DETAILED ACTION1
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The specification is objected to for the following:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 14-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoang et al. (US 2023/0081717 A1).
As in Claim 1, Hoang teaches a method comprising:
detecting a plurality of participants of a communication session, the plurality of participants collocated in an area (FIGS. 5-6 and 9, at least pars. 71, 78-80, 101, a device/system detects a plurality of conference participants during communication within a conference room);
obtaining participant features of each of the plurality of participants captured using at least one image sensor (FIGS. 4-5, at least pars. 65-66, 71-73, 79, 86, the device receives the conference participants information/data (e.g., video and image data) captured using a camera or video capture devices 400);
generating a plurality of participant tiles, each of the participant tiles corresponding to the participant features of a corresponding one of the plurality of participants (FIGS. 6 and 8, at least pars. 70-71, 97, 92, 94-96, the device generates the video streams and arranging UI tiles for individual conference participants);
generating a group interface for the communication session based on the plurality of tiles, the group interface including the participant features of each of the plurality of participants (FIGS. 6 and 8, at least pars. 70-71, 97, 92, 94-96, the UI tiles for each conference participant are arranged in an area of the display or conference room and represent the respective participant’s features); and
rendering the group interface for display using at least one display (FIG. 8, pars. 23 and 94-96, the UI tiles are arranged and displayed as a list on the display).
As in Claim 3, Hoang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hoang further teaches that at least one image sensor includes a plurality of image sensors having overlapping fields of view of the area (the system includes a plurality of video capture devices (at least pars. 18 and 65-66) having overlapping fields of view of the area (at least pars. 79, 82, 85, 93-95)).
As in Claim 5, Hoang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hoang further teaches that the area is an interior of a structure (at least pars. 71, 79, 82-84, conference room 600).
As in Claim 7, Hoang teaches all the limitations of Claim 5. Hoang further teaches that the group interface includes the participant features of each of the plurality of participants arranged according to a corresponding position of each of the plurality of participants within the interior of the structure (see FIG. 8, pars. 23, 94-96 and 71, 79, 82-84).
As in Claim 8, Hoang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hoang further teaches homogenizing the plurality of participant tiles (see FIG. 8)
Claim 14 is substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
As in Claim 15, Hoang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hoang further teaches that the image data includes video (pars. 71, 73-74, 101, the image data (e.g., face image) includes video data).
Claim 18, please see the rejection for claim 1, which incorporates all the limitations recited in claim 18.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to Claim 8 and rejected under the same rationale.
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.
4. Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang et al. (US 2023/0081717 A1) in view of Satoda et al. (US 6285392 B1).
As in Claim 2, Hoang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hoang does not teach that the group interface removes background content from the area.
However, in the same field of the invention, Satoda teaches that the group interface removes background content from the area (col. 7, lines 1-14, the background of an image can be removed and make transparent so that only images of the participants are presented in the virtual conference space ).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying a list of conference participants by using user interface tiles, as taught by Hoang, and to remove the background of the image, as taught by Satoda. The motivation is to isolate the participants from their background and present them more clearly within the virtual conference scene.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale.
5. Claims 4, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang et al. (US 2023/0081717 A1) in view of Astarabadi et al.( US 2022/0191429 A1).
As in Claim 4, Hoang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hoang does not teach obtaining second participant features of each of one or more second participants located in a second area, the second area being outside of one or more fields of view of the at least one image sensor; and generating one or more second participant tiles, the group interface for the communication session being further generated based on the one or more second participant tiles.
However, in the same field of the invention, Astarabadi teaches obtaining second participant features of each of one or more second participants located in a second area, the second area being outside of one or more fields of view of the at least one image senso (pars. 19, 33-35, 86, 106-108, 111, 136, 143-145, the system detects a person or face outside the field of view (FOV) of a camera during a video call); and
generating one or more second participant tiles, the group interface for the communication session being further generated based on the one or more second participant tiles (pars. 19, 33-35, 86, 106-108, 111, 136, 143-145, the system can generate a synthetic image depicting the person, despite the user’s absence from the live FOV).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying a list of conference participants by using user interface tiles, as taught by Hoang, and to provide the way to generate the synthetic image of the person outside the FOV, as taught by Astarabadi. The motivation is to maintain a continuous and seamless video presence of the user when the user is outside the camera FOV.
6. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang et al. (US 2023/0081717 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0088577 A1).
As in Claim 6, Hoang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hoang does not teach detecting an operation mode transition trigger using the participant features; and transitioning an electronic device between a first operation mode and a second operation mode based on the operation mode transition trigger.
However, in the same field of the invention, Kim teaches detecting an operation mode transition trigger using the participant features (FIGS. 10-11, pars. 238, 245, 255, 286-287, the device detects a user input for switching operational mode or driving mode; further see pars, 5-7); and
transitioning an electronic device between a first operation mode and a second operation mode based on the operation mode transition trigger (FIGS. 10-11, pars. 238, 245, 255, 286-287, the device can switch the device (e.g., vehicle) between manual and autonomous modes based on the user input).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for displaying a list of conference participants by using user interface tiles, as taught by Hoang, and to switch the device between manual and autonomous modes with the user input, as taught by Kim. The motivation is to facilitate switching the vehicle between manual and autonomous modes, thereby improving driving safety and convenience.
7. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang et al. (US 2023/0081717 A1) in view of Libin et al. (US 11714595 B1).
As in Claim 9, Hoang teaches all the limitations of Claim 8. Hoang does not teach that homogenizing the plurality of participant tiles comprises: applying a tile optimization action to at least one participant tile of the plurality of participant tiles, the tile optimization action modifying the at least one participant tile within two-dimensions.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Libin teaches that homogenizing the plurality of participant tiles comprises: applying a tile optimization action to at least one participant tile of the plurality of participant tiles, the tile optimization action modifying the at least one participant tile within two-dimensions (see at least FIGS. 6-7 and col. 2, line 63 – col. 3, line 7 and col. 9, line 38 – col. 10, line 17, conference participants 610, 630, 650 can be modified by adding feedback or responses).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating hanging protocols in the workspace by placing thumbnail images, as taught by Hoang, and to modify the representation of the conference participants by adding the feedback, as taught by Libin. The motivation is to reflect participants’ responses and current state, ensuring that the information accurately represents their individual perspectives, experiences, and input.
8. Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang et al. (US 2023/0081717 A1) in view of Lebeau et al. (US 2023/0071584 A1).
As in Claim 10, Hoang teaches all the limitations of Claim 8. Hoang does not teach that homogenizing the plurality of participant tiles comprises: applying a feature optimization action to the participant features of at least one participant tile of the plurality of participant tiles, the feature optimization action modifying the participant features within three-dimensions.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Lebeau teaches that homogenizing the plurality of participant tiles comprises: applying a feature optimization action to the participant features of at least one participant tile of the plurality of participant tiles, the feature optimization action modifying the participant features within three-dimensions (par. 64, the image of the video call users can be converted from flat 2D images into 3D images in a 3D space or XR space).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating hanging protocols in the workspace by placing thumbnail images, as taught by Hoang, and to convert 2D images into the 3D images, as taught by Satoda. The motivation is to provide a more immersive and interactive representation of the participant in a 3D environment.
As in Claim 19, Hoang teaches all the limitations of Claim 18. Hoang does not teach that at least one image sensor includes a depth sensor, and the image data includes depth data of the participant features, the participant features being rendered in three-dimensions in the group interface based on the depth data.
However, in the same field of the invention, Lebeau teaches that at least one image sensor includes a depth sensor and the image data includes depth data of the participant features, the participant features being rendered in three-dimensions in the group interface based on the depth data (pars. 28, 62, 64, the system includes depth sensors, the video-call user’s feeds can be modified or converted from flat images into 3D images).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating hanging protocols in the workspace by placing thumbnail images, as taught by Hoang, and to convert 2D images into the 3D images, as taught by Satoda. The motivation is to provide a more immersive and interactive representation of the participant in a 3D environment.
9. Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang et al. (US 2023/0081717 A1) in view of Lebeau et al. (US 2023/0071584 A1) and further in view of Buckler, Mark (US 2008/0218582 A1)
As in Claim 11, Hoang-Lebeau teaches all the limitations of Claim 10. Hoang-Lebeau does not teach modifying the participant features within three-dimensions comprises: modifying a viewing angle of one or more of the plurality of participants.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Buckler teaches modifying the participant features within three-dimensions comprises:
modifying a viewing angle of one or more of the plurality of participants (pars.3, 8, 37, 41, 78, 99, the system can adjust a viewing angle of participants).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating hanging protocols in the workspace by placing thumbnail images, as taught by Hoang, in view of Lebeau’s teachings, and to adjust the viewing angle of the participants, as taught by Buckler. The motivation is to select the best camera and adjust its viewing angle and zoom.
10. Claims 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang et al. (US 2023/0081717 A1) in view of Ranganathan et al. (US 2023/0215128 A1).
As in Claim 12, Hoang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hoang does not teach detecting an occlusion of a portion of the participant features of a specific participant of the plurality of participants; and generating an unobstructed view of the specific participant using a heuristics action, the unobstructed view including a rendering of the portion of the participant features.
However, in the same field of the invention, Ranganathan teaches detecting an occlusion of a portion of the participant features of a specific participant of the plurality of participants (FIGS. 1, 7, and 11, pars. 13-15, 36, 55-60, the system detects a person partially occluded by objects 40, blocking the camera’s view of certain features) ; and
generating an unobstructed view of the specific participant using a heuristics action, the unobstructed view including a rendering of the portion of the participant features (FIGS. 1, 7, and 11, pars. 13-15, 36, 60, generator neural network model 10 generates a synthetic image as an unobstructed view of the person based on the unobstructed view of the object in previous frame 1110, and uses it to replace the occluded area 1114; further see pars. 17, 48-49).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating hanging protocols in the workspace by placing thumbnail images, as taught by Hoang, and to provide the way to generate the synthetic image as an unobstructed view of the person using machine learning models, as taught by Ranganathan. The motivation is to reconstruct the occluded portion of the object and improve the accuracy and completeness of image/object perception.
11. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang et al. (US 2023/0081717 A1) in view of Ranganathan et al. (US 2023/0215128 A1) and further in view Yoon et al. (US 20150304603 A1).
As in Claim 13, Hoang-Ranganathan teaches all the limitations of Claim 12. Hoang-Ranganathan does not teach determining an expression of the specific participant; and matching the rendering of the portion of the participant features with the expression of the specific participant.
However, in the same field of the invention, Yoon teaches determining an expression of the specific participant (FIGS. 7A-7B, pars. 101-104, the device analyzes/determines the voice data and expression data of the counterpart user during the voice-call service); and
matching the rendering of the portion of the participant features with the expression of the specific participant (FIGS. 7A-7B, pars. 101-104, the device identifies regions and subsequently processes those regions by changing facial features, such as the shapes of the eyes and sides of the mouth to emulate the determined expression).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating hanging protocols in the workspace by placing thumbnail images, as taught by Hoang, in view of Ranganathan’s teachings, and to provide the way to change the portion of the facial features based on the determined expression, as taught by Yoon. The motivation is to dynamically update the user’s image based on their expression, thereby improving personalization and user experience.
12. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang et al. (US 2023/0081717 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 20150304603 A1)
As in Claim 17, Hoang teaches all the limitations of Claim 12. Hoang does not teach determining an expression of a specific participant of the plurality of participants; and generating a rendering of a portion of the participant features corresponding to the specific participant, the rendering generated based on the expression.
However, in the same field of the invention, Yoon teaches determining an expression of a specific participant of the plurality of participants (FIGS. 7A-7B, pars. 101-104, the device analyzes/determines the voice data and expression data of the counterpart user during the voice-call service); and
generating a rendering of a portion of the participant features corresponding to the specific participant, the rendering generated based on the expression (FIGS. 7A-7B, pars. 101-104, the device identifies regions and subsequently processes those regions by changing facial features, such as the shapes of the eyes and sides of the mouth to emulate the determined expression).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating hanging protocols in the workspace by placing thumbnail images, as taught by Hoang, and to provide the way to change the portion of the facial features based on the determined expression, as taught by Yoon. The motivation is dynamically update the user’s image based on their expression, thereby improving personalization and user experience.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights