DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is in response to Applicants Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 05/15/2026 which has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 15 and 17 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No Claims have been added. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with Claims 1, 8 and 15 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, 11, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Devehat et al (2015/0097922 A1) in view of Coleman et al (2010/0061538 A1), and further in view of RAO et al (2020/0382646 A1).
As per Claim 1, Le Devehat teaches a method, comprising: sending a first link to join a video call via videoconferencing (Join The Meeting – Video: Figure 8; Figure 9 – Reference 112; Page 4, Paragraph [0040]); determining, in response to receiving a request from a device to join the video call (Figure 1 – References 104, 106, 108, 110 and 112; Page 2, Paragraph [0026]; Figure 2 – Reference 216; Figure 3 – Reference 306; Page 3, Paragraph [0028]; Page 4, Paragraph [0040] , whether the device meets predetermined requirements to join the video call via videoconferencing (Page 3, Paragraph [0031] – Page 4, Paragraph [0034]).
(Note: In paragraph [0028], Le Devehat describes the use of a mobile application [i.e. mobile app] that presents a conference attendee with a graphical user interface within a web portal. In paragraph [0031], Le Devehat describes the use of an application programming interface to check the capabilities of a conference attendees’ device in order to determine a preferred means of connection to a conference call)
(Note: In paragraph [0032], Le Devehat indicates that if one or more conference participants are not capable of sending or receiving video data streams due to the capabilities of the endpoint or due to their current location the conference may participate in the conference using an audio only connection. In paragraph [0034], Le Devehat indicates that based on the capabilities of a conference attendee device one of a video conference, video and audio conference or audio only conference may be joined by the conference attendee)
Le Devehat does not teach sending, in response to determining the device does not meet the predetermined requirements to join the video call via videoconferencing, a message indicating a data connectivity problem and including a second link to join the video call via audio conferencing.
However, Coleman teaches sending, in response to determining the device does not meet the predetermined requirements to join the video call via videoconferencing, a message indicating a data connectivity problem and including a second link to join the video call via audio conferencing (Page 15, Paragraph [0124]).
(Note: In paragraph [0124], Coleman describes what occurs when a connection is not established between a conference call participant and a conferencing appliance. Coleman indicates that after making a subsequent attempt to establish communication and the failure of said subsequent attempts an error message [i.e. a message indicating a data connectivity problem] is transmitted to the conference participant who is unable to connect to the conference)
(Note: In paragraph [0124], Coleman indicates that the error/failure notice contains details of the failed attempt [i.e. data connectivity problem]. Coleman also indicates that a second URL [i.e. a second link to join the video call via audio conferencing] may be transmitted to the conference participant who is unable to connect to the conference to provide an alternative manner by which the conference participant who is unable to connect is able to join the conference)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Le Devehat with the method as taught by Coleman to allow a conference participant the ability to join a conference call to the extent that the device used by the participant allows thereby ensuring that all required participants may be able to participate in the call.
The combination of Le Devehat and Coleman does not teach wherein selection of the second link by a user of the device causes the device to initiate joining the video call via audio conferencing. However, Rao teaches wherein selection of the second link by a user of the device causes the device to initiate joining the video call via audio conferencing (Page 2, Paragraph [0013]; Page 5, Paragraph [0053]).
(Note: In paragraph [0013], Rao describes the use of button press expressions to perform a specific action in a predetermined mode and also describes a particular button expression to join a meeting [i.e. conference] in an audio-only mode. In paragraph [0053], Rao further describes various button expression and indicates that joining a conference in audio only mode consists of a mode where only audio is transmitted to and from other conference participants)
(Note: The Examiner is considering the button described by Rao as being the recited second link; and the predetermined selection to join the audio-only conference is an action to select the link/hyperlink to join the video call using an audio-only connection) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Le Devehat and Coleman with the method taught by Rao to enable conference participants who have an unstable or low-speed Internet connection the ability to more effectively participate in a video call as an audio-only connection uses a fraction of the bandwidth required to effectively establish a connection in a video call.
As per Claims 5, 11 and 17, the combination of Le Devehat, Coleman and Rao teach wherein determining whether the device meets predetermined requirements is in response to a user selection of the first link as described in Claim 1. (Note: It is found to be obvious that a request to join the video call would result in a determination as to whether predetermined requirements are met as the video call cannot be established if the predetermined requirements are not satisfied)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Le Devehat and Coleman with the method taught by Rao to enable conference participants who have an unstable or low-speed Internet connection the ability to more effectively participate in a video call as an audio-only connection uses a fraction of the bandwidth required to effectively establish a connection in a video call.
As per Claim 9, The combination of Le Devehat, Coleman and Rao teach a method as described in Claim 1. Le Devehat also teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executed by a processing device (Figure 4 – References 116 and 120; Page 3, Paragraph [0027]; Page 4, Paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and non-transitory computer-readable medium taught by Le Devehat and Coleman with the method as taught by Rao to enable conference participants who have an unstable or low-speed Internet connection the ability to more effectively participate in a video call as an audio-only connection uses a fraction of the bandwidth required to effectively establish a connection in a video call.
As per Claim 15, the combination of Le Devehat, Coleman and Rao teaches a method as described in Claim 1. Le Devehat also teaches a memory; and a processing device (Figure 4 – References 116 and 120; Page 3, Paragraph [0027]; Page 4, Paragraph [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system taught by Le Devehat and Coleman with the method as taught by Rao to enable conference participants who have an unstable or low-speed Internet connection the ability to more effectively participate in a video call as an audio-only connection uses a fraction of the bandwidth required to effectively establish a connection in a video call.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Devehat et al (2015/0097922 A1) in view of Coleman et al (2010/0061538 A1), and further in view of RAO et al (2020/0382646 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Archer et al (2021/0044635 A1).
As per Claim 2, the combination of Le Devehat, Coleman and Rao teach the method of Claim 1; but does not teach wherein the first link is included in a short message service (SMS) message. However, Archer teaches wherein the first link is included in a short message service (SMS) message (Page 2, Paragraph [0021]; Page 3, Paragraph [0027] and [0028]).
(Note: In paragraph [0021], Archer describes mixed modality conferencing where a user may enter a conference using one or more of video conferencing, audio conferencing or text conferencing and provides the specific use of SMS messaging. Archer provides an example where in a circumstance where during a conference a participant’s connection may drop and the system then sends using a SMS message, details to allow the dropped party to continue to communication [i.e. (SMS) message comprising the link to join the video call via audio conferencing])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Le Devehat, Coleman and Rao with the method taught by Archer to enable a conference participant who is traveling in an area with poor connectivity to have the ability to be provided with the means to rejoin the conference call utilizing a different modality if their connection to the conference is dropped.
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Devehat et al (2015/0097922 A1) in view of Coleman et al (2010/0061538 A1), and further in view of RAO et al (2020/0382646 A1) as applied to Claims 1, 9 and 15 above, and further in view of Fernandez et al (2022/0150446 A1).
As per Claims 3, 10 and 16, the combination of Le Devehat, Coleman and Rao teaches the method, non-transitory computer-readable medium and system of Claims 1, 9 and 15; but does not teach wherein the first link and the second link include an identifier that is unique to the video call. However, Fernandez teaches wherein the first link and the second link include an identifier that is unique to the video call (Page 3, Paragraph [0043] – Page 4, Paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, non-transitory computer-readable medium and system taught by Le Devehat, Coleman and Rao with the method taught by Fernandez to enable a video conference created by one service, scheduled by a second service and have a chat log maintained by a third service employ a unique ID as a primary key to allow these different independent services to share and reference the same conference ID without conflict.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Devehat et al (2015/0097922 A1) in view of Coleman et al (2010/0061538 A1), RAO et al (2020/0382646 A1) and Fernandez et al (2022/0150446 A1) as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of Miranda et al (2022/0328200 A1).
As per Claim 4, the combination of Le Devehat, Coleman, Rao and Fernanadez teaches the method of Claim 3; but does not teach wherein the first link and the second link include a signature. However, Miranda teaches wherein the first link and the second link include a signature (Page 2, Paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Le Devehat, Coleman, Rao and Fernanadez with the method taught by Miranda to enable patients who are not technologically savvy to securely engage with medical providers in telehealth communications without having to supply security credentials.
Claim(s) 6, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Devehat et al (2015/0097922 A1) in view of Coleman et al (2010/0061538 A1), and further in view of RAO et al (2020/0382646 A1) as applied to Claims 1, 9 and 15 above, and further in view of Perreault et al (2019/0289042 A1).
As per Claims 6, 12 and 18, the combination of Le Devehat, Coleman and Rao teach the method, non-transitory computer-readable medium and system of Claims 1, 9 and 15; but does not teach wherein determining whether the device meets the predetermined requirements includes sending a network ping message, and receiving a network ping response message. However, Perreault teaches wherein determining whether the device meets the predetermined requirements includes sending a network ping message, and receiving a network ping response message (Figure 2a; Page 7, Paragraphs [0056] and [0057]).
(Note: In paragraph [0056], Perreault describes network devices pinging, sending data packets, requesting report receipts, and maintaining peer to peer channels between network elements. In paragraph [0057], Perreault describes network devices monitoring communication characteristics [i.e. communication channel properties] as well as communication session properties)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, non-transitory computer-readable medium and system taught by Le Devehat, Coleman and Rao with the method taught by Perreault to simultaneously monitor active and alternative communication channels to continuously determine which of the two communication channels results in higher communication session quality and reliability.
Claim(s) 7, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Devehat et al (2015/0097922 A1) in view of Coleman et al (2010/0061538 A1), and further in view of RAO et al (2020/0382646 A1) as applied to Claims 1, 9 and 15 above, and further in view of Howell et al (2013/0081010 A1).
As per Claim 7, 13 and 19, the combination of Le Devehat, Coleman and Rao teaches the method, non-transitory computer-readable medium and system of Claims 1, 9 and 15; but does not teach wherein determining whether the device meets the predetermined requirements includes identifying a browser executing on the device. However, Howell teaches wherein determining whether the device meets the predetermined requirements includes identifying a browser executing on the device (Page 2, Paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, non-transitory computer-readable medium and system taught by Le Devehat, Coleman and Rao with the method as taught by Howell to advise a conference attendee to use an alternative web browser as that the web browser they are currently utilizing is incompatible with the conferencing app the attendee is seeking to utilize to participate in the conference.
Claim(s) 8, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Devehat et al (2015/0097922 A1) in view of Coleman et al (2010/0061538 A1), and further in view of RAO et al (2020/0382646 A1) as applied to Claims 1, 9 and 15 above, and further in view of Castillo et al (2009/0097418 A1).
As per Claims 8, 14 and 20, the combination of Le Devehat, Coleman and Rao teach the method, non-transitory computer-readable medium and system of Claims 1, 9 and 15; but does not teach wherein determining whether the device meets the predetermined requirements includes determining whether a network firewall exists in a communication path to the device. However, Castillo teaches wherein determining whether the device meets the predetermined requirements includes determining whether a network firewall exists in a communication path to the device (Page 4, Paragraph [0043], [0044] and [0053] – [0056]).
(Note: Figure 1 is an illustration of a network topology graph which provides a mapping of all of the devices within a network. The vertices within the Figure 1 are network devices [e.g. routers and firewalls] while the edges within the graph represent internet protocol [IP] adjacencies [i.e. client devices – laptop/smartphone]. Paragraphs [0053] – [0056], is an illustration of a communication path where source address + source port [i.e. origin] to destination address [i.e. destination] via a destination is a communication path that traverses a firewall as illustrated in Figure 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, non-transitory computer-readable medium and system taught by Le Devehat, Coleman and Rao with the method taught by Castillo to identify each network path available for application traffic to reach end-customers through the static analysis of network configuration, which is able to be applied to even the largest networks with potentially highly complicated rule sets.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Swerdlow (2024/0135917 A1), Kim et al (2007/012661 A1), Horvath et al (2010/0226287 A1), Li et al (2015/0116450 A1), GUTHRIE et al (2011/0270936 A1), Gunasekar et al (2005/0034079 A1), Ouyang et al (2016/0234268 A1), Harris et al (2006/0026629 A1), Lu et al (2020/0304547 A1), Abbott et al (2016/0021336 A1) and Shalit (2002/0122391 A1). Each of these describes systems and methods of implementing conference calling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHARYE POPE whose telephone number is (571)270-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 4PM.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 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 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.
KHARYE POPE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2693
/KHARYE POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights