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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 4/6/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,8 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the Examiner Interview Summary on page 7 of the Remarks filed on 4/6/2026, the Examiner has made a call to the Applicant’s Representative on 4/7/2026 to set up an interview and has not received a response.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/29/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surana (US 2023/0315262 hereinafter Surana) in view of Edelman et al. (US 2015/0319211 hereinafter Edelman).
Regarding claim 1, Surana discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
responsive to receiving a request to share a segment of a media stream by a video conferencing server, computing an access metric from the request wherein the access metric describes access to the segment by a user (¶ [0016]-[0018], [0021], [0027]; i.e. the meeting service receives a request from a first user to share a portion of an active screen, user selected application windows of one or more respective applications, etc. and determining the permissions and/or the participants whom is shared the selected application windows);
extracting the segment from the media stream based on the access metric wherein the segment is a portion of the media stream (¶ [0016], [0027], [0057]-[0061]; i.e. the meeting service causes the portion of the active screen, or the selected application windows to send to be displayed on the permitted participants’ devices, and/or only one of the selected application windows which is interpreted that the meeting service extracts the selected portion of the active screen or selected application windows from the respective applications); and
sending the segment that is separate from the media stream to a device of the user (¶ [0016], [0027], [0057]-[0061]; i.e. the meeting service sends the portion of the active screen, or the selected application windows to be displayed on the permitted participants’ devices).
Surana does not explicitly disclose sending one or more messages to the device based on a priority of a medium type of the segment wherein the one or more messages are combined on the device.
However, Edelman discloses sending one or more messages to the device based on a priority of a medium type of the segment wherein the one or more messages are combined on the device (¶ [0055]-[0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Surana and Edelman in order to achieve an efficient mix of audio, video, and data chunks that results in a good playback that minimizes the audio or video jitter in the playback (Edelman, ¶ [0072]).
Regarding claim 2, Surana in view or Edelman discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the request is received using an extended messaging protocol comprising a message wherein the message further comprises the access metric (Surana, ¶ [0016]-[0018], [0073]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 4, Surana in view or Edelman discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving by the device of the user from the video conferencing server the segment that is separate from the media stream, the video conferencing server sending the one or more messages to the device wherein the priority of the sending is higher for a control message than the one or more messages containing the medium type of the segment (Surana, ¶ [0057]-[0061]; Edelman, ¶ [0030], [0069]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 6, Surana in view or Edelman discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the sending the segment is contemporaneous with the media stream (Surana, ¶ [0057]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 7, Surana in view or Edelman discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the media stream is generated at a presenter device that is sharing the segment to the device of the user (Surana, ¶ [0025]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 8, Surana discloses a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
responsive to receiving a request to share a segment of a media stream by a video conferencing server, computing an access metric from the request wherein the access metric describes access to the segment by a user (¶ [0016]-[0018], [0021], [0027]; i.e. the meeting service receives a request from a first user to share a portion of an active screen, user selected application windows of one or more respective applications, etc. and determining the permissions and/or the participants whom is shared the selected application windows);
extracting the segment from the media stream based on the access metric wherein the segment is a portion of the media stream (¶ [0016], [0027], [0057]-[0061]; i.e. the meeting service causes the portion of the active screen, or the selected application windows to send to be displayed on the permitted participants’ devices, and/or only one of the selected application windows which is interpreted that the meeting service extracts the selected portion of the active screen or selected application windows from the respective applications); and
sending the segment that is separate from the media stream to a device of the user (¶ [0016], [0027], [0057]-[0061]; i.e. the meeting service sends the portion of the active screen, or the selected application windows to be displayed on the permitted participants’ devices).
Surana does not explicitly disclose chunking the segment into a chunk based on a medium type of the segment and sending the chunk according to a priority to the device wherein the chunk is combined on the device.
However, Edelman discloses chunking the segment into a chunk based on a medium type of the segment and sending the chunk according to a priority to the device wherein the chunk is combined on the device (¶ [0055]-[0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Surana and Edelman in order to achieve an efficient mix of audio, video, and data chunks that results in a good playback that minimizes the audio or video jitter in the playback (Edelman, ¶ [0072]).
Regarding claim 9, see claim 2 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 4 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 13, see claim 6 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 7 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 15, Surana discloses a computer system comprising a processor and one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform operations comprising (FIG. 1-2, ¶ [0017]):
responsive to receiving a request to share a segment of a media stream by a video conferencing server, computing an access metric from the request wherein the access metric describes access to the segment by a user (¶ [0016]-[0018], [0021], [0027]; i.e. the meeting service receives a request from a first user to share a portion of an active screen, user selected application windows of one or more respective applications, etc. and determining the permissions and/or the participants whom is shared the selected application windows);
extracting the segment from the media stream based on the access metric wherein the segment is a portion of the media stream (¶ [0016], [0027], [0057]-[0061]; i.e. the meeting service causes the portion of the active screen, or the selected application windows to send to be displayed on the permitted participants’ devices, and/or only one of the selected application windows which is interpreted that the meeting service extracts the selected portion of the active screen or selected application windows from the respective applications); and
sending the segment that is separate from the media stream to a device of the user (¶ [0016], [0027], [0057]-[0061]; i.e. the meeting service sends the portion of the active screen, or the selected application windows to be displayed on the permitted participants’ devices).
Surana does not explicitly disclose sending one or more messages to the device based on a priority of a medium type of the segment wherein the one or more messages are combined on the device.
However, Edelman discloses sending one or more messages to the device based on a priority of a medium type of the segment wherein the one or more messages are combined on the device (¶ [0055]-[0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Surana and Edelman in order to achieve an efficient mix of audio, video, and data chunks that results in a good playback that minimizes the audio or video jitter in the playback (Edelman, ¶ [0072]).
Regarding claim 16, see claim 2 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 4 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 6 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surana (US 2023/0315262 hereinafter Surana) in view of Edelman et al. (US 2015/0319211 hereinafter Edelman) and further in view of Agrawal et al. (US 2019/0073490 hereinafter Agrawal).
Regarding claim 3, Surana in view of Edelman discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Surana in view or Edelman does not explicitly disclose further comprising sending a message from a presenter device using an extended message protocol wherein the extended message protocol comprises the media stream and is extended with the message comprising the access metric.
However, Agrawal discloses sending a message from a presenter device using an extended message protocol wherein the extended message protocol comprises the media stream and is extended with the message comprising the access metric (FIG. 1-2, ¶ [0024], [0027]-[0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Surana, Edelman and Agrawal in order to control sharing content by obfuscating the content within the shared space for the unauthorized receiving participant (Agrawal, ¶ [0002]-[0003], [0014]).
Regarding claim 5, Surana in view or Edelman discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Surana in view or Edelman does not explicitly disclose wherein the access metric comprises an access control list.
However, Agrawal discloses wherein the access metric comprises an access control list (FIG. 1-2, ¶ [0024], [0027]-[0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Surana, Edelman and Agrawal in order to control sharing content by obfuscating the content within the shared space for the unauthorized receiving participant (Agrawal, ¶ [0002]-[0003], [0014]).
Regarding claim 10, see claim 3 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 12, see claim 5 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 3 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 5 above for the same reasons of rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHI D NGUY whose telephone number is (571)270-7311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571)270-3351. 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.
/C.D.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/AMIR MEHRMANESH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights