DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is with regard to the most recent papers filed 2/5/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/5/2026 rely on the amended subject matter of the instant claims, and is thus moot based on the new grounds of rejection necessitated by such amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6-8, 11, 13-15, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0182544 (Sova) in view of US 2024/0163390 (Hutto) and US 2021/0158586 (Castellucci).
With regard to claim 1, Sova discloses a method of taking corrective action in response to an event in a communication session of a communication system, the method comprising:
using a hardware processor (Sova: Figure 1 and Paragraph [0010]. Computing devices with processors are utilized for the method.):
identifying a first setting of a participant in the communication system in a participant profile data structure corresponding to the participant, the participant using a first device in the communication session, the first setting related to a physical characteristic of the participant (Sova: Figure 5, Abstract, and Paragraph [0065]. An impairment can be determined for a participant of a video conference.);
selecting a data structure based upon the first setting, the data structure comprising a description of a first media event, an associated first curing action to take in response to detection of the first media event (Sova: Figures 2 and 5 and Paragraph [0067]. An option for an impairment can be selected, such as from data structure 200.);
scanning media of the communication session during the communication session for the first media event, the media of the communication session being audio, video, or shared content of the communication session (Sova: Figure 5 and Paragraph [0066]. The conference is monitored to determine which mitigations are needed.);
determining a second portion of the media constitutes the first media event, and in response applying, according to the data structure, the first curing action (Sova: Figure 5 and Paragraph [0066]).
Sova fails to disclose, but Hutta teaches the first media event comprising one or more of: an audio prompt to view a visual element, a visual element that does not have an associated audio explanation, or an audio element that does not have an associated visual description (Hutta: Paragraph [0011]. Different features maybe automatically enabled (turned on in a case that the feature is not on), such as closed captioning.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to enable closed captioning in a case that such is not already enabled as a mitigating action of Sova to provide a simple way to mitigate hearing impairments.
Sova fails to teach, but Castellucci teaches determining that a first portion of the media does not constitute the first media event, and in response, not applying a curing action to the first portion of the media; and subsequently, during the communication session, determining that the second portion… (Castellucci: Paragraph [0016]. Castellucci can analyze a media stream to determine places where closed-captioning is lacking, and correct this. In view of Hutta, such corrections to the closed captioning would be performed during a video conference.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to review any closed-captioning, or lack of closed captioning, during the video conference to ensure that any closed captioning generated by other entities are sufficient, and in cases where they are not, correct the issue, thus preventing duplicate captioning from being applied while correcting any issues with the closed-captioning.
With regard to claim 4, Sova in view of Hutta teaches that the first media event comprises sharing a video without closed captions, and the first curing action comprises automatically generating and displaying closed captions for the video (Hutta: Paragraph [0011]).
With regard to claim 6, Sova fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches the first curing action comprises logging the first media event and the corresponding curing action in a session report (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that the logging of different events during a conference was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, such as the notifications that may be sent by the participant to other participants (for example, Hutta teaches the optional sending of notifications to other users of the impairment (Hutta: Paragraph [0087]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to log the event and the curing action in a session report to ensure a full and complete record is maintained, such that any notifications sent during the meeting would be recorded and any review of the meeting would provide information on the detection of the impairment and mitigating action, which would be useful to ensure that the system operated properly during the session.
With regard to claim 7, Sova in view of Hutta teaches the first curing action comprises providing a real-time alert to the participant who triggered the media event (Hutta: Figures 7-8. A notification can be provided if no interpreter is available, or a connection is made to an interpreter, which would serve to alert the user. It is noted that the instant claim fails to provide the exact nature of the alert, where such would appear to only need to alert the user to the enabling of a mitigating action.).
With regard to claims 8, 11, 13-15, 18, and 20, the instant claims are similar to claims 1, 4, and 6-7, and are thus rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Sova in view of Hutto and Castellucci, and further in view of US 2022/0107816 (Chhabra).
With regard to claim 2, Sova in view of Hutta fails to teach, but Chhabra teaches prior to the communication session, scanning a document included in an invitation to the communication session for a compatibility issue between media in the document and settings of the participant in the participant profile data structure and responsive to detecting a compatibility issue between the media in the document and the settings of the participant, applying a curing action specified by the settings of the participant (Chhabra: Paragraph [0059]. A meeting invitation can be embedded with scripts or code to collect information of the meeting participants, where if accommodations are needed, such are detected (no needed accommodations would be no compatibility issues, while accommodations needed would be a compatibility issue). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to detect whether accommodations need to be added to a meeting prior to the meeting start to ensure that the user does not miss any portion of the meeting while the system attempts to detect that an accommodation is needed..
With regard to claim 3, Sova in view of Hutta and Chhabra teaches the first curing action comprises automatically creating subtitles for the media (Hutta: Paragraph [0011]).
With regard to claims 9-10 and 16-17, the instant claims are similar to claims 2-3, and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Sova in view of Hutto and Castellucci, and further in view of US 2017/0269816 (Bradley).
With regard to claim 5, Sova in view of Hutta fails to teach, but Bradley teaches the first media event comprises sharing a visual element without an audio description, and the first curing action comprises providing an audio description of the visual element (Bradley: Paragraph [0065]. As addressed above, Sova in view of Hutta can detect a variety of impairments and provide mitigating actions, including visual impairments. Bradley provides the providing of AI generated text descriptions for visual content, which when applied to the teachings of Castellucci, would allow such to be applied by determining if present descriptions are sufficient, and if not, correcting the issue.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide text descriptions for visual content as a mitigating action to enable a visually impaired user to have some understanding of the displayed content.
With regard to claims 12 and 19, the instant claims are similar to claim 5, and are rejected for similar reasons.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444