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 application 18/898,279 filed on 09/26/2024.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,108,188. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations recited in claim 1 of the instant application is encompassed by claim 1 of the US Patent No. 12,108,188.
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.
(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 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duckworth et al., (“Duckworth,” US 2013/0328998)
Regarding claim 1, Duckworth discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a video conferencing application executed by a client device during a video conference, one or more video streams (Duckworth: pars. 0004; a videoconference multipoint control unit (MCU) will receive one or more video stream; par. 0017; Fig. 1; MCU will receive video streams form one or more endpoint; and also see pars. 0020-0026);
receiving, by the video conferencing application from a software application, software application content and display layout information (Duckworth: pars. 0028-0029, 0031-0033; Figs.3-4; “[a] layout manager 302 can receive attributes associated with video streams generated by each of the five endpoints A, B, C, D, and E, and determine the layout of outgoing video streams to be displayed on each of the display devices at each endpoint. Outgoing video streams can also include attributes, which allow the endpoints to determine the display device on which the video streams are to be displayed.”);
generating, by the video conferencing application, a graphical representation of the video conference according to the display layout information, the graphical representation comprising at least a portion of the software application content and at least one of the one or more video streams (Duckworth: pars. pars. 0033-0041; Figs. 4A-4D; a layout manager 302 generates and displays video streams to participants in video conference); and
displaying, by the video conferencing application, the graphical representation of the video conference (Duckworth: pars. 0033-0044; Figs. 4A-4C, the video stream(s) and presenter which are displayed on all participants device who in conference).
Regarding claim 2, Duckworth discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the video conferencing application provides an execution environment, and wherein the software application executes within the execution environment (Duckworth: pars. 0020, 0022, 0029, 0031-0032).
Regarding claim 3, Duckworth discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the software application communicates with the video conferencing application using an application programming interface provided by the video conferencing application (Duckworth: pars. 0007-0008, 0017,0020, 0022, 0027-0032; Fig. 3 ).
Regarding claim 4, Duckworth discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting the graphical representation of the video conference to a video conference provider to distribute to one or more other participants in the video conference (Duckworth: pars. ).
Regarding claim 5, Duckworth discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the display layout information comprises a size and position corresponding to at least one of the one or more participant video streams, and wherein generating the graphical representation comprises positioning the at least one of the one or more participant video streams within the graphical representation based on the size and position (Duckworth: pars. 0039-0040; Figs. 4A-4D, the video streams display on device).
Regarding claim 6, Duckworth discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the display layout information comprises content layout information associated with at least one of (i) the software application content, (ii) a video stream received from a camera communicatively coupled to the client device (Duckworth: pars. 0018-0019; Fig. 2, the video streams generated by cameras 202-205 ), or (iii) the one or more participant video streams.
Regarding claim 8, Duckworth discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the video conferencing application, multimedia content (Duckworth: pars. 0033-0041; Figs. 4A-4D; a layout manager 302 generates and displays video streams to participants in video conference); and wherein generating the graphical representation of the video conference comprises including the multimedia content in the graphical representation (Duckworth: pars. 0033-0041; Fig 4D).
Regarding claims 9-14; claims 9-14 are directed to device associated with the system claimed in claims 1-6 respectively; Claims 9-14 are similar in scope to claims 1-6 respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16; claim 16 is directed to device associated with the system claimed in claim 8; Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 8, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 17-20; claims 17-20 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium associated with the system claimed in claims 1-4 respectively; Claims 17-20 are similar in scope to claims 1-4 respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar 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 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 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duckworth et al., (“Duckworth,” US 2013/0328998), in view of Khot et al., (“Khot,” US 2011/0279628).
Regarding claim 7, Duckworth discloses the method of claim 6.
Duckworth discloses all limitations above, but does not explicitly disclose the display layout information further comprises an identification of at least a portion of the software application content as being private.
However, Khot discloses a method for conducting a private videoconference within a first videoconference, wherein the display layout information further comprises an identification of at least a portion of the software application content as being private (Khot: pars. 0043-0044, 0048; Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Khot with the method/system of Duckworth. One would have been motivated to reduce distractions and allow participants to concentrate on complex tasks, problem-solving, or creative work.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to device associated with the system claimed in claim 7; Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 15, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
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.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968))
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH K PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3230. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM (EST).
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, William L Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. 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.
/LINH K PHAM/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights