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 communication is responsive to the application filed on 11/07/2024.
Claims 15-34 are pending in this application. This action is made non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-20, 23-26, 28-29, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(2) as being anticipated by SHIN et al. (US 2021/0120053; Hereinafter Shin).
Re claim 15, 23, and 31, SHIN teaches a method comprising:
displaying, by a video conference application executing on a first client device (figs. 1 and 41, plurality of users participating a video conference), a first content in a first application, the first application comprising a slide presentation application or a video application, as part of a visual display of a video conference on the first client device (figs. 7 and 45, displaying content on the first client computer);
receiving, by the video conference application executing on the first client device from the video conference application executing on a second client device, a first command from a first user of a plurality of users authorized to control the first application (figs. 7, 45 and [0166]-[0167], obtaining input from first user);
displaying, by the video conference application executing on the first client, a second content in the first application in response to the first command (fig. 7 and [0167]-[0169], update displayed content);
receiving, by the video conference application executing on the first client device from the video conference application executing on a third client device, a second command from a second user of the plurality of users authorized to control the first application (fig. 7 and [0174]-[0177], obtaining second user input and update displayed content); and
displaying, by the video conference application executing on the first client, a third content in the first application in response to the second command (fig. 7 and [0176]-[0177], obtaining second input and update the displayed content).
Re claims 16, 24 and 32, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. SHIN teaches wherein the first content comprises video content ([0182], video display device 130a).
Re claims 17, 25 and 33, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. SHIN teaches wherein the video content is embedded a slide and displayed in the slide presentation application (fig. 14 and [0219], slide presentation).
Re claims 18, 26 and 34, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. SHIN teaches wherein the first command comprises a command to play the video content (fig. 7 teaches obtaining input and displaying content. Also see fig. 16a and [0223], video playback).
Re claims 20 and 28, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. SHIN teaches wherein the command is a first command and further comprising receiving, by the video conference application executing on the first client device from the video conference application executing on a third client device, a second command to control the first application, wherein the second command is issued by the second user of the plurality of users of the video conferencing application authorized to control the first application (fig. 7, obtaining first user input and displaying content then obtaining second user input to further display content accordingly. Also see figs 4a-b, displaying a plurality of users in a conference video).
Re claims 21 and 29, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated. SHIN teaches wherein the first user and the second user are simultaneously authorized to issue the first command and the second command (fig. 7, obtaining commands from first and second user to update content).
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 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 of this title, 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 19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIN in view of HINCKLEY et al. (US 2022/0365606; Hereinafter Hinckley).
Re claims 19 and 27, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. SHIN teaches obtaining a command from user (fig. 7, obtaining user input) but SHIN does not teach wherein the first command comprises a command to pause the video content. However, it is taught by Hinckley (fig. 8B and [0076], pausing video content in the window of the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Hinckley’s content into SHIN’s invention because it would allow user to further manipulate with the video content to achieve a task in a timely manner.
Claims 22 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIN in view of Truong et al. (US Patent 11,006,077; Hereinafter Truong).
Re claims 22 and 30, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated. SHIN does not explicitly teach further comprising:
receiving, by the video conference application executing on the first client device, a third indication from the host of the video conference that the second user of the plurality of users of the video conference application executing on a third client device is no longer authorized to issue the command to display the second slide; and
sending a third notification to the third client device in response to the third indication.
However, Truong teaches:
receiving, by the video conference application executing on the first client device, a third indication from the host of the video conference that the second user of the plurality of users of the video conference application executing on a third client device is no longer authorized to issue the command to display the second slide (col. 23, lines 5-23, the system may disable the screen share including the first graphical user interface with at least the second computing device over the video conference); and
sending a third notification to the third client device in response to the third indication (col. 23, lines 20-23, disabling the screen sharing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Truong’s content into SHIN’s invention because it would provide user an enhanced system that is able to detect sensitive material by not allowing the sharing of the sensitive content for security purpose.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 ( c ) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN H VU whose telephone number is (571)270-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP 9-5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Hong can be reached on 571-272-4124. 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.
/TOAN H VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights