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 18/920,315 filed on 10/18/2024.
Claims 1-18 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made Non-FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 01/07/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1, 4-7, 10-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan et al., (“Hassan,” US 2022/0224554), filed on Jan. 8, 2021, in view of Koskelainen et al., (“Koskelainen,” US 2004/0174830), published on Sep. 9, 2004.
Regarding claim 1, Hassan discloses a method for selecting a user activate to speak, comprising:
receiving a first request sent by a first terminal device for requesting to determine a user activate to speak in a user group, wherein the user group comprises at least two candidate users, each of which corresponds to a second terminal device (pars. 0061-0062 and 0067-0069; Figs. 3-4; steps 401-403; virtual meeting server 101 receives interruption signals in response to raising-hands from participants X, Y, Z requesting to speak);
determining a selecting model corresponding to the first request, wherein the selecting model is used to be representative of a strategy of determining the user activate to speak from the user group (pars. 0061-0065 and 0068-0069; Figs. 3-4; step 403; virtual meeting server 101 determines which X, Y, and Z is the next speaker); and
determining the user activate to speak from the at least two candidate users according to the selecting model, and sending identification information of the user activate to speak to the first terminal device and the second terminal device (pars. 0061-0065 and 0068-0069; Figs. 3-4; step 405; although three participants X, Y, and Z have requested to speak, only speaker Y is identified as the next speaker and is highlighted with the visual interruption symbol to every meeting participant; the virtual meeting server 101 communicates with each client device 103 to update the meeting interface associated with each participant in the virtual meeting and turn on a visual interruption symbol associated with Y on each meeting interface).
Hassan discloses selecting model to determine active speaker as recited above, but does not explicitly disclose the selecting model is random selecting model that randomly determines active speaker.
However, Koskelainen discloses a system for floor control that includes a random selecting model that randomly determines active speaker (Koskelainen: par. 0027; the system randomly select a next speaker from those who would speak for 10 seconds).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Koskelainen with the system/method of Hassan. One would have been motivated to randomly select a next speaker in a conference session (Koskelainen: par. 0027).
Regarding claim 4, Hassan and Koskelainen disclose the method according to claim 1.
The combination of Hassan and Koskelainen further discloses determining a corresponding random selecting model according to speaking information after detecting the speaking information of the user activate to speak (Hassan: pars. 0043-0047; the criterion [used to select active speaker] may include at least one of timestamps associated with the multiple interruption signals, user roles associated with participants of the virtual meeting, relevancy of the participants to the virtual meeting, organizer preferences, or any combination thereof; Koskelainen: par.0027); and
determining a new user activate to speak from the at least two candidate users according to the random selecting model corresponding to the speaking information (Hassan: pars. 0043-0047; active speaker is selected based on user roles; Koskelainen: par. 0027).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Hassan and Koskelainen disclose the method according to claim 1.
The combination of Hassan and Koskelainen further discloses wherein the determining the user activate to speak from the at least two candidate users according to the random selecting model comprises:
obtaining user information of each candidate user in the user group (Hassan: pars. 0043-0047; the queue engine 203 may also manage the queue based on user roles associated with participants of the virtual meeting (i.e., user role criterion). A user role may include a job role, a meeting role, etc; a job role is the function that a meeting participant fills within a corporation, such as a chief executive officer (CEO), a department manager, an engineer, etc.,);
determining a preferred candidate user according to each of the user information (Hassan: pars. 0043-0047; active speaker is determined based on user role); and
determining the user activate to speak from the preferred candidate users according to the random selecting model (Hassan: pars. 0043-0047; active speaker is determined based on user role; Koskelainen: par. 0027).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Hassan and Koskelainen disclose the method according to claim 5.
The combination of Hassan and Koskelainen further discloses wherein the user information comprises record information representative of a speaking record of a candidate user in the user group (Hassan: pars. 0033 and 0053; the data store 107 also stores any other information related to the operations described herein, such as interactions occurring during the time that a next participant is waiting for talk, information of participants requesting to speak, user roles of the participants, etc.,).; and
the determining a preferred candidate user according to each of the user information comprises:
determining the preferred candidate user according to the record information of each candidate user (Hassan: pars. 0033, 0043 and 0049; the meeting organizer may set up his/her preference rules or select a next speaker from a list of requesting participants).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is directed to an electronic device corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 7 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is directed to an electronic device corresponding to the method recited in claim 4. Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is directed to an electronic device corresponding to the method recited in claim 5. Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to an electronic device corresponding to the method recited in claim 6. Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method recited in claim 4. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method recited in claim 5. Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method recited in claim 6. Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 2-3, 8-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan et al., (“Hassan,” US 2022/0224554), filed on Jan. 8, 2021, in view of Koskelainen et al., (“Koskelainen,” US 2004/0174830), published on Sep. 9, 2004, and further in view of Sharma et al. (“Sharma,” US 2007/0260684), published on Nov. 08, 2007.
Regarding claim 2, Hassan and Koskelainen disclose the method according to claim 1.
The combination of Hassan and Koskelainen further discloses the determining a random selecting model corresponding to the first request comprises: determining a random selecting model according to the number of candidate users in the user group (Hassan: pars. 0035-0036 and 0052-0053; the queue engine 203 may identify a predetermined number of interruption signals from a predetermined number of positions in the beginning of the queue, and correspond each of the identified interruption signals to a specific participant.; Koskelainen: par. 0027).
The combination of Hassan and Koskelainen does not explicitly disclose determining a number of candidate users in the user group according to the group identifier.
However, However, Sharma discloses a method for managing conference call including the steps of determining a number of candidate users in the user group according to the group identifier (Sharna: pars. 0025 and 0038-0041; Figs. 5-8; conference room names are listed and active user is selected for the conference room).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Sharma with the system/method of Hassan. One would have been motivated to select active speaker for a conference room based on room name (Sharma: par. 0040-0041).
Regarding claim 3, Hassan, Koskelainen and Sharna disclose the method according to claim 2.
The combination of Hassan, Koskelainen and Sharna further discloses wherein the determining a random selecting model according to the number of candidate users in the user group comprises:
when the number of candidate users in the user group is less than a first threshold, the random selecting model is a first type of selecting model configured to determine a user activate to speak from all the candidate users in the user group (Hassan: pars. 0035-0036 and 0052-0056; the queue engine 203 may identify a predetermined number of interruption signals from a predetermined number of positions in the beginning of the queue to identify next speaker; Koskelainen: par. 0027; Sharna: pars. 0025 and 0038-0041; Figs. 5-8); and
when the number of candidate users in the user group is greater than a first threshold, the random selecting model is a second type of selecting model configured to determine a user activate to speak from some candidate users in the user group (Hassan: pars. 0040, 0049, 0051 and 0064; indicating that he/she has started talking for a threshold amount of time (e.g., five seconds) or has completed talking in the virtual meeting; Koskelainen: par. 0027; the floor control system enables implementations such as "second speaker in topic can have 15 seconds to speak, then randomly select (from those who would speak) a next speaker for 10 seconds."; Sharna: pars. 0025 and 0038-0041; Figs. 5-8).
The motivation is the same that of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is directed to an electronic device corresponding to the method recited in claim 2. Claim 8 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is directed to an electronic device corresponding to the method recited in claim 3. Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method recited in claim 2. Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method recited in claim 3. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 3, 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