DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 03/03/2026.
In the instant Amendment, claims 1, 4-9, 12-17, and 20 have been amended; no claims are cancelled; and claims 1 and 9 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
The non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection to claims 1-20 is maintained. Although potentially distinguishing features may have been included into amended independent claim 1, 9, and 17, one or more dependent claims may also still include elements that require a non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn as the claims have been amended, and the Applicant’s arguments are persuasive.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,243. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) 1-20 are broader and similar in scope to claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,243 (see table below). If the claims in Application No. 18/802,959 are allowed, it could improperly extend the “right to exclude” for the same invention in two different Patents.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, an apparatus, and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media, respectively; said method, apparatus, and non-transitory computer readable storage media are associated with the method, the apparatus, and the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media claimed in claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,243.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 12,108,243 and is covered by U.S. Patent No. 12,108,243 since U.S. Patent No. 12,108,243 and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Application No. 18/802,959 (Instant App.)
U.S. Patent No. 12,108,243
Claim 1: A method comprising: connecting, by a user device, a participant to a collaboration session in which the participant communicates with at least one other participant using one or more media including audio which is distributed in a media stream to the at least one other participant via a respective user device;
analyzing, by a machine learning model, audio signals of participants during the collaboration session to determine voice signatures of the participants including re-occurring patterns in speech, tone pitch, and phrasing profile; detecting, by the user device, an audio signal of the collaboration session; determining whether the audio signal is an audio utterance of a person that is included in participant list information by comparing a voice signature of the audio signal to voice signatures of persons of the participant list information; and selectively filtering the media stream to exclude the audio signal based on the participant list information by removing the audio signal when the voice signature of the audio signal is determined to be associated with an inadvertent participant that is not included in the participant list information.
Claim 1: A method comprising:
connecting, by a user device, a participant to a collaboration session in which the participant communicates with at least one other participant using video which is distributed in a media stream to the at least one other participant via a respective user device;
detecting, by the user device, an object within a space that is included in the video;
determining whether the object is a person that is included in participant list information; and
selectively filtering the media stream to exclude the object based on the participant list information by removing or blurring the person determined to be an inadvertent participant that is not included in the participant list information.
Claim 7: The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting an audio signal in the media stream, wherein selectively filtering the media stream further includes filtering the audio signal to exclude one or more audio other than voice audio of the participant based on learned voices of participants.
Claim 9: An apparatus comprising: a memory; a network interface configured to enable network communications; and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to perform operations comprising: connecting, by the network interface, a participant to a collaboration session in which the participant communicates with at least one other participant using one or more media including audio which is distributed in a media stream to the at least one other participant via a respective user device;
analyzing, by a machine learning model, audio signals of participants during the collaboration session to determine voice signatures of the participants including re-occurring patterns in speech, tone pitch, and phrasing profile;
detecting, by the apparatus, an audio signal of the collaboration session;
determining whether the audio signal is an audio utterance of a person that is included in participant list information by comparing a voice signature of the audio signal to voice signatures of persons of the participant list information; and
selectively filtering the media stream to exclude the audio signal based on the participant list information by removing the audio signal when the voice signature of the audio signal is determined to be associated with an inadvertent participant that is not included in the participant list information
Claim 12: An apparatus comprising:
a memory;
a network interface configured to enable network communications; and
a processor, wherein the processor is configured to perform operations comprising:
connecting a participant to a collaboration session in which the participant communicates with at least one other participant using video, which is distributed in a media stream to the at least one other participant via a respective user device;
detecting an object within a space that is included in the video;
determining whether the object is a person that is included in participant list information; and
selectively filtering the media stream to exclude the object based on the participant list information by removing or blurring the person determined to be an inadvertent participant that is not included in the participant list information.
Claim 16: The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to perform: detecting an audio signal in the media stream, wherein the processor is configured to perform the operation of selectively filtering the media stream further by filtering the audio signal to exclude one or more audio other than voice audio of the participant based on learned voices of participants.
Claim 17: One or more non-transitory computer readable storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute a method comprising:
connecting a participant to a collaboration session in which the participant communicates with at least one other participant using one or more media including audio which is distributed in a media stream to the at least one other participant via a respective user device;
analyzing, by a machine learning model, audio signals of participants during the collaboration session to determine voice signatures of the participants including re-occurring patterns in speech, tone pitch, and phrasing profile;
detecting audio signal of the collaboration session;
determining whether the audio signal is an audio utterance of a person that is included in participant list information by comparing a voice signature of the audio signal to voice signatures of persons of the participant list information; and
selectively filtering the media stream to exclude the audio signal based on the participant list information by removing the audio signal when the voice signature of the audio signal is determined to be associated with an inadvertent participant that is not included in the participant list information.
Claim 17: One or more non-transitory computer readable storage media
encoded with instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute a method comprising:
connecting a participant to a collaboration session in which the participant communicates with at least one other participant using video, which is distributed in a media stream to the at least one other participant via a respective user device;
detecting an object within a space that is included in the video and
determining whether the object is a person that is included in participant list information; and
selectively filtering the media stream to exclude the object based on the participant list information by removing or blurring the person determined to be an inadvertent participant that is not included in the participant list information.
Claim 16: The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to perform: detecting an audio signal in the media stream, wherein the processor is configured to perform the operation of selectively filtering the media stream further by filtering the audio signal to exclude one or more audio other than voice audio of the participant based on learned voices of participants.
Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for Allowance
Regarding Claims 1-20, Claims 1-20 are allowed over the cited prior art.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art, as previously recited, De Magalhaes (US 2016/0173821) in view of Trim et al. (US 11,190,735; Hereinafter "Trim"). However, none of De Magalhaes and Trim teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, the particular combination of steps or elements as recited in the independent claims 1, 9, and 17. For example, none of the cited prior art teaches or suggest the steps of “connecting, by a user device, a participant to a collaboration session in which the participant communicates with at least one other participant using one or more media including audio which is distributed in a media stream to the at least one other participant via a respective user device; analyzing, by a machine learning model, audio signals of participants during the collaboration session to determine voice signatures of the participants including re-occurring patterns in speech, tone pitch, and phrasing profile; detecting, by the user device, an audio signal of the collaboration session; determining whether the audio signal is an audio utterance of a person that is included in participant list information by comparing a voice signature of the audio signal to voice signatures of persons of the participant list information; and selectively filtering the media stream to exclude the audio signal based on the participant list information by removing the audio signal when the voice signature of the audio signal is determined to be associated with an inadvertent participant that is not included in the participant list information” as recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 17. As a result, the claims are allowable over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Giddins whose telephone number is (571)272-7993. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linglan Edwards can be reached at (571) 270-5440. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NELSON S. GIDDINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights