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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on October 22, 2024 and January 15, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein a first device of the one or more user devices of the communication session is a healthcare provider.” This appears to be a typographical error, and in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret this language as “wherein a first device of the one or more user devices of the communication session is a device of a healthcare provider.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 17, Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite “receiving a request…to generate a video segment associated with a communication session between one or more user devices,” and further recites “generating one or more post-session environments…configured to present a modified representation of the communication session after the communication session terminates.” However, Claims 1, 9, and 17 omit essential elements amounting to a gap between the elements, e.g. see MPEP 2172.01. Specifically, as shown above, Claims 1, 9, and 17 receive a request to generate the video segment associated with the communication session, but does not recite actually generating the video segment and/or does not recite actually generating the communication session. Hence it is unclear how the post-session environment based on the communication session is generated when there is no preceding recitation of generating a communication session. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependence from independent Claims 1, 9, and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-8 are drawn to a method for presenting communications data between users, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 9-16 are drawn to a system for presenting communications data between users, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 17-20 are drawn to a non-transitory medium for presenting communications data between users, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1, which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a request, via a communication system, to generate a video segment associated with a communication session between one or more user devices, wherein a first device of the one or more user devices of the communication session is a healthcare provider;
receiving user profile data, wherein the user profile data pertains to at least one of the one or more user devices of the communication session;
generating one or more post-session environments associated with the one or more user devices based on the user profile data, wherein the one or more post-session environments are configured to present a modified representation of the communication session after the communication session terminates; and
transmitting a first communication to the first device including a link to a first post-session environment, and wherein the first post-session environment is distinct from a second post-session environment of the one or more post-session environments.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract ideas of a mental process and/or a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions – in this case, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “post-session environment” comprising a “modified representation” of a communication session may be interpreted as any data element that is based on the communication session, for example a report or summary. Hence, the steps of receiving user profile data and generating a post-session environment are reasonably interpreted as steps a user, for example a physician, could perform mentally – for example, a physician could mentally receive user profile data and create a report describing an aspect of a consultation session) or using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. a communication system, user devices), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, as stated above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “post-session environment” may be interpreted as any type of modified data element regarding the consultation session. Thus, the steps of receiving a request for a communication session, receiving user profile data, generating a post-session environment, for example a report regarding the communication session, and transmitting a communication to an entity, the communication enabling access to the post-session environment are reasonably interpreted as following rules or instructions to provide access to data pertaining to the communication session, for example between a patient and a physician), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract ideas are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 9 and 17 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1, because the only difference between Claims 1, 9, and 17 is that Claim 1 recites a method, whereas Claim 9 recites a system and its associated structural limitations, and Claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium and one or more processors.
Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 include other limitations, for example Claims 2, 10, and 18 recite generating enabling various functions for the user devices including a tutorial, a symptom monitor, a data upload prompt, or a questionnaire, Claim 3, 11, and 19 recite captioning and creating a transcript for the communication session, Claim 4, 12, and 20 recite that the user devices are associated with a plurality of post-session environments, Claims 5 and 13 recite labeling aspects of the post-session environments, Claims 6 and 14 recite storing the post-session environments and making them accessible to a second device, Claims 7 and 15 recite types of communication sessions, and Claims 8 and 16 recite methods for generating the user profile data, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04, and/or do not further narrow the abstract idea and instead only recite additional elements, which will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1, 9, and 17.
Hence Claims 1-20 are directed towards the aforementioned abstract ideas.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the communication system and the user devices) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the communication system comprising various types of communication networks, and the user devices comprising computing devices, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see [0036], [0133]-[0138] and [0153] of the as-filed Specification, and see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language of the user device being for a healthcare provider, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Additionally, dependent Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the bi-directional video call limitation recited in dependent Claims 7 and 15), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claims 1, 9, and 17, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 9, and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the communication system and the user devices), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, wherein the additional elements comprise limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The present Specification expressly disclosing that the structural additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
[0036], [0133]-[0138] and [0153] of the as-filed Specification disclose that the additional elements (i.e. the communication system and the user devices) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems;
Relevant court decisions: The functional limitations interpreted as additional elements are analogized to the following examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the additional elements recite receiving the request and the user profile data, and transmitting the first communication over a network, for example the Internet, e.g. see [0036] of the as-filed Specification;
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the additional elements merely recite the creating and maintaining of post-session environment data; and/or
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the additional elements recite storing post-session environment data such that the post-session environment data may subsequently be accessed via the link.
Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the bi-directional video call limitation recited in dependent Claims 7 and 15), and/or the limitations recited by the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claims 1, 9, and 17, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Hence, Claims 1-20 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exceptions.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8-9, 12, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olshansky (US 2021/0312184) in view of Zuckerman (US 2019/0236840).
Regarding Claim 1, Olshansky teaches the following: A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a request, via a communication system, to generate a video segment associated with a communication session between one or more user devices (The system receives a user request from a user computer system (i.e. a user device) for a presentation, e.g. see Olshanksky [0069], wherein the presentation is a customized recording of an individual’s activity (i.e. a communication session) within a booth (i.e. another user device) including audio and visual data, e.g. see Olshansky [0055]-[0056], [0068]-[0070], [0080]), wherein a first device of the one or more user devices of the communication session is a healthcare provider (The user may be a hospital (i.e. a healthcare provider) that wishes to review data for a potential employee, e.g. see Olshansky [0119].);
receiving user profile data, wherein the user profile data pertains to at least one of the one or more user devices of the communication session (The system includes user preferences (i.e. profile data), wherein the user preferences can be used to design the customized presentation, e.g. see Olshansky [0053], and wherein the preferences may include preferred audio and video data corresponding to microphones or cameras of the booth (i.e. one of the one or more user devices), e.g. see Olshanksy [0098]-[0100].);
generating one or more post-session environments associated with the one or more user devices based on the user profile data, wherein the one or more post-session environments are configured to present a modified representation of the communication session after the communication session terminates (The system utilizes the data recorded (i.e. the session has terminated) from the booth and the user preferences (i.e. user profile data) to generate the customized presentation (i.e. a post-session environment) that is customized to be as interesting and relevant as possible for a particular user, e.g. see Olshansky [0068], [0071], and [0079]-[0080].); and
wherein the first post-session environment is distinct from a second post-session environment of the one or more post-session environments (The constructed customized presentation (i.e. first post-session environment) may differ from another customized presented (i.e. a second post-session environment) created for a different user, e.g. see Olshansky [0079]-[0080] and [0160].).
But Olshansky does not teach and Zuckerman teaches the following:
transmitting a first communication to the first device including a link to a first post-session environment (The system includes a patient computer (i.e. a user device) and a physician device (i.e. another user device), wherein the patient and physician devices enable a consultation between the patient and physician, e.g. see Zuckerman [0032]-[0033] and [0042]-[0043]. Furthermore, the patient device generates a patient engagement video (i.e. a first post-session environment) from the consultation, e.g. see Zuckerman [0045], wherein the patient device further generates a customized secure video link for accessing the patient engagement video and communicates the video link to the physician (i.e. the first device), e.g. see Zuckerman [0046].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Olshansky to incorporate the link to the engagement video as taught by Zuckerman in order to ensure that only authorized access is permitted and to enable the physician to review and edit the video as appropriate, e.g. see Zuckerman [0045]-[0046].
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Olshansky and Zuckerman teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Olshansky further teaches the following:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more user devices of the communication session is associated with more than one of the one or more post-session environments (The system includes multiple user computer systems that access data from multiple booths (i.e. the computer systems and booths may be interpreted as one or more user devices), wherein the data recorded from each booth is utilized to generate the customized presentations (i.e. one or more post-session environments), e.g. see Olshansky [0051]-[0055] and [0079]-[0080].).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Olshansky and Zuckerman teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Olshansky further teaches the following:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the user profile data is generated by at least one of a machine learning algorithm, prior communication sessions, and data gathered prior to the communication session (The data used to create the customized presentation includes user preferences (i.e. user profile data), e.g. see Olshansky [0053], and wherein the preferences include data pertaining to prior users and the user’s past use of the system (i.e. prior communication sessions and data gathered prior to the communication sessions), e.g. see Olshansky [0015]-[0016], [0053], and [0079].).
Regarding Claims 9 and 16, the limitations of Claims 9 and 16 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 1, with the sole difference being that Claim 1 recites a method whereas Claim 9 recites a system and Claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Specifically pertaining to Claims 9 and 16, Examiner notes that Olshansky teaches that the invention may be embodied as a system, method, and as instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium executed by a processor, e.g. see Olshansky Abstract, [0062] and [0066], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 1 are similarly applied to Claims 9 and 16.
Regarding Claims 12 and 20, the limitations of Claims 12 and 20 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 4, with the sole difference being that Claim 4 recites a method whereas Claim 12 recites a system and Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Specifically pertaining to Claims 12 and 20, Examiner notes that Olshansky teaches that the invention may be embodied as a system, method, and as instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium executed by a processor, e.g. see Olshansky Abstract, [0062] and [0066], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 4 are similarly applied to Claims 12 and 20.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations of Claim 16 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 8, with the sole difference being that Claim 8 recites a method whereas Claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Specifically pertaining to Claim 16, Examiner notes that Olshansky teaches that the invention may be embodied as a system, method, and as instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium executed by a processor, e.g. see Olshansky Abstract, [0062] and [0066], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 8 are similarly applied to Claim 16.
Claim 2, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Olshansky and Zuckerman in view of Kozicki (US 2014/0156293).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Olshansky and Zuckerman teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Kozicki teaches the following: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a temporary environment for at least one of the one or more user devices of the communication session, wherein the temporary environment includes at least one of a tutorial for the communication session, a symptom monitor, a data upload prompt, and a questionnaire (The system generates a health care questionnaire in response to initiation of a virtual health care session, wherein the patient is presented with questions regarding health including symptoms (i.e. the questionnaire may be interpreted as a symptom monitor, a data upload prompt, and/or a questionnaire), e.g. see Kozicki [0035]-[0037], wherein the user interface switches to different screens upon the user completing the health care questionnaire (i.e. the interface displaying the questionnaire is a temporary environment), for example a virtual queue, e.g. see Kozicki [0066]-[0070].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare modify the combination of Olshansky and Zuckerman to incorporate the temporary environment as taught by Kozicki in order to enable health care practitioners to diagnose, treat, and/or otherwise communicate with a user in an effective, efficient, and immediate manner, e.g. see Kozkicki [0015].
Regarding Claims 10 and 18, the limitations of Claims 10 and 18 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 2, with the sole difference being that Claim 2 recites a method whereas Claim 10 recites a system and Claim 18 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Specifically pertaining to Claims 10 and 18, Examiner notes that Olshansky teaches that the invention may be embodied as a system, method, and as instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium executed by a processor, e.g. see Olshansky Abstract, [0062] and [0066], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 2 are similarly applied to Claims 10 and 18.
Claims 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Olshansky and Zuckerman in view of Marlow (US 2018/0359530).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Olshansky and Zuckerman teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Marlow teaches the following:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more post-session environments is a captioned version of a reconstruction of the communication session, wherein the captioned version also contains a transcript of the communication session (The system enables a user to select playback of a recorded video (i.e. a post-session environment), wherein the playback of the recorded video includes an inserted caption of the text of a question asked in the video, e.g. see Marlow [0090]-[0092], [0101], and [0105].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of video communications to modify the combination of Olshansky and Zuckerman to incorporate the insertion of captions into the recorded video as taught by Marlow in order to improve user engagement and interaction with video, e.g. see Marlow [0005].
Regarding Claims 11 and 19, the limitations of Claims 11 and 19 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 3, with the sole difference being that Claim 3 recites a method whereas Claim 11 recites a system and Claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Specifically pertaining to Claims 11 and 19, Examiner notes that Olshansky teaches that the invention may be embodied as a system, method, and as instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium executed by a processor, e.g. see Olshansky Abstract, [0062] and [0066], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 3 are similarly applied to Claims 11 and 19.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Olshansky and Zuckerman in view of Tokarchuk (US 2018/0153632).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Olshansky and Zuckerman teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Tokarchuk teaches the following:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more post-session environments is a meta-tagged copy of a reconstruction of the communication session, whereby the meta-tagged copy may be searched by keywords or time stamps (The system includes storing a recorded video (i.e. a post-session environment), wherein the recorded video includes user-embedded highlights and/or annotations that tag the recorded video, and wherein a user may use a key word search to identify and retrieve the recorded video, e.g. see Tokarchuk [0068].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Olshansky and Zuckerman to incorporate the tags and search functionality for the recorded video as taught by Tokarchuk in order to enable a user to retrieve desired and/or relevant data, e.g. see Tokarchuk [0005] and [0068].
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations of Claim 13 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 5, with the sole difference being that Claim 5 recites a method whereas Claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Specifically pertaining to Claim 13, Examiner notes that Olshansky teaches that the invention may be embodied as a system, method, and as instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium executed by a processor, e.g. see Olshansky Abstract, [0062] and [0066], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 5 are similarly applied to Claim 13.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Olshansky and Zuckerman in view of Langer (US 2020/0365258).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Olshansky and Zuckerman teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Langer teaches the following: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
storing the second post-session environment in a user library, wherein the user library contains one or more prior post-session environments pertaining to prior communication sessions, and wherein the user library is accessible to a second device (The system enables a telehealth video visit, wherein the video may be stored by a server on a video database (i.e. stored in a user library) and for access by patients and other users (i.e. a second device), e.g. see Langer [0084] and [0192].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Olshansky and Zuckerman to incorporate the tags and search functionality for the recorded video as taught by Tokarchuk in order to enable a user to retrieve desired and/or relevant data, e.g. see Tokarchuk [0005] and [0068].
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations of Claim 14 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 6, with the sole difference being that Claim 6 recites a method whereas Claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Specifically pertaining to Claim 14, Examiner notes that Olshansky teaches that the invention may be embodied as a system, method, and as instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium executed by a processor, e.g. see Olshansky Abstract, [0062] and [0066], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 6 are similarly applied to Claim 14.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Olshansky and Zuckerman in view of Joao (US 2015/0278453).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Olshansky and Zuckerman teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Joao teaches the following:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the communication session may be a bidirectional video call and wherein a recording of the communication session contains consolidated video content from the one or more user devices (The system enables a telehealth video call between a healthcare provider and a patient, wherein the video call enables communication between the provider communication device and the patient communication device (i.e. bidirectional), e.g. see Joao [0318]-[0322]. Furthermore, the system generates a video call report that can contain any data obtained from the patient during the video call, e.g. see Joao [0327]-[0328].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Olshansky and Zuckerman to incorporate the bidirectional communication and consolidated data from the communication as taught by Joao in order to facilitate improved healthcare quality and efficient information collection, e.g. see Joao [0013].
Examiner further notes that the claim language of Claim 7 recites that the communication session “may be” a bidirectional video call, and hence does not require that the communication session actually be a bidirectional video call, and hence this limitation need not be afforded patentable weight, as it represents entirely optional language and does not affect the recited functions of Claim 7 – that is, this language does not have patentable weight because the recording containing consolidated video content is not affected by whether or not the communication session is a bidirectional video call. However, as shown above, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner has afforded this language patentable weight, and it is nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons presented above.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations of Claim 15 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 7, with the sole difference being that Claim 7 recites a method whereas Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Specifically pertaining to Claim 15, Examiner notes that Olshansky teaches that the invention may be embodied as a system, method, and as instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium executed by a processor, e.g. see Olshansky Abstract, [0062] and [0066], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 7 are similarly applied to Claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST.
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, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/JOHN P GO/Examiner, Art Unit 3681