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 .
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 16-23 have been examined.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks, filed on 8/28/26 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
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 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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10-14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chu et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0107923 (hereinafter Chu).
As per claim 1, Chu teaches the invention as claimed comprising:
receiving, at a consumer server from a conferencing server, a first time-contiguous container ([42], e.g., receiving, at Phone MCU from IP MCU, actively speaking PC client audio packet(s) when only one PC client is sending/generating audio packet(s)) comprising:
a first identifier of a first device connected to a conference ([42], e.g., identifier of the client inherently comprised in the audio packet(s) forwarded by the IP MCU), and
a first payload comprising only a portion of a first audio data corresponding to a first time frame ([42], e.g., audio packet(s) includes actively speaking audio (i.e., payload of time contiguous container)), wherein the first audio data is received by the conferencing server from the first device ([42] e.g., IP MCU receives PC client audio packet(s) from only one PC client that is sending/generating audio packet(s)), and wherein the first time-contiguous container does not include media from devices other than the first device ([42], e.g., the audio packet(s) includes audio from the only one PC client);
receiving, at the consumer server from the conferencing server, a second time-contiguous
container ([42][43]; fig. 2, e.g., at a later time, if the connection is still active, receiving, at Phone MCU from IP MCU, actively speaking PC client audio packet(s) from another PC client when only the other PC client is sending/generating audio packet(s)) comprising:
a second identifier of a second device connected to the conference ([42], e.g., identifier of the client inherently comprised in the audio packet(s) forwarded by the IP MCU), and
a second payload comprising only a portion of a second audio data corresponding to a second time frame ([42], e.g., audio packet(s) includes actively speaking audio (i.e., payload of time contiguous container)), wherein the second audio data is received by the conferencing server from the second device ([42] e.g., IP MCU receives PC client audio packet(s) from another PC client when only the other PC client is sending/generating audio packet(s)), and wherein the second time-contiguous container does not include media from devices other than the second device ([42], e.g., the audio packet(s) includes audio from the only the other PC client);
extracting, at the consumer server, the first payload, and identifying a first active speaker from the
first identifier, from the first time-contiguous container ([46][47], e.g., Phone MCU must extract the audio from the audio packet(s) sent from the only one PC client in order to distribute the audio to conference clients and identify the active speaker in order to keep an active speaker list);
extracting, at the consumer server, the second payload, and identifying a second active speaker from the second identifier, from the second time-contiguous container ([46][47], e.g., Phone MCU must extract the audio from the audio packet(s) sent from the other PC client in order to distribute the audio to conference clients and identify the active speaker in order to keep an active speaker list); and
performing, at the consumer server ([46], e.g., performing at the Phone MCU), at least one of:
generating a transcript based on at least one of the first payload and the first active speaker or the second payload and the second active speaker, or
obtaining intelligence based on at least one of the first payload and the first active speaker or the second payload and the second active speaker ([46], e.g., obtaining an active speaker list based on the active speaker).
As per claim 2, Chu teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Chu further teach wherein the first time-contiguous container comprises at least one of: a predetermined number of first payloads; or a preset time period ([42], e.g., the actively speaking PC client audio packet(s) from the only one PC client inherently comprised audio data of a present time period).
As per claim 3, Chu teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Chu further teach wherein the second time-contiguous container comprises at least one of: a predetermined number of first payloads; or a preset time period ([42], e.g., the actively speaking PC client audio packet(s) from the other PC client inherently comprised audio data of a present time period).
As per claim 4, Chu teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Chu further teach wherein the first time frame is contiguous to the second time frame (fig. 2; [40]-[43], e.g., the actively speaking PC client audio packet(s) from the other PC client is contiguous to the actively speaking PC client audio packet(s) from the only one PC client while the continuously active connection is still active).
As per claim 7, Chu teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Chu further teach comprising: receiving, at the consumer server, a third time-contiguous container comprising: the first identifier and the second identifier, and a third payload comprising a portion of the first audio data from the first device corresponding to a third time frame and a portion of the second audio data from the second device corresponding to the third time frame (108, fig. 1; [46], e.g., receiving, at the Phone MCU, actively speaking PC client audio packets from plurality of active speaking PC clients, which comprised identifiers and audio data of the plurality of PC clients corresponding to another time frame); wherein the third time frame comprises simultaneous audio from the first device and the second device ([46], e.g., the other time frame comprises audio data of actively speaking participants).
As per claim 10, Chu teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Chu further teach wherein the conference is a video conference or an audio conference ([11]).
As per claims 11 and 17, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 above. See [53][55] for a system comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to perform the method of claim 1.
As per claims 12 and 18, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2 above.
As per claims 13 and 19, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3 above.
As per claim 14, Chu teaches the invention as claimed in claim 11 above. Chu further teach wherein the first time frame is contiguous to the second time frame (fig. 2; [40]-[43], e.g., the actively speaking PC client audio packet(s) from the other PC client is contiguous to the actively speaking PC client audio packet(s) from the only one PC client while the continuously active connection is still active)., and wherein the first time frame and the second time frame correspond to times in the conference when speech is detected (e.g., speaking time frame of the only one active speaker and speaking time frame of the other active speaker).
As per claim 16, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7 above.
As per claim 20, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4 above.
As per claim 21, Chu teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Chu further teach wherein the conferencing server transmits media of the conference between the first device and the second device ([46][47][48]) separately from the first time- contiguous container and the second time-contiguous container ([42], e.g., receiving, at Phone MCU from IP MCU, actively speaking PC client audio packet(s) when only one PC client is sending audio packet(s); [42][43], e.g., at a later time, if the connection is still active, receiving, at Phone MCU from IP MCU, actively speaking PC client audio packet(s) from another PC client when only the other PC client is sending audio packet(s)).
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 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 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Ben-Shachar et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0169330 (hereinafter Ben-Shachar).
As per claim 8, Chu teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Although Chu teaches consumer server (e.g., MCU), however, Chu is silent in regard to wherein the consumer server comprises at least one of: a transcription server; or an artificial intelligence inference server. Ben-Shachar teach wherein the consumer server comprises at least one of: a transcription server; or an artificial intelligence inference server [8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ben-Shachar’s teaching with Chu’s system in order to allow retrieval of written records of the discussion in later time.
Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Li et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0310328 (hereinafter Li).
As per claim 9, Chu teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Although Chu teaches wherein the first time-contiguous container is received by the consumer server after generation of the first time-contiguous container by a conferencing server ([42] e.g., conference server forwarding the audio data received from the client to the MCU), however, Chu is silent in regard to receive by the consumer server in real-time. Li teaches wherein the first time-contiguous container is received by the consumer server in real-time from the clients ([55])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Li’s teaching with Chu’s system in order to allow faster communication of conference data in Chu’s system.
Claims 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of EL-Hoiydi, WO 2011/098140.
As per claim 22, Chu teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Although Chu teaches receiving, at the customer server, the first time-contiguous container and the second time-contiguous container from the conferencing server ([42][43]), however Chu is silent in regard to verifying that the first time-contiguous container and the second time-contiguous container are correctly received. EL-Hoiydi teaches verifying, at the receiver and using a consumer state queue, that the first time-contiguous container and the second time-contiguous container are correctly received (page 20, lines 20-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate EL-Hoiydi’s teaching with Chu’s system in order to indicate that a packet has been received in Chu’s system, thus improving the reliability of transmission in Chu’s system.
Claims 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Sturniolo et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0044453 (hereinafter Sturniolo).
As per claim 23, Chu teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Chu is silent in regard to wherein the first payload is one of a plurality of first payloads in the first time-contiguous container, and wherein each of the plurality of first payloads comprises a recording of a fixed time duration of the first audio data. Sturniolo teaches wherein the first payload is one of a plurality of first payloads in the first time-contiguous container (fig. 6; [40]), and wherein each of the plurality of first payloads comprises a recording of a fixed time duration of the first audio data ([31][32][40]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Sturniolo’s teaching with Chu’s system in order to increase the amount of audio data/payloads that each transmitted packet can carry in Chu’s system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Philip Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-3967. The examiner can normally be
reached on 6a-3p M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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 http://pair- direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/PHILIP C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights