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.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
This communication is considered fully responsive to the Amendment filed on 26 June 2026.
The Double Patenting rejection(s) to claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 is/are withdrawn since a Terminal Disclaimer has been filed.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 26 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Babkin.
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) 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 unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20100149301-A1 to Lee et al. (“Lee”) in view of US-10999344-B1 to Babkin et al. (“Babkin”).
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 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)
Lee does not expressly disclose the receiving a first set of video streams from a video conference provider.
Babkin discloses the receiving a first set of video streams from a video conference provider. (Babkin; see Fig. 2)
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the video conference provider of Babkin 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 video conference provider of Babkin would allow for the video streams of Lee to be centralized.
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 3, Lee-Babkin 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-Babkin 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-Babkin 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-Babkin 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 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 from a video conference provider 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-Babkin 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-Babkin 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-Babkin 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-Babkin 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 from a video conference provider 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 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-Babkin 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-Babkin 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(s) 2, 9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee-Babkin 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-Babkin 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-Babkin . 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-Babkin 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-Babkin-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-Babkin-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-Babkin 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-Babkin 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-Babkin . 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-Babkin 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-Babkin-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-Babkin-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-Babkin 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-Babkin . 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-Babkin-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-Babkin-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
Prosecution Insights