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 .
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 - 5, 7-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadav (Pub. No. US 2021/0392291 A1; hereinafter Nadav) in view of Kamezki et al (Pub. No. US 2023/0379435 A1; hereinafter Kamezaki)
Consider claims 1, 7, and 13, Nadav clearly shows and discloses a method, an article of manufacture comprising a non-transitory, and an information handling system comprising: at least one processor; a memory; and an audio input device; wherein the information handling system is configured to: execute at least one conference call application, wherein the at least one conference call application is configured to join a plurality of concurrent conference calls (receiving, at each user device, a plurality of media streams, each of the plurality of media streams corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of users; each user device configured to access each media stream via a tile represented on a graphical user interface to the user device) (paragraphs: 0006, 0008); determine a particular call of the plurality of concurrent conference calls as a foreground call by detecting, in audio of the particular call, an audible mention of a name of a user of the information handling system and/or a predetermined keyword, and designating the particular call as the foreground call in response to the detecting (a video communication system that allows users to focus on one another to create focused groups, when any user selects the Wave control in another user's tile, the user that selects the Wave control waves only to the user whose Wave control has been selected; other embodiments of the invention comprise additions to the Wave and Master Wave controls that allow users or moderators to send announcements to all users within a session or to specific users within a session; for example, in fig.4B when Joe's Wave control is selected by Jay, Joe receives a notification that Jay has waved to him in addition to announcement, thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use audible announcement ) (paragraphs: 0063 – 0064, 0067-0068 and fig. 4A – fig. 4B and fig. 7B- fig. 7C); raise a volume level of the foreground call relative to another of the plurality of concurrent conference calls; and transmit audio input from the audio input device to the foreground call (the tiles of focused users are larger on focusing users' screens, and focusing users hear their focused users' volumes at a higher level than that of their unfocused users) (paragraphs: 0067 and fig. 7C); however, Nadav does not disclose another example for wherein the at least one conference call application is configured to join a plurality of concurrent conference calls.
In the same field of endeavor, Kamezki clearly specifically disclose another example for wherein the at least one conference call application is configured to join a plurality of concurrent conference calls (the audio processing part 134 reduces the volume of the individual meeting in the attendee terminal 3A or increases the volume of the general meeting on condition that the general meeting starts during the individual meeting) (paragraphs: 0053-0054 0066- 0068; fig .5, label M and R3, and fig. 8)
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 Kamezki into teaching of Nadav for the purpose of providing conference call application and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use audible announcement.
Consider claims 2, 8, and 14, Nadav and Kamezki clearly show the method, the article of manufacture comprising a non-transitory, and the information handling system, wherein the at least one conference call application comprises a plurality of different conference call applications (Kamezki: fig. 5, label R1)
Consider claims 3, 9, and 15, Nadav and Kamezki clearly show the method, the article of manufacture comprising a non-transitory, and the information handling system, wherein the at least one conference call application comprises a plurality of instances of a single conference call application (Kamezki: fig. 5, label R3).
Consider claims 4, 10, and 16, Nadav and Kamezki clearly show the method, the article of manufacture comprising a non-transitory, and the information handling system, further configured to: receive user input relating to settings for the at least one conference call application; store the user input in a database; and transmit the user input to the at least one conference call application (Kamezki: paragraphs: 0067 and fig. 6).
Consider claims 5, 11, and 17, Nadav and Kamezki clearly show the method, the article of manufacture comprising a non-transitory, and the information handling system, further configured to determine a different one of the plurality of concurrent conference calls as a new foreground call based on content of the different one of the plurality of concurrent conference calls (Kamezki: paragraphs: 0066- 0068).
Response to Arguments
The present Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on November 20, 2025. Applicants cancelled claims 6, 12, and 18 and amended claims 1, 7, and 13. Claims 1 - 5, 7-11, and 13-17 are now pending in the present application.
Applicant argues on the Applicant’s Response that Nadav and Kamezki fail to teach the limitation “determine a particular call of the plurality of concurrent conference calls as a foreground call by detecting, in audio of the particular call, an audible mention of a name of a user of the information handling system and/or a predetermined keyword, and designating the particular call as the foreground call in response to the detecting; raise a volume level of the foreground call relative to another of the plurality of concurrent conference calls; and transmit audio input from the audio input device to the foreground call."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ arguments regarding claims 1, 8, and 15. Nadav teaches When any user selects the Wave control in another user's tile, the user that selects the Wave control waves only to the user whose Wave control has been selected. In the example, Jay selects Joe's Wave control, which is the Wave control in Joe's tile from the perspective of Jay. FIG. 4B illustrates that when Joe's Wave control is selected by Jay, Joe receives a notification that Jay has waved to him. Jane does not receive this notification since Jane has not been waved to. The purpose of the notification sent when waving to another user is to catch that user's attention. Other embodiments of the invention comprise additions to the Wave and Master Wave controls that allow users or moderators to send announcements to all users within a session or to specific users within a session (send announcements read on audible mention of a name of a user additions to the Wave and Master Wave controls) (paragraphs: 0063 – 0064 and fig 4A – fig. 4B). As a result, Nadav and Kamezki teaches the above limitation as broadly claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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