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 . The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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 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.
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 conflicting claims 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); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,577. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are broader in scope.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20100149301-A1 to Lee et al. (“Lee”).
As to claim 1, Lee disclose(s) a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a first set of video streams comprising available video streams for a videoconference, wherein a plurality of client devices are connected to the videoconference, and each of the video streams in the first set of video streams is provided to a videoconferencing service by a respective client device of the plurality of client devices; (Lee; receive streams 430; fig. 4)
receiving, by the computing device, one or more settings for one or more video streams of a second set of video streams, the one or more settings indicating one or more video feed properties; (Lee; receive subscription requests 440; fig. 4)
producing, by the computing device, the second set of video streams from the first set of video streams, wherein each video stream of the second set of video streams is produced by changing a video stream of the first set of video streams according to the one or more video feed properties; (Lee; matching video stream 450; fig. 4; see also altering resolutions; [0027][0028])
and outputting, by the computing device, one or more video streams of the second set of video streams. (Lee; send streams 460; fig. 4)
As to claim 3, Lee disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the first set of video streams comprises video streams from a videoconference. (Lee; video conference; fig. 2; [0018]]0019])
As to claim 5, Lee disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more video feed properties comprise an aspect ratio, a resolution, a frame rate, or an output format. (Lee; parameters include resolution, frame rate;[0020];[0021])
As to claim 7, Lee disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein outputting the one or more video streams of the second set of video streams further comprises:
transmitting one or more video streams of the second set of video streams according to an output format. (Lee; encoded video stream; [0020];[0021] )
As to claim 8, Lee disclose(s) a device comprising:
one or more processors configured to:
receive a first set of video streams comprising available video streams for a videoconference, wherein a plurality of client devices are connected to the videoconference, and each of the video streams in the first set of video streams is provided to a videoconferencing service by a respective client device of the plurality of client devices;
receive one or more settings for one or more video streams of a second set of video streams, the one or more settings indicating one or more video feed properties;
produce the second set of video streams from the first set of video streams, wherein each video stream of the second set of video streams is produced by changing a video stream of the first set of video streams according to the one or more video feed properties;
and output one or more video streams of the second set of video streams.
See similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 10, Lee disclose(s) the device of claim 8, wherein the first set of video streams comprises video streams from a videoconference.
See similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 12, Lee disclose(s) the device of claim 8, wherein the one or more video feed properties comprise an aspect ratio, a resolution, a frame rate, or an output format.
See similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 14, Lee disclose(s) the device of claim 8, wherein outputting the one or more video streams of the second set of video streams comprises transmitting one or more video streams of the second set of video streams according to an output format.
See similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 15, Lee disclose(s) a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising:
one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to:
receive a first set of video streams comprising available video streams for a videoconference, wherein a plurality of client devices are connected to the videoconference, and each of the video streams in the first set of video streams is provided to a videoconferencing service by a respective client device of the plurality of client devices; receive one or more settings for one or more video streams of a second set of video streams, the one or more settings indicating one or more video feed properties; produce the second set of video streams from the first set of video streams, wherein each video stream of the second set of video streams is produced by changing a video stream of the first set of video streams according to the one or more video feed properties;
and output one or more video streams of the second set of video streams.
See similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 17, Lee disclose(s) the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the first set of video streams comprises video streams from a videoconference.
See similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 19, Lee disclose(s) the non-transitory computer-readable medium of The non-transitory computer-readable medium of wherein the one or more video feed properties comprise an aspect ratio, a resolution, a frame rate, or an output format.
See similar rejection to claim 5.
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) 2, 9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20220329754-A1 to Benson et al. (“Benson”).
As to claim 2, Lee disclose(s) the method of claim 1,
But does not expressly disclose wherein receiving the first set of video streams further comprises:
authenticating, by the computing device, the plurality of client devices.
Benson discloses authenticating, by the computing device, the plurality of client devices. (Benson; [0028])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the authentication of Benson and the videoconferencing of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with videoconferencing. Using the authentication of Lee would allow for the participants to be authorized before joining the conference.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 9, Lee-Benson disclose(s) the device of claim 8, wherein receiving the first set of video streams further comprises operations to:
authenticate the plurality of client devices.
See similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 16, Lee-Benson disclose(s) the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein receiving the first set of video streams further comprises operations to:
authenticate the plurality of client devices.
See similar rejection to claim 2.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20170270969-A1 to Sanchez et al. (“Sanchez”).
As to claim 4, Lee disclose(s) the method of claim 3,
But does not expressly disclose wherein outputting the one or more video streams further comprises:
outputting, by the computing device, the one or more video streams of the second set of video streams to video editing software.
Sanchez discloses outputting, by the computing device, the one or more video streams of the second set of video streams to video editing software. (Sanchez; [0048])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the video editing software of Sanchez and the videoconferencing of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with videoconferencing. Using the editing of Sanchez would allow for video streams of Lee to be enhanced in real-time.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 11, Lee-Sanchez disclose(s) the device of claim 10, wherein outputting the one or more video streams further comprises operations to:
output the one or more video streams of the second set of video streams to video editing software.
See similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 18, Lee-Sanchez disclose(s) the non-transitory computer-readable medium of The non-transitory computer-readable medium of wherein outputting the one or more video streams further comprises operations to:output the one or more video streams of the second set of video streams to video editing software.
See similar rejection to claim 4.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20190238794-A1 to Barkley et al. (“Barkley”).
As to claim 6, Lee disclose(s) the method of claim 1,
But does not expressly disclose wherein outputting the one or more video streams of the second set of video streams further comprises:
transmitting one or more video streams of the second set of video streams to the videoconferencing service.
Barkley discloses transmitting one or more video streams of the second set of video streams to the videoconferencing service. (Barkley; [0107]; communication channel, i.e. recorded video media)
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the communication channels of Barkley and the videoconferencing of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with videoconferencing. Using the communication channels of Barkley would allow for video conference to be stored.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 13, Lee-Barkley disclose(s) the device of claim 8, wherein outputting the one or more video streams of the second set of video streams further comprises operations to:
transmit one or more video streams of the second set of video streams to the videoconferencing service.
See similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 20, Lee-Barkley disclose(s) the non-transitory computer-readable medium of The non-transitory computer-readable medium of wherein outputting the one or more video streams of the second set of video streams further comprises operations to:transmit one or more video streams of the second set of video streams to the videoconferencing service.
See similar rejection to claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5606. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, OSCAR LOUIE can be reached on (571)270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445