DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Application #18828445 filed 09/09/2024. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are subject to examination.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LENKE et al. (US 20200110572 A1), hereby referred to as LENKE.
Claim 1:
LENKE teaches A method comprising: receiving, at a first computing device, first audio and, from a second computing device, second audio (LENKE: FIG. 2A wherein the first computing device can be any one of a server or device); determining, with a content determination engine, first audio content and second audio content (LENKE: para 33 (“The detection of whether the user 210 is speaking can occur through a voice activation detection unit…A network-based component can also make the determination of whether audio is speech from a user…”) wherein the content determination engine is a voice activation detection unit); determining that the first audio content does not correspond to the second audio content (LENKE: FIG. 4 item 406 (“Detecting, while the first device has the mute feature set, whether the first user is speaking to yield a determination”) and para 27 (“…the background noise can actually be a user speaking but the speech is not intended for the teleconference…”) wherein making a “determination” is the correspondence between the first and second audio content; wherein the second audio content is related to the teleconference from other users of a second computing device and the first audio content is background noise from the user of the first computing device); and operating a mute function, at the first computing device, based on the determination that the first audio content does not correspond to the second audio content (LENKE: FIG. 4 item 408 (“When the determination indicates that the first user is speaking, automatically setting the mute feature to off to enable the second user to hear the first user in the communication conference.”) and para 57 (“…distinguishing between speech from the first user and a background noise…”) wherein the mute function is to remain in mute when the first audio content does not correspond to the second audio content).
Claim 2:
LENKE teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the method further comprises: receiving, at the first computing device, a video (LENKE: para 16 (“Classifiers can also be trained on video…”)); and determining, with the content determination engine, video content (LENKE: para 36 (“…include components capable of handling a videoconference or can include video capability…Such visual feedback or data can be provide to the component 220 to make a classification decision…”)); and determining that the first audio content does not correspond to the second audio content is further based on the video content (LENKE: para 16 (“Classifiers can also be trained on video…video feed of the user and pass raw data or process data to a classifier which can aid in the determination of whether the speech received is intended for a conference or not…”) and para 57 (“Detecting whether the first user is speaking can be based at least in part on one or more of facial recognition data, gaze detection data…motion detection…”) wherein video content helps to determine correspondence).
Claim 3:
LENKE teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: receiving, at the first computing device, a first video stream and a second video stream, wherein the first video stream is associated with the first audio, and the second video stream is associated with the second audio (LENKE: para 16 (“Classifiers can also be trained on video…video feed of the user and pass raw data or process data to a classifier which can aid in the determination of whether the speech received is intended for a conference or not…”) wherein video stream associated with each audio is received); determining, with the content determination engine, first video content and second video content (LENKE: para 16 (“Classifiers can also be trained on video…video feed of the user and pass raw data or process data to a classifier which can aid in the determination of whether the speech received is intended for a conference or not…”) and para 57 (“Detecting whether the first user is speaking can be based at least in part on one or more of facial recognition data, gaze detection data…motion detection…”) wherein video content helps to determine correspondence); determining, based on the content of each of the first and second video streams and the first and second audio, an order in which to display the video streams (LENKE: FIG. 6 item 610 (“Linking the user speaking the audio to the conference call after playing the buffered audio..”) wherein determined conference video/second video stream is played first and then the buffered conference video/first video stream is played after); and displaying, based on the determined order, the first video stream and the second video stream on a display of the first computing device (LENKE: para 66 (“When the speech is intended for the conference call, playing the buffered audio…and linking the user speaking the audio to the conference call after playing the buffered audio…”) and para 67 (“This approach can also apply to video conference calls in which video is buffered and played out from the buffer using the same principles…”)).
Claim 4:
LENKE teaches the method of claim 3, wherein: the method further comprises: transmitting a plurality of messages from the first computing device and the second computing device (LENKE: FIG. 2A wherein devices in teleconference transmit plurality of messages to one another); determining a first frequency of the messages transmitted from the first computing device (LENKE: para 15 (“Detecting whether the first user is speaking and intending to speak in the conference can be based on…received audio…”) and para 72 (“The granularity can also relate to a filtering of certain sound frequencies.”) wherein audio is received from each participant/computing device); determining a second frequency of the messages transmitted from the second computing device (LENKE: para 15 (“Detecting whether the first user is speaking and intending to speak in the conference can be based on…received audio…”) and para 72 (“The granularity can also relate to a filtering of certain sound frequencies.”) wherein audio is received from each participant/computing device); and determining the order in which to display the video streams is further based on the first frequency and the second frequency (LENKE: FIG. 6 item 610 (“Linking the user speaking the audio to the conference call after playing the buffered audio..”) and para 66 (“When the speech is intended for the conference call, playing the buffered audio…and linking the user speaking the audio to the conference call after playing the buffered audio…”) wherein determined conference video/second video stream is played first and then the buffered conference video/first video stream is played after).
Claim 6:
LENKE teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: determining a response to the second audio (LENKE: para 15 (“…determining whether the speech is intended for the second user in the conference…intending to speak in the conference…”) wherein second audio can be the conference and it is determined whether the first audio is in response/intended for the conference); and performing an action based on the response and the second audio content (LENKE: FIG. 6 item 608 (“When the speech is intended for the conference call, playing the buffered audio in the conference call”)).
Claim 8:
LENKE teaches The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the first audio further comprises recording the first audio (LENKE: FIG. 6 item 602 (“Receiving Audio”) and item 604 (“Buffering the audio to yield buffered audio”)); and the method further comprises determining, based on the first audio content, whether to play back a portion of the recorded first audio (LENKE: FIG. 6 item 606 (“Analyzing the audio to determine whether the audio represents speech intended for a conference call”)).
Claim 9:
LENKE teaches The method of claim 8, wherein determining whether to play back the portion of the recorded first audio further comprises: determining that playing back the portion of the recorded first audio would interrupt a speaker at the second computing device (LENKE: para 64 (“The buffered speech could also be played out based on the system determining that others in a communication session are not speaking and thus there is an opening for the buffered speech to actually be heard.”) wherein the buffered portion is played back based on the others not speaking so as to not interrupt); and delaying playing back the portion of the recorded first audio until a time at which the speaker would not be interrupted (LENKE: FIG. 6 item 610 (“When the speech is intended for the conference call, playing the buffered audio in the conference call”) and para 64 (“The buffered speech could also be played out based on the system determining that others in a communication session are not speaking and thus there is an opening for the buffered speech to actually be heard.”) wherein play back is at a time when no one is speaking).
Claim 10:
LENKE teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: recording the first audio (LENKE: FIG. 6 item 604 (“Buffering the audio to yield buffered audio”)); determining that the mute function is turned on (LENKE: para 63 (“…if the system is on mute and the user beings speaking, thinking that the input device is not on mute, the system may…buffering the receive audio while the system evaluates audio…”)); identifying a first portion of the recorded first audio that corresponds to a second portion of the second audio (LENKE: FIG. 6 item 606 (“Analyzing the audio to determine whether the audio represents speech intended for a conference call”)); and transmitting the first portion of the recorded first audio to the second computing device (LENKE: FIG. 6 item 608 (“When the speech is intended for the conference call, playing the buffered audio in the conference call”)).
Claim 11:
A system comprising: input/output circuitry (LENKE: FIG. 1) configured to: receive, at a first computing device, first audio and, from a second computing device, second audio (LENKE: FIG. 2A wherein the first computing device can be any one of a server or device in a teleconference); and processing circuitry configured to: determine, with a content determination engine, first audio content and second audio content (LENKE: para 33 (“The detection of whether the user 210 is speaking can occur through a voice activation detection unit…A network-based component can also make the determination of whether audio is speech from a user…”) wherein the content determination engine is a voice activation detection unit); determine that the first audio content does not correspond to the second audio content (LENKE: FIG. 4 item 406 (“Detecting, while the first device has the mute feature set, whether the first user is speaking to yield a determination”) and para 27 (“…the background noise can actually be a user speaking but the speech is not intended for the teleconference…”) wherein making a “determination” is the correspondence between the first and second audio content; wherein the second audio content is related to the teleconference from other users of a second computing device and the first audio content is background noise from the user of the first computing device); and operate a mute function, at the first computing device, based on the determination that the first audio content does not correspond to the second audio content (LENKE: FIG. 4 item 408 (“When the determination indicates that the first user is speaking, automatically setting the mute feature to off to enable the second user to hear the first user in the communication conference.”) and para 57 (“…distinguishing between speech from the first user and a background noise…”) wherein the mute function is to remain in mute when the first audio content does not correspond to the second audio content).
Claim 12:
LENKE teaches the system of claim 11. For further limitation, see rejection for claim 2 above.
Claim 13:
LENKE teaches the system of claim 11. For further limitation, see rejection for claim 3 above.
Claim 14:
LENKE teaches the system of claim 13. For further limitation, see rejection for claim 4 above.
Claim 16:
LENKE teaches the system of claim 11. For further limitation, see rejection for claim 6 above.
Claim 18:
LENKE teaches the system of claim 11. For further limitation, see rejection for claim 8 above.
Claim 19:
LENKE teaches the system of claim 18. For further limitation, see rejection for claim 9 above.
Claim 20:
LENKE teaches the system of claim 11. For further limitation, see rejection for claim 10 above
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) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LENKE in view of DUNNE et al. (US 20130301810 A1) (see IDS 09/09/2024), hereby referred to as DUNNE.
Claim 5:
LENKE teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: receiving the second audio further comprises receiving the second audio via a network (DUNNE: FIG. 2A wherein audio from participants are received via network); but does not explicitly disclose that the method further comprises: detecting that there is a network connectivity issue between the first computing device and the second computing device; and transmitting a notification to the first computing device.
DUNNE, in the same field of endeavor, teaches detecting that there is a network connectivity issue between the first computing device and the second computing device; and transmitting a notification to the first computing device (DUNNE: para 62 (“…a notification may be transmitted to all the participants of the call, identifying low QoS of the communication channel/connection which may indicate potential issues associated with the communication channel/connection…”) wherein when there is connectivity/QoS issues, all participants and devices are transmitted a notification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified LENKE with DUNNE for the benefit of enabling corrective measures to be implemented (DUNNE: para 6-7).
Claim 15:
LENKE teaches the system of claim 11. For further limitation, see rejection for claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LENKE in view of IRELAND et al. (US 10244104 B1) (see IDS 09/09/2024), hereby referred to as IRELAND.
Claim 7:
LENKE teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: providing source audio data (LENKE: para 15 (“…classifier can be trained to determine whether first, the audio is speech and second, whether the audio is intended for a conference call or a video…trained on the volume of the speech, the cadence, the content…characteristics of speech associated…”) wherein source audio is received by the classifiers); producing a mathematical representation of the source audio data (LENKE: para 52 (“…the system might make a determination regarding whether to perform a local calculation or send data or parameterized data to a network-based server…perform algorithmic functions to evaluate receive data…”) the parameterized data is included in the mathematical representation of data), and training a network, using the mathematical representation of the source audio data (LENKE: para 16 (“Classifiers can be trained and used to classify received audio…classifier may also be trained on…the content…and so forth…trained on the differences between these two different types of speech…”) and para 52 (“…the system might make a determination regarding whether to perform a local calculation or send data or parameterized data to a network-based server…perform algorithmic functions to evaluate receive data…”) wherein classifiers are trained on audio data); and wherein the content determination engine comprises the trained network (LENKE: para 16 (“Classifiers can be trained and used to classify received audio…classifier may also be trained on…the content…and so forth…trained on the differences between these two different types of speech…”) and para 52 (“…perform algorithmic functions to evaluate receive data…”)).
WHILE LENKE teaches wherein the source audio data comprises a plurality of source audio (LENKE: FIG. 2B and para 16 (“Classifiers can be trained and used to classify received audio…”) wherein the classifiers can receive a plurality of audio): , LENKE does not explicitly disclose source audio transcriptions and wherein the source audio transcriptions comprise one or more source audio words and wherein the one or more source audio words are each assigned a value that represents a context of the word.
IRELAND, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein source audio transcriptions and wherein the source audio transcriptions comprise one or more source audio words (IRELAND: col 2 line 20-30 (“…the ASR can produce a transcript of the voice communication and compare phrases…”) wherein one or more words are in the transcript) and wherein the one or more source audio words are each assigned a value that represents a context of the word (IRELAND: col 5 line 1-5 (“…the transcript includes a confidence value for words in the transcript. Calculating a confidence value is typical in ASR”) wherein there is a value attached to the context of the word).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified LENKE with IRELAND for the benefit of mitigating latency, data corruption, and jitter (IRELAND: col 1 line 30-40).
Claim 17:
LENKE teaches the system of claim 11. For further limitation, see rejection for claim 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
YIN et al. (US 9247204 B1) teaches automated mute control in teleconferences using machine learning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELIE T NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-0180. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur: 8am - 5pm; 2nd Fri: 8am - 3pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at (571) 270-5630. 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.
/A.T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights