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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 8, 2024 was filed before the mailing of a first Office Action on the merits. Since the submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) -706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,101,199 B1, filed as Application No. 18/224,775 on July 21, 2023. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, as seen in the following table. The same general process is recited in both applications, and most steps are identical, while other steps include slight variations in wording or in the breadth of process.
Instant Application No.
18/797,712
US Patent No. 12,101,199
Application No.
18/224,775
Comments
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method for a conference system, the computer-implemented method comprising:
assigning, with a same user, a first device and a second device participating in a conference session;
comparing a first audio input from the first device and a second audio input from the second device; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first audio input and the second audio input.
Claim 5:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein: the first input further comprises
a first video input from the first device and the second input further comprises a second video input from the second device.
Claim 6:
The computer-implemented method of claim 5,
wherein: comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device comprises comparing a first image captured from the first video input with a second image captured from the second video input to determine a depth of an object in the first image and the second image; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input comprises applying a background image processing to the object to at least one of the first video input and the second video input based on the depth of the object.
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method for a conference system, the computer-implemented method comprising:
assigning, with a same user, a first device and a second device participating in a conference session;
comparing a first input from the first device and a second input from the second device; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input,
wherein: the first input is
a first video input from the first device and the second input is a second video input from the second device;
comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device comprises comparing a first image captured from the first video input with a second image captured from the second video input to determine a depth of an object in the first image and the second image; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input comprises applying a background image processing to the object to at least one of the first video input and the second video input based on the depth of the object.
The claims are almost identical when three claims for the instant application are combined.
Claim 2:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein: comparing the first audio input from the first device and the second audio input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first audio input and the second audio input further comprises removing the sound from the first audio input where the first time is later than the second time.
Claim 3:
The computer-implemented method of claim 2,
wherein: comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input further comprises removing the sound from the first audio input where the first time is later than the second time.
Note that patent Claim 2 recites the simple limitation that does not change the substance of the claims on which it depends, but merely recites audio components that are relevant to both inventions, as follows:
“The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the first input further comprises a first audio input from the first device and the second input further comprises a second audio input from the second device.”
Claim 3:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein: comparing the first audio input from the first device and the second audio input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first audio input and the second audio input further comprises setting a video input of the first device as the user’s video input where the first time is earlier than the second time.
Claim 4:
The computer-implemented method of claim 2,
wherein: comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input further comprises setting a video input of the first device as the user's video input where the first time is earlier than the second time.
Essentially identical.
Claim 4:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein: comparing the first audio input from the first device and the second audio input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device to determine a location of the sound’s source; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first audio input and the second audio input further comprises removing the sound from one of the first device and the second device based on the location of the sound’s source.
Claim 5:
The computer-implemented method of claim 2,
wherein: comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device to determine a location of the sound's source; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input further comprises removing the sound from one of the first device and the second device based on the location of the sound's source.
Essentially identical.
Claim 7:
The computer-implemented method of claim 5,
wherein: comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device further comprises comparing a first direction of the user’s line of sight in the first video input and a second direction of the user’s line of sight in the second video input; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input further comprises setting a video input of the first device as the user’s video input when the user is determined to be more directly facing the first device based on the first direction and the second direction.
Claim 6:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein: comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device further comprises comparing a first direction of the user's line of sight in the first video input and a second direction of the user's line of sight in the second video input; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input further comprises setting a video input of the first device as the user's video input when the user is determined to be more directly facing the first device based on the first direction and the second direction.
Essentially identical.
Claim 8:
A system, comprising: a memory configured to store operations; and one or more processors configured to perform the operations, the operations comprising:
assigning, with a same user, a first device and a second device participating in a conference session;
comparing a first audio input from the first device and a second audio input from the second device; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first audio input and the second audio input.
Claim 12:
The system of claim 8,
wherein: the first input further comprises a first video input from the first device and the second input further comprises a second video input from the second device.
Claim 14:
The system of claim 12,
wherein: comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device further comprises comparing a first direction of the user’s line of sight in the first video input and a second direction of the user’s line of sight in the second video input; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input further comprises setting a video input of the first device as the user’s video input when the user is determined to be more directly facing the first device based on the first direction and the second direction.
Claim 8:
A system, comprising: a memory configured to store operations; and one or more processors configured to perform the operations, the operations comprising:
assigning, with a same user, a first device and a second device participating in a conference session;
comparing a first input from the first device and a second input from the second device; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input,
wherein the first input is a first video input from the first device and the second input is a second video input from the second device;
comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device comprises comparing a first direction of the user's line of sight in the first video input and a second direction of the user's line of sight in the second video input; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input comprises setting a video input of the first device as the user's video input when the user is determined to be more directly facing the first device based on the first direction and the second direction.
The claims are almost identical when three claims for the instant application are combined.
Claim 9:
The system of claim 8,
wherein: comparing the first audio input from the first device and the second audio input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first audio input and the second audio input further comprises removing the sound from the first audio input where the first time is later than the second time.
Claim 10:
The system of claim 9,
wherein: comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input further comprises removing the sound from the first audio input where the first time is later than the second time.
Note that patent Claim 9 recites the simple limitation that does not change the substance of the claims on which it depends, but merely recites audio components that are relevant to both inventions, as follows:
“The system of claim 8, wherein: the first input further comprises a first audio input from the first device and the second input further comprises a second audio input from the second device.”
Claim 10:
The system of claim 8,
wherein: comparing the first audio input from the first device and the second audio input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first audio input and the second audio input further comprises setting a video input of the first device as the user’s video input where the first time is earlier than the second time.
Claim 11:
The system of claim 9,
wherein: comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input further comprises setting a video input of the first device as the user's video input where the first time is earlier than the second time.
Claim 11:
The system of claim 8,
wherein: comparing the first audio input from the first device and the second audio input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device to determine a location of the sound’s source; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first audio input and the second audio input further comprises removing the sound from one of the first device and the second device based on the location of the sound’s source.
Claim 12:
The system of claim 9,
wherein: comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device to determine a location of the sound's source; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input further comprises removing the sound based on the location of the sound's source.
Essentially identical.
Claim 13:
The system of claim 12 wherein:
comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device comprises comparing a first image captured from the first video input with a second image captured from the second video input to determine a depth of an object in the first image and the second image; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input comprises
applying a background image processing to the object to at least one of the first video input and the second video
input based on the depth of the object.
Claim 13:
The system of claim 8,
wherein:
comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device further comprises comparing a first image captured from the first video input with a second image captured from the second video input to determine a depth of an object in the first image and the second image; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input further comprises
applying a background image processing to the object to at least one of the first video input and the second video input based on the depth of the object.
Essentially identical.
Claim 15:
A computer readable storage device having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to perform operations comprising:
assigning, with a same user, a first device and a second device participating in a conference session;
comparing a first audio input from the first device and a second audio input from the second device; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first audio input and the second audio input.
Claim 19:
The computer readable storage device of claim 15,
wherein: the first input further comprises a first video input from the first device and the second input further comprises a second video input from the second device;
comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device comprises comparing a first image captured from the first video input with a second image captured from the second video input to determine a depth of an object in the first image and the second image; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input comprises applying a background image processing to the object to at least one of the first video input and the second video input based on the depth of the object.
Claim 15:
A computer readable storage device having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to perform operations comprising:
assigning, with a same user, a first device and a second device participating in a conference session;
comparing a first input from the first device and a second input from the second device; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input,
wherein: the first input is a first video input from the first device and the second input is a second video input from the second device;
comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device comprises comparing a first image captured from the first video input with a second image captured from the second video input to determine a depth of an object in the first image and the second image; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input comprises applying a background image processing to the object to at least one of the first video input and the second video input based on the depth of the object.
The claims are almost identical when three claims for the instant application are combined.
Claim 16:
The computer readable storage device of claim 15,
wherein: comparing the first audio input from the first device and the second audio input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first audio input and the second audio input further comprises removing the sound from the first audio input where the first time is later than the second time.
Claim 17:
The computer readable storage device of claim 16,
wherein: comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input further comprises removing the sound from the first audio input where the first time is later than the second time.
Essentially identical.
Claim 17:
The computer readable storage device of claim 15,
wherein: comparing the first audio input from the first device and the second audio input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first audio input and the second audio input further comprises setting a video input of the first device as the user’s video input where the first time is earlier than the second time.
Claim 18:
The computer readable storage device of claim 16,
wherein: comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input further comprises setting a video input of the first device as the user's video input where the first time is earlier than the second time.
Essentially identical.
Claim 18:
The computer readable storage device of claim 15,
wherein: comparing the first audio input from the first device and the second audio input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device to determine a location of the sound’s source; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first audio input and the second audio input further comprises removing the sound from one of the first device and the second device based on the location of the sound’s source.
Claim 19:
The computer readable storage device of claim 16,
wherein: comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device to determine a location of the sound's source; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input further comprises removing the sound from one of the first device and the second device based on the location of the sound's source.
Essentially identical.
Claim 20:
The computer readable storage device of claim 15,
wherein: the first input further comprises a first video input from the first device and the second input further comprises a second video input from the second device;
comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device further comprises comparing a first direction of the user’s line of sight in the first video input and a second direction of the user’s line of sight in the second video input; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input further comprises setting a video input of the first device as the user’s video input when the user is determined to be more directly facing the first device based on the first direction and the second direction.
Claim 20:
The computer readable storage device of claim 15,
wherein: comparing the first input from the first device and the second input from the second device further comprises comparing a first direction of the user's line of sight in the first video input and a second direction of the user's line of sight in the second video input; and
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input further comprises setting a video input of the first device as the user's video input when the user is determined to be more directly facing the first device based on the first direction and the second direction.
Essentially identical, except for the additional limitation of instant Claim 20.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhi (US 2016/0150184 A1, hereinafter referred to as Gandhi) in view of Felkai et al. (US 2013/0342637 A1, hereinafter referred to as Felkai).
Examiner Note: In this office action, actual claim recitations are shown in italics surrounded by quotation marks to distinguish the claim recitations from comparisons to the prior art.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15,
Gandhi teaches:
“comparing a first audio input from the first device and a second audio input from the second device” (paragraphs [0023], [0041], [0088]; fig. 1, elements 114,118,122,130,134; fig. 2A, element 202; fig. 2D, element 224; fig. 2F, elements 220, 240; fig. 4, elements 400, 408). [The user device 134, such as a mobile phone, executes a video conference application for the user 136, and the video conference applications executed by the user devices 114, 118, 130, 134 can correspond to a multi-display video conference application or a single display video conference application ([0023]). One or more components of the multi-display video system 400 described can be included in other devices, such as one or more of the user devices: 114, 118, 122, 130, 134, the user devices 202, 220, 224, 240, or a separate device such as a server computer connected to the network 104 ([0041]). The speaker detection module 408 compares first audio input data and the second audio input data ([0088]).] (NOTE: The speaker detection module comparison of the first audio input data and the second audio input data is equivalent to “comparing a first input from the first device and a second input from the second device.”)
“modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first audio input and the second audio input” (paragraph [0088]). [A server computer receives the audio data of each user of the video conference session and compares first audio input data and the second audio input data; then the server computer groups the audio input data based on user devices and process each group separately ([0088]).] (NOTE: The server computer grouping the audio input data is equivalent to “modifying a setting of the conference session.”)
“A computer-implemented method for a conference system” as recited in Claim 1 (paragraph [0002]).
“A system, comprising: a memory configured to store operations; and one or more processors configured to perform the operations” as recited in Claim 8 (paragraph [0015]).
“A computer readable storage device having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to perform operations” as recited in Claim 15 (paragraph [0015]).
Gandhi does not specifically teach:
“assigning, with a same user, a first device and a second device participating in a conference session.”
Felkai teaches:
“assigning, with a same user, a first device and a second device participating in a conference session” (paragraphs [0012]; fig. 1, elements 160a, 160b, 162, 163a). [If user A is in video conference 163a with user B using device 160a, the video conference session 163a can seamlessly or near seamlessly transition user A from device A 160a to device B 160b ([0012]).] (NOTE: User A is equivalent to “a same user” and is using both device 160a “a first device” and device 160b “a second device.”)
Both Gandhi and Felkai teach systems which implement video conference sessions, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Gandhi disclosure, the ability for a user taking part in a video conference to participate on two separate devices, as taught by Felkai. Such inclusion would have increased the usefulness of the conference system by providing an additional device option, and would have been consistent with the rationale of using known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(C)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16,
Gandhi in view of Felkai teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 1, 8, and 15.
Gandhi teaches:
“comparing the first audio input from the first device and the second audio input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device” (paragraphs [0089], [0094]; fig. 4, element 408). [A comparison can be used to determine which microphone records a sound first, which indicates that the user linked to the corresponding microphone is the active speaker between the first and second users; the speaker detection module 408 can perform the comparison using a number of approaches, including a time-delay estimate approach ([0089]).] (NOTE: The comparison based on the time-delay estimate approach is equivalent to “comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device.”)
“modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first audio input and the second audio input further comprises removing the sound from the first audio input where the first time is later than the second time” (paragraph [0092); fig. 4, element 408). [The speaker detection module 408 determines whether the first audio input data leads or lags the second audio input data, based at least partly on the comparison performed; if the first audio input data is leading, the speaker detection module 408 sets the active speaker to the first user, and if the first audio input data is not leading, the speaker detection module 408 sets the active speaker to the second user ([0092]).] (NOTE: When the first audio input data is not leading (meaning that the time is less than the second time), the result is that the second user is set as the active user and the first audio is not used. This result is equivalent to “removing the sound from the first audio input where the first time is later than the second time.”)
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17,
Gandhi in view of Felkai teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 1, 8, and 15.
Gandhi teaches:
“comparing the first audio input from the first device and the second audio input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device” (paragraph [0089]; fig. 4, element 408 ). [A comparison can be used to determine which microphone records a sound first, which indicates that the user linked to the corresponding microphone is the active speaker between the first and second users; the speaker detection module 408 can perform the comparison using a number of approaches, including a time-delay estimate approach ([0089]).] (NOTE: The comparison based on the time-delay estimate approach is equivalent to “comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device.”)
“modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first audio input and the second audio input further comprises setting a video input of the first device as the user’s video input where the first time is earlier than the second time” (paragraphs [0002], [0082], [0092]). [A personal computer (PC) transmit the captured audio-video data over a network to the other participants of the video conference ([0002]). The audio-video interface modules receive first and second audio input data, where the first audio input data is linked to a first microphone that is associated with the first display device, and the second audio input data is linked to a second microphone that is associated with the second display device ([0082]). The speaker detection modules determines whether the first audio input data leads or lags the second audio input data; if the first audio input data is leading, the speaker detection module sets the active speaker to the first user, but if the first audio input data is not leading, the speaker detection module sets the active speaker to the second user ([0092]).] (NOTE: Since the audio and video data are linked, “comparison of the first audio input and the second audio input” results in “setting a video input” based on audio determination.)
Regarding Claims 5 and 12,
Gandhi in view of Felkai teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 1 and 8.
“wherein: the first input further comprises a first video input from the first device and the second input further comprises a second video input from the second device” (paragraph [0024]; fig. 1, elements 104,108, 110, 112). [The user device 108 can provide video and audio input data of the respective users 110, 112 to the network 104 for transmission to other users of the video conference; the video and audio data streams can include video images and audio data that are captured by separate recording devices coupled to the user device 108 ([0024]).]
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhi (US 2016/0150184 A1, hereinafter referred to as Gandhi) in view of Felkai et al. (US 2013/0342637 A1, hereinafter referred to as Felkai), and further in view of Mackell et al. (US 2020/0344278 A1, hereinafter referred to as Mackell).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18,
Gandhi in view of Felkai teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 1, 8, and 15.
Gandhi does not teach:
“wherein: comparing the first audio input from the first device and the second audio input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device to determine a location of the sound’s source.”
“modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first audio input and the second audio input further comprises removing the sound from one of the first device and the second device based on the location of the sound’s source.”
Mackell teaches:
“wherein: comparing the first audio input from the first device and the second audio input from the second device further comprises comparing a first time when a sound is detected on the first device with a second time when the sound is detected on the second device to determine a location of the sound’s source” (paragraphs [0026], [0028]; fig. 2, elements 24, 200, 210, 214). [The meeting app module 200 for video conferencing includes a speaking participant or speaker tracker application 210 that analyzes the captured audio content received by the meeting room computing devices from the microphone array 24 during the online meeting, and based upon the spacing orientations of the microphones within the array 24, each microphone capturing audio content is assigned to or correlated with a precise location within the meeting room; when a participant in the meeting room is the current speaker, the precise location of that speaking participant within the meeting room can be identified based upon audio content captured by the microphone array 24 and analyzed ([0026]). The director application 214 utilizes data obtained and/or generated by the speaker track application 210 and other components to determine which participant is currently speaking within a video frame based upon a comparison of the known location coordinates of an identified during a given time period ([0028]).] (NOTE: The microphones within the array 24 are equivalent to the “first device” and the “second device,” which are used to “determine a location of the sound's source.”)
“modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first audio input and the second audio input further comprises removing the sound from one of the first device and the second device based on the location of the sound’s source” (paragraphs [0028], [0030]; fig. 2, element 214). [Within a video conference or online meeting, the director application 214 utilizes the information based upon where a current presenter or active speaker is located and/or where a sound is currently being generated in the meeting room to determine a region of interest (ROI) within or a precise location in which to crop one or more video frames and establish a scene for video content during any given time period ([0028]). A scene for the captured video content refers to an established number of ROIs for identified participants within one or more video frames, and a scene change occurs when a location of one or more ROIs within a scene has changed; for example, a scene change can occur when a new participant enters the meeting room and is captured and identified in the video content, or when an identified participant leaves the room ([0030]).] (NOTE: The cropping one or more video frames is equivalent to “modifying a setting of the conference session” and when the scene is cropped, the result “removing the sound from one of the first device and the second device,” the devices being the microphones.)
Both Gandhi and Mackell teach video conferencing systems in which data is analyzed, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Gandhi disclosure, the ability to determine a sound location and to change the conference session by removing extraneous videos and associated sounds, as taught by Mackell. Such inclusion would have increased the usefulness of the messaging system by adding customization capabilities, and would have been consistent with the rationale of using known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(C)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The claims contain subject matter which was not found in the prior art.
Claims 6 , 13, and 19 recite:
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input comprises applying a background image processing to the object to at least one of the first video input and the second video input based on the depth of the object.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 recite:
modifying a setting of the conference session based on a result of the comparison of the first input and the second input further comprises setting a video input of the first device as the user’s video input when the user is determined to be more directly facing the first device based on the first direction and the second direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional prior art references listed on Form PTO-892 and not used in the prior art rejections are also relevant to this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHYLLIS A BOOK whose telephone number is (571)272-0698. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, GLENTON BURGESS can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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.
/PHYLLIS A BOOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454