DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1, 6-8, 11-17, 20, and 27-34 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn. The amended claims presented on 05/27/2026 are the last entered set of claims which are being examined. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C 103 with newly found prior art reference(s).
Claim Objections
Applicant’s claim recites that claims 2-6 are cancelled. However, it seems that it is a typographical error as claim 6 is still present. For expedited prosecution, the examiner will treat claim 6 as still pending and applicant meant to recite that claims 2-5 are cancelled. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2024/0313990, hereinafter Li) and in view of Fox (US 2024/0311878) and in view of Lindmark 2025/0007975) and in view of De Magalhaes (US 2016/0173821).
Re claim 1, Li discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a processor system ([0086]-[0087], fig. 10, processor 1002 in computing system 1000); and
storage accessible to the processor system and comprising instructions executable by the processor system to ([0028], non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by a processing resource of a computer device):
facilitate a video conference ([0050]-[0054], Video conference system includes a ranking engine, taking into account of the sorting criterion including preferred characteristic, a preferred order, or any criterion relevant to a ranking of the participants, to sort the ranking of each participant based on a relevancy score. The relevancy score and the ranking as determined may be used in determining the arrangement (sorting) of the video feeds of the participants within the video interface. I.E, figs 2, 3, 4.); and
during facilitation of the video conference, prioritize presentation of first video of a first video conference participant over second video of a second video conference participant based on one or more criteria other than the first video conference participant speaking and/or other than a client device of the first video conference participant transmitting audio data indicating the first video conference participant as speaking ([0050]-[0054], Video conference system includes a ranking engine, taking into account of the sorting criterion including preferred characteristic, a preferred order, or any criterion relevant to a ranking of the participants, to sort the ranking of each participant based on a relevancy score. A participant may provide a sorting criterion that related to a preferred “happy” emotion in which the ranking engine may rank the participants from the happiest participant to the least-happy participant);
wherein the one or more criteria comprise the first video conference participant expressing an emotion selected from the group consisting of: laughter, happiness, sadness, crying, cheering ([0051], A participant may provide a sorting criterion that related to a preferred “happy” emotion in which the ranking engine may rank the participants from the happiest participant to the least-happy participant.);
wherein the instructions are executable to: determine, in a first instance, that the emotion the first video conference participant is expressing is related to the video conference ([0059], Engagement levels correspond to a level of interest and/or activity with regard to the video conference. A participant who is nodding, smiling, or raising their hand may have a higher engagement level than a participant who is perceived to be sleeping or yawning.);
based on the determination in the first instance, prioritize presentation of the first video (fig. 3, 4, [0059]-[0060], the gallery is an example that sorts the participants according to an engagement-based and/or activity-based sorting criterion. The engagement levels correspond to a level of interest and/or activity with regard to the video conference) Li does not clearly disclose, wherein the instructions are executable to: determine, in a second instance, that the emotion the first video conference participant is expressing is not related to the video conference.
In the same field of endeavor, Fox discloses in [0053], determining whether the participant is paying attention to the presenter during a presentation based on detected actions and reactions, including gestures, speech, emotions, facial expressions, eye movement, and whether the participant is conversing with another participant during the presentation. Thus, Fox teaches determining whether detected emotions are associated with attention to the presentation or with another activity. When the participant is determined to be conversing with another participant rather than attending to the presenter, the detected emotion is associated with an activity other than the presentation and therefore not related to the video conference. Fox also discloses wherein the one or more criteria comprise one or more of:
the first video conference participant being a member of a same organization as a third video conference participant ([0047], the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may access and leverage an electronic employee directory, organizational chart, friend groups, social media and/or other information available via a network and/or the internet to further identify information associated with an employer, employees (including an employee hierarchy), colleagues, friends, and other participants); and/or
the first video conference participant and a third video conference participant being members of a same social media group ([0047], the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may access and leverage an electronic employee directory, organizational chart, friend groups, social media and/or other information available via a network and/or the internet to further identify information associated with an employer, employees, colleagues, friends, and other participants).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Li’s emotion-based participant prioritization system with Fox’s attention determination techniques and social groups in order to determine whether a detected emotion is associated with participation in the presentation or with an activity unrelated to the presentation with certain groups. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to improve the accuracy and relevance of the participant ranking by preventing emotions arising from activities unrelated to the video conference and improperly influencing participant prioritization.
Li, and Fox does not disclose, however Lindmark discloses the first video prioritized as presented to the third video conference participant but not prioritized for a fourth video conference participant of the video conference ([0018], [0024]-[0026], [0077] Video streams are presented based on a user-specific priority list. Participants included in a user’s priority list may be enlarged, displayed in a main region of the interface, or otherwise prioritized, while participants not included in the user’s priority list is displayed with less prominence. Important persons associated with a user based on the user’s social network are identified. A graph or users and relationships and identifying important persons based on connections, influence, or position within the graph is represented as a user’s social network. Prioritizing participants associated with the same social network as a user, such as participants belonging to the same social media group or social network.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Li and Fox’s social group to include Lindmark’s social-network based participant prioritization in order to include participants with different professional and social relationships with other conference participants. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to improve the relevance and effectiveness of participation presentation by allowing video streams to be prioritized for one participant based on that participant’s preferences while not being prioritized for another participant having different priorities.
Li, Fox, and Lindmark do not clearly disclose based on the determination in the second instance, not prioritize presentation of the first video.
In the same field of endeavor, De Magalhaes discloses in [0052]-[0053], [0060], excluding participants from focus when they are determined not to be paying attention to the conference proceedings. Specifically, participants who are determined not to have their attention focused on an appropriate presentation focus location are excluded from focus, and participants 901 and 902 are excluded from the adjusted focus after facial recognition determines that neither participant is paying attention. Thus, De Magalhaes teaches based on a determination that participant is not engaged with the conference proceedings, presentation of that participant’s video is not prioritized.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Li, Fox, and Lindmark’s participants determined to be engaged in activities unrelated to the presentation with De Magalhaes’s focus management techniques such that those participants unrelated to the presentation are not prioritized in the video conference display. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to improve the relevance of displayed participants by emphasizing participants engaged with the conference proceedings while excluding participants not attending to the presentation.
Re Claim 11, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Li for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Fox discloses wherein the one or more criteria comprise the first video conference participant being a member of a same organization as the third video conference participant ([0047], the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may access and leverage an electronic employee directory, organizational chart, friend groups, social media and/or other information available via a network and/or the internet to further identify information associated with an employer, employees (including an employee hierarchy), colleagues, friends, and other participants).
In further addition, Lindmark discloses the first video prioritized as presented to the third video conference participant but not prioritized for the fourth video conference participant of the video conference ([0018], [0024]-[0026], Video streams are presented based on a user-specific priority list. Participants included in a user’s priority list may be enlarged, displayed in a main region of the interface, or otherwise prioritized, while participants not included in the user’s priority list is displayed with less prominence. A priority list may include individuals of interest to a particular user, such as a key decision maker or influence from the user’s organization. A participant may be prioritized for presentation to one video conference participant based on that participant’s priority list, while not being prioritized for another participant having a different priority list.)
Re Claim 12, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Li for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Fox discloses wherein the one or more criteria comprise the first video conference participant and the third video conference participant being members of a same social media group ([0047], the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may access and leverage an electronic employee directory, organizational chart, friend groups, social media and/or other information available via a network and/or the internet to further identify information associated with an employer, employees, colleagues, friends, and other participants).
In further addition, Lindmark discloses the first video prioritized as presented to the third video conference participant but not prioritized for the fourth video conference participant of the video conference ([0018], [0024]-[0026], [0077] Video streams are presented based on a user-specific priority list. Participants included in a user’s priority list may be enlarged, displayed in a main region of the interface, or otherwise prioritized, while participants not included in the user’s priority list is displayed with less prominence. Important persons associated with a user based on the user’s social network are identified. A graph or users and relationships and identifying important persons based on connections, influence, or position within the graph is represented as a user’s social network. Prioritizing participants associated with the same social network as a user, such as participants belonging to the same social media group or social network.)
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and in view of Fox and in view of Lindmark and in view of De Magalhaes and in view of Harpur (US 10,250,851) and in view of Bastide (US 10,069,878).
Re Claim 6, Li, Fox, Lindmark and De Magalhaes does not disclose, however Hapur discloses deprioritize fifth video of a fifth video conference participant (col. 13, fig. 6F, lines 25-40, deprioritize video feed area depicting users identified as negatively influencing users who negatively influence the certain participant. Shows at least 6 participants whom at least one is prioritized and at least one is deprioritized).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Li, Fox, Lindmark and De Magalhaes to include Harpur’s deprioritization of participant video feeds in order to improve the quality and usefulness of video conference participant presentation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to improve the participant display arrangement by reducing the prominence of participants determined to be negatively influencing.
While De Magalhaes discloses in [0051]-[0053], determining whether participants are directing their attention to a presentation focus location and excluding participants who are not paying attention, thereby identifying participants whose attention is directed away from the conference proceedings, Li, Fox, Lindmark and De Magalhaes does not explicitly disclose the video conference participant being classified as distracted.
In the same field of endeavor, Bastide discloses the video conference participant being classified as distracted (col. 1, lines 23-31, monitoring a participant for distraction markers and calculating a distraction level based on the distraction markers, thereby classifying the participant as distracted.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Li, Fox, Lindmark, De Magalhaes and Harpur to include Bastide’s distraction classification technique in order to improve participation presentation within a video conference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to deprioritize participants classified as distracted so participant presentation can more accurately reflect participant engagement and relevance to the conference proceedings.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and in view of Fox and in view of Lindmark and in view of De Magalhaes and in view of Harpur.
Re Claim 7, Li discloses the video conference participant not being currently shown in the fifth video ([0013]-[0017], [0042], [0059]-[0060], When participants turn their camera off, it discloses a video conference participant not being currently shown in a video.).
While Li discloses in [0013]-[0017], [0059]-[0060] that participants that are off camera or not readily visible in the gallery present audience emotions that may make the speaker feel unsupported. The active speaker prefers to see positive feedback from the audience such as smiling or nodding and the unsupported feeling may place stress on the presenter and hunger from communicating effectively. Participants characteristics, emotions, engagement levels along with other factors (including muting or turning their cameras off) are is utilized as a relevance score used to sort the participants video feed with the highest scoring participant in the topmost left corner as the darkest shade and the bottommost right corner as the lightest shade in the gallery view. Li, Fox, Lindmark, and De Magalhaes does not explicitly disclose, however Hapur discloses deprioritize fifth video of a fifth video conference participant (col. 13, fig. 6F, lines 25-40, deprioritize video feed area depicting users identified as negatively influencing users who negatively influence the certain participant. Shows at least 6 participants whom at least one is prioritized and at least one is deprioritized).).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Li, Fox, Lindmark, and De Magalhaes’s to include Harpur’s deprioritization of participant video feeds in order to improve the quality and usefulness of video conference participant presentation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to improve the participant display arrangement by reducing the prominence of participants determined to be negatively influencing.
Re Claim 8, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Li for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Fox discloses the video conference participant being identified as looking in a direction away from a camera that generates the fifth video ([0053], detect whether a participant viewing the presenter during the presentation is paying attention to the presenter, or detecting the participant is looking away from the presenter).
While Li discloses in [0013]-[0017], [0059]-[0060] that participants that are off camera or not readily visible in the gallery present audience emotions that may make the speaker feel unsupported. The active speaker prefers to see positive feedback from the audience such as smiling or nodding and the unsupported feeling may place stress on the presenter and hunger from communicating effectively. Participants characteristics, emotions, engagement levels along with other factors (including muting or turning their cameras off) are is utilized as a relevance score used to sort the participants video feed with the highest scoring participant in the topmost left corner as the darkest shade and the bottommost right corner as the lightest shade in the gallery view. Li, Fox, Lindmark, and De Magalhaes does not disclose, however Hapur discloses deprioritize fifth video of a fifth video conference participant (col. 13, fig. 6F, lines 25-40, deprioritize video feed area depicting users identified as negatively influencing users who negatively influence the certain participant. Shows at least 6 participants whom at least one is prioritized and at least one is deprioritized).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Li, Fox, Lindmark, and De Magalhaes’s to include Harpur’s deprioritization of participant video feeds in order to improve the quality and usefulness of video conference participant presentation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to improve the participant display arrangement by reducing the prominence of participants determined to be negatively influencing.
Re Claim 15, Li, Fox, Lindmark, and De Magalhaes does not disclose, however Hapur discloses wherein prioritizing presentation of the first video over the second video comprises one or more of: presenting the first video higher up on a graphical user interface (GUI) than the second video, presenting the first video larger on the
GUI than the second video, highlighting the first video on the GUI, the highlighting comprising one or more of: presenting a first color along a border of the first video, presenting a graphic overlay in relation to the first video (fig. 6f, col. 13, lines 25-45, video conferencing views are prioritized by making video feed areas larger).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Li, Fox, Lindmark, and De Magalhaes’s to include Harpur’s technique of displaying prioritized participant video feeds in larger video feed areas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to improve the effectiveness of the GUI by visually emphasizing participants selected for prioritization.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and in view of Fox and in view of Lindmark in view of De Magalhaes and in view of Lum (US 2023/0036861).
Re Claim 13, Li, Fox, Lindmark, and De Magalhaes does not disclose, however Lum discloses wherein the one or more criteria comprise the first video and fifth video of a fifth video conference participant both showing a same object and/or showing respective objects of a same object type (fig. 4A, shows at least 5 participants. [0063], participant video feeds may automatically be added to the automatic spotlight queue based on object detection. A relevance score for each participant video is determined based on the correlation of an object in a participant video with the object in the host video feed. Lum teaches comparing objects appearing in different video feeds and determining that the video feeds show the same object or objects of the same object type.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Li, Fox, Lindmark, and De Magalhaes’s prioritization system to include Lum’s object-detection and object-correlation techniques in order to determine a relevance score based on correlation between objects appearing in different video feeds. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to improve the relevance and effectiveness of participant prioritization by enabling the video conference system to identify and emphasize participant video feeds containing related visual content.
Claim(s) 14 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and in view of Fox and in view of Lindmark and in view of De Magalhaes and in view of Legatski (US 12,506,844).
Re Claim 14, while Li discloses a video conference system that connects participant devices through a network and presents participant video feeds during a video conference, Li, Fox, Lindmark, and De Magalhaes do not clearly disclose, however Legatski discloses comprising one or more of: a server facilitating the video conference at least in part by routing audio video communications between client devices of respective video conference participants, a first client device facilitating the video conference by transmitting local audio video to the server and/or to other client devices of other respective video conference participants (Col. 11, lines 27-50, participant devices that send video data depicting participants and audio data representing participant speech to other participants and receive corresponding video and audio data as well as a server device that receives participant video feeds during the video conference.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Li, Fox, Lindmark, and De Magalhaes’s prioritization system to include Legatski’s video conference architecture in order to transmit video data and audio data associated with conference participants and a server device that facilitates the video conference by receiving participant video feeds and enabling communication among conference participants. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to improve the implementation of the video conference system while yielding the predictable results of enabling participant video feeds and associated audio communications to be transmitted, received, and presented during the video conference.
Re Claim 31, while Li discloses a video conference system that connects participant devices through a network and presents participant video feeds during a video conference, Li, Fox, Lindmark, and De Magalhaes do not clearly disclose, however Legatski discloses comprising a server that facilitates the video conference at least in part by routing audio video communications between client devices of respective video conference participants (Col. 11, lines 27-50, participant devices that send video data depicting participants and audio data representing participant speech to other participants and receive corresponding video and audio data as well as a server device that receives participant video feeds during the video conference.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Li, Fox, Lindmark, and De Magalhaes’s prioritization system to include Legatski’s video conference architecture in order to transmit video data and audio data associated with conference participants and a server device that facilitates the video conference by receiving participant video feeds and enabling communication among conference participants. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to improve the implementation of the video conference system while yielding the predictable results of enabling participant video feeds and associated audio communications to be transmitted, received, and presented during the video conference.
Re Claim 32, while Li discloses a video conference system that connects participant devices through a network and presents participant video feeds during a video conference, Li, Fox, Lindmark, and De Magalhaes do not clearly disclose, however Legatski discloses comprising a first client device that facilitates the video conference by transmitting local audio video to the server and/or to other client devices of other respective video conference participants (Col. 11, lines 27-50, participant devices that send video data depicting participants and audio data representing participant speech to other participants and receive corresponding video and audio data as well as a server device that receives participant video feeds during the video conference.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Li, Fox, Lindmark, and De Magalhaes’s prioritization system to include Legatski’s video conference architecture in order to transmit video data and audio data associated with conference participants and a server device that facilitates the video conference by receiving participant video feeds and enabling communication among conference participants. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to improve the implementation of the video conference system while yielding the predictable results of enabling participant video feeds and associated audio communications to be transmitted, received, and presented during the video conference.
Claim(s) 16, 20, 27-28, 30 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and in view of Fox and in view of Lindmark.
Re Claim 16, Li discloses a method, comprising:
facilitating a video conference ([0050]-[0054], Video conference system includes a ranking engine, taking into account of the sorting criterion including preferred characteristic, a preferred order, or any criterion relevant to a ranking of the participants, to sort the ranking of each participant based on a relevancy score. The relevancy score and the ranking as determined may be used in determining the arrangement (sorting) of the video feeds of the participants within the video interface. I.E, figs 2, 3, 4.); and
during facilitation of the video conference, prioritizing presentation of first video of a first video conference participant over second video of a second video conference participant based on one or more criteria other than the first video conference participant speaking, the one or more criteria comprising the first video conference participant visually and/or non-verbally expressing a particular emotion ([0050]-[0054], Video conference system includes a ranking engine, taking into account of the sorting criterion including preferred characteristic, a preferred order, or any criterion relevant to a ranking of the participants, to sort the ranking of each participant based on a relevancy score. A participant may provide a sorting criterion that related to a preferred “happy” emotion in which the ranking engine may rank the participants from the happiest participant to the least-happy participant).
Li does not disclose, however Fox discloses wherein the one or more criteria comprise one or more of:
the first video conference participant being a member of a same organization as a third video conference participant ([0047], the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may access and leverage an electronic employee directory, organizational chart, friend groups, social media and/or other information available via a network and/or the internet to further identify information associated with an employer, employees (including an employee hierarchy), colleagues, friends, and other participants); and/or
the first video conference participant and a third video conference participant being members of a same social media group ([0047], the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may access and leverage an electronic employee directory, organizational chart, friend groups, social media and/or other information available via a network and/or the internet to further identify information associated with an employer, employees, colleagues, friends, and other participants).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Li’s emotion-based participant prioritization system with Fox’s attention determination techniques and social groups in order to determine whether belonging to a certain group is a criteria to be prioritized for display in the video conference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to improve the accuracy and relevance of the participant ranking by using the same group organization as a criteria as a participant that may know each other whom belong in the same group.
Li, and Fox does not disclose, however Lindmark discloses the first video prioritized as presented to the third video conference participant but not prioritized for a fourth video conference participant of the video conference ([0018], [0024]-[0026], [0077] Video streams are presented based on a user-specific priority list. Participants included in a user’s priority list may be enlarged, displayed in a main region of the interface, or otherwise prioritized, while participants not included in the user’s priority list is displayed with less prominence. Important persons associated with a user based on the user’s social network are identified. A graph or users and relationships and identifying important persons based on connections, influence, or position within the graph is represented as a user’s social network. Prioritizing participants associated with the same social network as a user, such as participants belonging to the same social media group or social network.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Li and Fox’s social group to include Lindmark’s social-network based participant prioritization in order to include participants with different professional and social relationships with other conference participants. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to improve the relevance and effectiveness of participation presentation by allowing video streams to be prioritized for one participant based on that participant’s preferences while not being prioritized for another participant having different priorities.
Re Claim 20, Li discloses An apparatus, comprising:
at least one computer readable storage medium (CRSM) that is not a transitory signal, the at least one CRSM comprising instructions executable by a processor system to ([0028], a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by a processing resource of a computing device.):
facilitating a video conference ([0050]-[0054], Video conference system includes a ranking engine, taking into account of the sorting criterion including preferred characteristic, a preferred order, or any criterion relevant to a ranking of the participants, to sort the ranking of each participant based on a relevancy score. The relevancy score and the ranking as determined may be used in determining the arrangement (sorting) of the video feeds of the participants within the video interface. I.E, figs 2, 3, 4.);
during facilitation of the video conference, prioritize presentation of first video of a first video conference participant based on one or more criteria other than the first video conference participant currently speaking ([0050]-[0054], Video conference system includes a ranking engine, taking into account of the sorting criterion including preferred characteristic, a preferred order, or any criterion relevant to a ranking of the participants, to sort the ranking of each participant based on a relevancy score. A participant may provide a sorting criterion that related to a preferred “happy” emotion in which the ranking engine may rank the participants from the happiest participant to the least-happy participant).
Li does not disclose, however Fox discloses wherein the one or more criteria comprise one or more of:
the first video conference participant being a member of a same organization as a second video conference participant ([0047], the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may access and leverage an electronic employee directory, organizational chart, friend groups, social media and/or other information available via a network and/or the internet to further identify information associated with an employer, employees (including an employee hierarchy), colleagues, friends, and other participants); and/or
the first video conference participant and the second video conference participant being members of a same social media group ([0047], the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may access and leverage an electronic employee directory, organizational chart, friend groups, social media and/or other information available via a network and/or the internet to further identify information associated with an employer, employees, colleagues, friends, and other participants).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Li’s emotion-based participant prioritization system with Fox’s attention determination techniques and social groups in order to determine whether belonging to a certain group is a criteria to be prioritized for display in the video conference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to improve the accuracy and relevance of the participant ranking by using the same group organization as a criteria as a participant that may know each other whom belong in the same group.
Li, and Fox does not disclose, however Lindmark discloses the first video prioritized as presented to the second video conference participant ([0018], [0024]-[0026], [0077] Video streams are presented based on a user-specific priority list. Participants included in a user’s priority list may be enlarged, displayed in a main region of the interface, or otherwise prioritized, while participants not included in the user’s priority list is displayed with less prominence. Important persons associated with a user based on the user’s social network are identified. A graph or users and relationships and identifying important persons based on connections, influence, or position within the graph is represented as a user’s social network. Prioritizing participants associated with the same social network as a user, such as participants belonging to the same social media group or social network.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Li and Fox’s social group to include Lindmark’s social-network based participant prioritization in order to include participants with different professional and social relationships with other conference participants. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to improve the relevance and effectiveness of participation presentation by allowing video streams to be prioritized for one participant based on that participant’s preferences.
Re Claim 27, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Li for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 20. In addition, Fox discloses wherein the one or more criteria comprise the first video conference participant being a member of a same organization as the second video conference participant ([0047], the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may access and leverage an electronic employee directory, organizational chart, friend groups, social media and/or other information available via a network and/or the internet to further identify information associated with an employer, employees (including an employee hierarchy), colleagues, friends, and other participants).
In further addition, Lindmark discloses the first video prioritized as presented to the second video conference participant ([0018], [0024]-[0026], Video streams are presented based on a user-specific priority list. Participants included in a user’s priority list may be enlarged, displayed in a main region of the interface, or otherwise prioritized, while participants not included in the user’s priority list is displayed with less prominence. A priority list may include individuals of interest to a particular user, such as a key decision maker or influence from the user’s organization. A participant may be prioritized for presentation to one video conference participant based on that participant’s priority list.)
Re Claim 28, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Li for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 20. In addition, Fox discloses wherein the one or more criteria comprise the first video conference participant and the second video conference participant being members of a same social media group ([0047], the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may access and leverage an electronic employee directory, organizational chart, friend groups, social media and/or other information available via a network and/or the internet to further identify information associated with an employer, employees, colleagues, friends, and other participants).
In further addition, Lindmark discloses the first video prioritized as presented to the second video conference participant ([0018], [0024]-[0026], [0077] Video streams are presented based on a user-specific priority list. Participants included in a user’s priority list may be enlarged, displayed in a main region of the interface, or otherwise prioritized, while participants not included in the user’s priority list is displayed with less prominence. Important persons associated with a user based on the user’s social network are identified. A graph or users and relationships and identifying important persons based on connections, influence, or position within the graph is represented as a user’s social network. Prioritizing participants associated with the same social network as a user, such as participants belonging to the same social media group or social network.)
Re claim 30, Li discloses comprising the processor system ([0092], The examples can be implemented or performed by a machine such as a processing unit or processor, a digital signal processor. A processor can be a microprocessor, but in the alternative, the processor can be a controller, microcontroller, or state machine, combinations of the same, or the like)
Re Claim 33, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Li for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 16. In addition, Fox discloses wherein the one or more criteria comprise the first video conference participant being a member of a same organization as a third video conference participant ([0047], the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may access and leverage an electronic employee directory, organizational chart, friend groups, social media and/or other information available via a network and/or the internet to further identify information associated with an employer, employees (including an employee hierarchy), colleagues, friends, and other participants).
In further addition, Lindmark discloses the first video prioritized as presented to the third video conference participant but not prioritized for a fourth video conference participant of the video conference ([0018], [0024]-[0026], Video streams are presented based on a user-specific priority list. Participants included in a user’s priority list may be enlarged, displayed in a main region of the interface, or otherwise prioritized, while participants not included in the user’s priority list is displayed with less prominence. A priority list may include individuals of interest to a particular user, such as a key decision maker or influence from the user’s organization. A participant may be prioritized for presentation to one video conference participant based on that participant’s priority list, while not being prioritized for another participant having a different priority list.)
Re Claim 34, one of ordinary level of skill in the art would have been compelled to make the proposed modification to Li for the same reasons identified in the rejection of claim 16. In addition, Fox discloses wherein the one or more criteria comprise the first video conference participant and a third video conference participant being members of a same social media group ([0047], the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may access and leverage an electronic employee directory, organizational chart, friend groups, social media and/or other information available via a network and/or the internet to further identify information associated with an employer, employees, colleagues, friends, and other participants).
In further addition, Lindmark discloses the first video prioritized as presented to the third video conference participant but not prioritized for a fourth video conference participant of the video conference ([0018], [0024]-[0026], [0077] Video streams are presented based on a user-specific priority list. Participants included in a user’s priority list may be enlarged, displayed in a main region of the interface, or otherwise prioritized, while participants not included in the user’s priority list is displayed with less prominence. Important persons associated with a user based on the user’s social network are identified. A graph or users and relationships and identifying important persons based on connections, influence, or position within the graph is represented as a user’s social network. Prioritizing participants associated with the same social network as a user, such as participants belonging to the same social media group or social network, while not being prioritized for another participant having a different priority list.)
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and in view of Fox and in view of Lindmark and in view of Harpur.
Re Claim 17, Li, Fox, and Lindmark do not disclose, however Harpur discloses wherein prioritizing presentation of the first video over the second video comprises one or more of: presenting the first video higher up on a graphical user interface (GUI) than the second video, presenting the first video larger on the GUI than the second video, presenting the first video more to the left than the second video according to a video listing, presenting the first video on the GUI but not concurrently presenting the second video on the GUI, highlighting the first video on the GUI, the highlighting comprising one or more of: presenting a first color along a border of the first video, presenting a graphic overlay in relation to the first video (Fig. 6F, col. 13, lines 25-40, Positively influencing user J is presented in an enlarged video feed while identified negatively influencing user R is depicted in a relatively smaller video area 604).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Li, Fox, and Lindmark’s prioritization to include Harpur’s prioritization of participant video feeds which includes presenting a video larger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to improve the participant prioritization display arrangement by enlarging certain participant video feeds that are to be prioritized.
Claim(s) 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Fox and in view of Lindmark and in view of Harpur and in view of Bastide.
Re Claim 29, Li, Fox, and Lindmark does not disclose, however Hapur discloses deprioritize second video of a second video conference participant (col. 13, lines 25-40, deprioritize video feed area depicting users identified as negatively influencing users who negatively influence the certain participant).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Li, Fox, and Lindmark to include Harpur’s deprioritization of participant video feeds in order to improve the quality and usefulness of video conference participant presentation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to improve the participant display arrangement by reducing the prominence of participants determined to be negatively influencing.
Li, Fox, Lindmark and Harpur does not explicitly disclose, however Bastide discloses based on based on one or more of: the second video conference participant being classified as distracted, the second video conference participant not being currently shown in the second video, the second video conference participant being identified as looking in a direction away from a camera that generates the second video, another person besides the second video conference participant coming into view in the second video, an animal coming into view in the second video, the second video conference participant being different from the animal (col. 1, lines 23-31, monitoring a participant for distraction markers and calculating a distraction level based on the distraction markers, thereby classifying the participant as distracted. col. 2, lines 36-46, In audiovisual conference calls, distracting elements include other people in the background.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the teachings of Li, Fox, Lindmark, and Harpur to include Bastide’s distraction classification technique in order to improve participation presentation within a video conference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of one another to deprioritize participants classified as distracted so participant presentation can more accurately reflect participant engagement and relevance to the conference proceedings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HO T SHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (9:00am - 5:00pm).
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571-272-3089. 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.
/HO T SHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2443
HO T. SHIU
Examiner
Art Unit 2443
/CHRISTOPHER B ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights