DETAILED ACTION
DETAILED ACTION
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-10, 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a “computer program product” which can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission. Applicant’s specification fails to exclude signals as a form of medium. As a result, the “computer program product" can be interpreted as a signal, which is non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17-18, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Dependent claims 17 and 18 recite limitations which are present in parent claim 16.
Dependent claims 22 and 23 recite limitations which are present in parent claim 21.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 16-18, 20-23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Skrickij et al. (US 12,388,882 B1, “Skrickij”).
As to claims 1, 6, 11, Skrickij discloses a method comprising:
in response to receiving a screen sharing video stream from a presenter’s computer, analyzing the screen sharing video stream (presenter provides content 103, such as a presentation, video, etc., to a media conferencing service 105, and the shared content is analyzed by an interactive content detector 108; col. 3, line 37 – col. 5, line 17);
identifying application information and navigation actions included in the screen sharing video stream (interactive content detector 108 identifies content within one or more frames to be presented to the participants of the conference, and a content change between frames; col. 3, line 64 – col. 4, line 53);
generating navigation metadata in real-time, the navigation metadata including application static information and dynamic navigation actions (interactive content detector identifies and bounds actionable interactive content, and context postprocessor 114 outputs the words/objects and bounding perimeters as semantic output which may include metadata identifying at least one of the type of interactive content in the frame, location, parameter information, type of actions, etc.; col. 4, line 62 – col. 6, line 18);
sending the navigation metadata to at least one participant of the screen sharing video (semantic output is transmitted to the viewer/participant of the video conference; col. 6, lines 10-18); and
causing the at least one participant to reorganize keyframes and build up a virtual desktop using the navigation metadata (upon reception of the content 103 and semantic output 120 by the viewer/participant, the bounding perimeters may be overlaid over the shared content being displayed, and the participant may customize the presentation of actionable options, col. 6, lines 18-58; the interactive content being comprised of keyframes, col. 11, lines 49-65).
As to claims 5, 10, 12, 20, 25, Skrickij discloses: wherein the screen sharing video stream is part of a video call connecting the presenter with the participant and one or more other participants, wherein audio and visual information is exchanged between the presenter and the participants (media conference may comprise text, video and/or audio signals, col. 3, lines 38-58; col. 8, lines 30-32; col. 8, lines 56-61).
As to claims 16, 21, Skrickij discloses a method comprising:
receiving navigation metadata from a central server (col. 6, lines 10-13);
using the navigation metadata to reorganize keyframes and build up a virtual desktop (col. 6, lines 18-58; col. 11, lines 49-65);
loading a current application in the virtual desktop (col. 14, lines 44-53);
using the current application to display a screen sharing video stream received from a presenter’s computer (col. 10, lines 20-37); and
in response to receiving one or more navigation inputs from a participant, updating the virtual desktop to reflect the one or more navigation inputs (col. 3, lines 17-30; col. 4, lines 7-29; col. 6, lines 10-50),
wherein the one or more navigation inputs are received from the participant in response to interacting with a user interface (UI) that corresponds to the virtual desktop (col. 3, lines 17-30; col. 4, lines 7-29; col. 6, lines 10-50),
wherein the one or more navigation inputs include switching between displayed applications and/or adjusting a view in a current application (col. 4, lines 20-29; col. 11, lines 10-14).
As to claims 17, 22, Skrickij discloses: wherein the one or more navigation inputs are received from the participant in response to interacting with a user interface (UI) that corresponds to the virtual desktop (col. 3, lines 17-30; col. 4, lines 7-29; col. 6, lines 10-50).
As to claims 18, 23, Skrickij discloses: wherein the one or more navigation inputs include switching between displayed applications and/or adjusting a view in a current application (col. 4, lines 20-29; col. 11, lines 10-14).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 19, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skrickij in view of Parmar et al. (US 2021/0076105 A1, “Parmar”).
Skrickij discloses: wherein the navigation metadata includes application static information and dynamic navigation actions (col. 4, line 62 – col. 6, line 18), but differs from claims 19, 24 in that it does not disclose: wherein the using the navigation metadata to reorganize keyframes and build up the virtual desktop includes: grouping keyframes into applications; displaying keyframes in an application view; and rendering hotspots on the keyframes based at least in part on the dynamic navigation actions.
Parmar teaches reorganizing content from a slide presentation which includes arranging key frames and key groupings (para. 0509-0517) and rendering hotspots (para. 0305). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Skrickij with the above teaching of Parmar in order to emphasize certain presentation parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7-9, 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adcock et al. (US 2024/0314180 A1) teach enabling permissible interactions with applications shared during a communication session.
Jiao et al. (US 2024/0211681 A1) teach organizing keyframes into topic groups.
Bonnett-Brooks et al. (US 2023/0328123 A1) teach allowing non-presenting users to view, navigate and interact with other parts of a shared presentation without interrupting the presenter or the experience of other non-presenting users.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stella L Woo whose telephone number is (571)272-7512. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
STELLA L. WOO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2693
/Stella L. Woo/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights