at least another camera.
In the same field of endeavor, Ku clearly discloses the videoconferencing device, further comprising a plurality of processors, wherein at least one processor of the plurality of processors is in communication with and disposed proximate to the at least one camera and at least another processor of the plurality of processors is in communication with and disposed proximate to the at least another camera (abstract, paragraph: 0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Ku into teaching of Goldman and Yarosh for the purpose of using at least one processor of the plurality of processors is in communication with and disposed proximate to the at least one camera.
5. Consider claim 11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goldman et al (Pub. No. US 2019/0306541 A1; hereinafter Goldman) in view of Yarosh et al (Pub. No. US 2014/0313277 A1; hereinafter Yarosh) and further in view of Ku et al (Pub. No. US 2019/0273872 A1; hereinafter Ku) and further in view of Washington et al (Pub. No. US 2004/0041902 A1; hereinafter Washington)
Consider claim 11, Goldman, Yarosh, and Ku clearly show and disclose the above claims invention but lack teaching the limitation wherein the at least one processor or the at least another processor comprises at least one of a serializer or a deserializer.
In the same field of endeavor, Washington clearly discloses the videoconferencing device, wherein the at least one processor or the at least another processor comprises at least one of a serializer or a deserializer (abstract, paragraph: 0029, 0031, and 038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Washington into teaching of Goldman, Yarosh, and Ku for the purpose of using at least one processor of using a serializer or a deserializer.
Response to Arguments
The present Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on May 06, 2026. Applicants elected group I. Claims 1-11 are now pending in the present application.
Applicant argues on the Applicant’s Response that “Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the standard has been misstated in the Office Action. According to MPEP § 806.06, "[i] nventions are unrelated if it can be shown that they are not disclosed as capable of use together, and they have different designs, modes of operation, and effects." (emphasis added) The standard requires that all of these conditions be met (conjunctive "and"), not merely one or two of them (disjunctive "or" as the Examiner applied)”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ arguments, in fact, the original specification provides many examples and figures related to different designs such as figure one is related to a design for a videoconference device providing an acoustical cavity and arranging parts of the device relative to acoustical cavity, figure two is another example for a design for a videoconference device providing four cameras; figure three is another example for a videoconference device has three cameras with one in the center. Each figure has different design, different modes of operation, different functions, different effects, and not disclosed as capable of use together. As a result, invention of group I is not required invention of group II. Moreover, group II is related to figure 1, which is related to an isometric view of one example of the disclosure (SPEC, paragraph 0029), group I is related to figure 2 which is an isometric view of another example of the disclosure (SPEC, paragraph 0034). As a result, the restriction is appropriate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amal Zenati whose telephone number is 571- 270- 1947. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 -5:00 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571- 272- 7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/AMAL S ZENATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights