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 .
Detailed Action
This office action is in response to the listing of claims filed on August 16, 2024. Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is no colon to indicate the end of the preamble. For purposes of examination, claim 1 is being interpreted to have the preamble, “A system for starting an online meeting, the system comprising a client, a server, and a meeting control apparatus configured to control an image capture apparatus in a room, wherein, the client is configured to: ” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “meeting control apparatus configured to (means for)…” in claims 1-3 and 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US PGPub No: 2017/0111612) in view of Chang et al (US PGPub No: 2024/0040073), hereafter referred to as Yoshida and Chang, respectively.
With regard to claims 1, 7, and 13, Yoshida teaches through Chang, a system for starting an online meeting, the system comprising a client, a server, and a meeting control apparatus configured to control an image capture apparatus in a room, wherein, the client is configured to
access to the server to inquire status information of the online meeting with a meeting ID, the server is configured to provide the status information which shows if the online meeting is running or not to the client (Yoshida teaches a terminal requesting a new conference room generation; see paragraphs 217 and 219, Yoshida. The manager then creates a conference room with a corresponding conference room ID; see paragraph 222, Yoshida. The terminal then sends a call request and the manager provides the terminal conference room IDs and corresponding terminal IDs and state informtion; see paragraphs 260, 267, and 268-269 and Figure 28, Yoshida),
the server is configured to provide access information, to the meeting control apparatus corresponding to a room selected by the client, to the client in a case where the online meeting is not running (Yoshida teaches a start-request for a conference being sent by a user to a counterpart terminal, the conference being identified by a conference room ID; see paragraphs 99 and 101, Yoshida),
the client is configured to access to the meeting control apparatus based on the access information provided by the server, the client is configured to send the meeting ID to the meeting control apparatus so that the meeting control apparatus can start the online meeting with the meeting ID (Yoshida teaches the terminal distributing and edit the conference room information for editing the conference room and the terminals allowed to enter; see paragraphs 224-225, Yoshida. The terminal sends to the management system, the Invite+Room indicative of requesting for starting the communication for distribution, including the conference room ID; see paragraphs 243-251, Yoshida),
the meeting control apparatus is configured to perform a verification process to check if a person is in the selected room or not, and the meeting control apparatus is configured to start the online meeting with the meeting ID and send an image captured by the image capture apparatus in the selected room to the server after the verification process is passed (see below).
While Yoshida teaches an online conference, Yoshida does not explicitly cite verifying if a person is the selected room or capturing an image for verification. In the same field of endeavor, Chang also teaches a web-based video conference system; see abstract and paragraphs 28 and 56, Chang. In particular, Chang explains how the system verifies user attendance, at the planned physical space, by capturing video/image; see paragraph 68, Chang. By verifying attendance, participation is ensured. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Chang with those of Yoshida, to ensure participant attendance.
With regard to claims 2, 8, and 14, Yoshida teaches through Chang, the system, wherein the verification process includes: the client is configured to show a verification screen on a display of the client to notify the person to make a predetermined gesture, the meeting control apparatus is configured to obtain the image captured by the image capture apparatus and determine if the person makes the predetermined gesture based on the image, and wherein the verification process is passed in a case where the meeting control apparatus determines the person makes the predetermined gesture
While Yoshida teaches an online conference, Yoshida does not explicitly cite verifying if a person is the selected room or capturing an image for verification. In the same field of endeavor, Chang also teaches a web-based video conference system; see abstract and paragraphs 28 and 56, Chang. In particular, Chang explains how the system verifies user attendance, at the planned physical space, by capturing video/image; see paragraph 68, Chang. The cameras can identify participant faces by facial recognition; see paragraph 13, Chang. By verifying attendance, participation is ensured. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Chang with those of Yoshida, to ensure participant attendance.
With regard to claims 3, 9, and 15, Yoshida teaches through Chang, the system, wherein the verification process includes: the meeting control apparatus is configured to show a screen on a display located in the selected room, the screen showing a verification code, the client is configured to show a verification screen on a display of the client to notify the person to enter the verification code into the verification screen, and the client is configured to send an entered code to the meeting control apparatus, and wherein the verification process is passed in a case where the entered code matches the verification code (Yoshida supports each terminal having to enter ID and password for authentication; see paragraph 58, Yoshida).
With regard to claims 4, 10, and 16, Yoshida teaches through Chang, the system, wherein, the client is configured to access to the server to obtain a room list; the client is configured to select a predetermined room among the room list to make a reservation for the online meeting, and the server is configured to generate the meeting ID for the online meeting which is associated with the predetermined room (Yoshida supports multiple rooms to select from; see paragraphs 143, 210, and 216, Yoshida).
With regard to claims 5, 11, and 17, Yoshida teaches through Chang, the system, wherein, the client is configured to show a lobby screen on a display of the client in the case where the online meeting is not running, the lobby screen showing a button to change a room from the predetermined room; the server is configured to provide the access information, to the meeting control apparatuses corresponding to other rooms than the predetermined room, to the client in a case where the button is clicked, and the client is configured to show a selection screen to select the room which is different from the predetermined room on the display of the client, the selection screen showing a list of the other rooms
While Yoshida teaches an online conference, Yoshida does not explicitly cite verifying if a person is the selected room or capturing an image for verification. In the same field of endeavor, Chang also teaches a web-based video conference system; see abstract and paragraphs 28 and 56, Chang. In particular, Chang explains how the system verifies user attendance, at the planned physical space, by capturing video/image; see paragraph 68, Chang. Chang supports users who frequently travel and joining from different rooms and locations; see paragraph 70, Chang. By verifying attendance, participation is ensured. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Chang with those of Yoshida, to ensure participant attendance.
With regard to claims 6, 12, and 18, Yoshida teaches through Chang, the system, wherein, the client is configured to show a lobby screen on a display of the client in the case where the online meeting is not running, the lobby screen showing a button to initiate the online meeting which is associated with the predetermined room; the client is configured to access to the meeting control apparatus corresponding to the predetermined room and sending the meeting ID to the meeting control apparatus so that the meeting control apparatus can start the online meeting with the meeting ID; the meeting control apparatus is configured to perform the verification process to check if the person is in the predetermined room or not, and the meeting control apparatus is configured to start the online meeting with the meeting ID and sending an image captured by the image capture apparatus in the predetermined room to the server after the verification process is passed
While Yoshida teaches an online conference, Yoshida does not explicitly cite verifying if a person is the selected room or capturing an image for verification. In the same field of endeavor, Chang also teaches a web-based video conference system; see abstract and paragraphs 28 and 56, Chang. In particular, Chang explains how the system verifies user attendance, at the planned physical space, by capturing video/image; see paragraph 68, Chang. By verifying attendance, participation is ensured. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Chang with those of Yoshida, to ensure participant attendance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AZIZUL Q CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-3909. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, EMMANUEL MOISE can be reached at (571) 272-3865. 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.
/AZIZUL CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455