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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Notice for all Patent Application as subject to AIA
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over DeRosa et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0163066 A1) in view of Demsky et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0078255 A1).
As to claim 1, DeRosa et al teach a method performed at a first computing device (see abstract figures 1-2), the method comprising: obtaining a meeting identifier associated with a scheduled teleconferencing session; obtaining a first user identifier corresponding to an invitee of the scheduled teleconferencing session; determining that a cloud-based teleconferencing service associated with the scheduled teleconferencing session is available/ready (figure 2, pars. 0038-0040, receiving teleconference information and scheduling and confirming rejections or acceptance of the teleconference); and transmitting and receiving via a peer-to-peer connection, the live teleconferencing streams; and receiving, from the second computing device via the first peer-to-peer connection, a second live teleconferencing stream (figure 1, pars. 0033-0037, establishing the teleconferencing session).
However, DeRosa et al do not explicitly teach that in response to determining that the cloud-based teleconferencing service is unavailable, transmitting, to a computer system, the meeting identifier and the first user identifier; receiving, from the computer system, an Internet protocol (IP) address associated with the meeting identifier and the first user identifier; initiating a first peer-to-peer connection with a second computing device that corresponds to the IP address.
Demsky et al teach a method performed at a first computing device (see abstract figures 1-2, pars. 0026-0027, 0035), the method comprising: in response to determining that the cloud-based teleconferencing service is unavailable, transmitting, to a computer system, the meeting identifier and the first user identifier; receiving, from the computer system, an Internet protocol (IP) address associated with the meeting identifier and the first user identifier; initiating a first peer-to-peer connection with a second computing device that corresponds to the IP address; transmitting, to the second computing device via the first peer-to-peer connection, a first live teleconferencing stream; and receiving, from the second computing device via the first peer-to-peer connection, a second live teleconferencing stream (figure 1 pars. 0032-0034, figure 3, pars. 0038, 0041-0042, 0044-0045, using supplemental meeting system, when a meeting/teleconference system is not available by using address of the meeting/teleconference system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Demsky et al as stated above with the computing device of DeRosa et al for using supplemental meeting system, when a meeting/teleconference system is not available because it would have improved efficiency over teleconference data traffic and also improved throughput, bottlenecks, and system utilization by rerouting meeting address and teleconference data traffic to the supplemental meeting system.
As to claim 2, DeRosa et al teach that after initiating the first peer-to-peer connection with the second computing device, receiving authentication information from the second computing device via the first peer-to-peer connection; and authenticating the second computing device based on the authentication information, wherein transmitting the first live teleconferencing stream to the second computing device is based on authenticating the second computing device (figure 9, pars. 0050-0051, using authentication process to verify user information and user device to improve security).
As to claim 3, DeRosa et al teach that before detecting that the cloud-based teleconferencing session is unavailable, receiving second authentication information via an Internet connection, wherein authenticating the second computing device comprises determining that the authentication information corresponds to the second authentication information (figure 11, par. 0054, generating authentication code for teleconference).
As to claim 4, Demsky et al teach that before transmitting the first user identifier: establishing an Internet connection to the cloud-based teleconferencing service; and participating in a teleconferencing session with the second computing device via the Internet connection and the cloud-based teleconferencing service, wherein determining that the cloud-based teleconferencing service is unavailable comprises detecting, during the teleconferencing session with the second computing device, that the Internet connection to the cloud-based teleconferencing service is unavailable, and the first user identifier is transmitted to the computer system based on detecting that the Internet connection to the cloud-based teleconferencing service is unavailable ( figure 1 pars. 0032-0034, figure 3, pars. 0038, 0041-0042, 0044-0045, using supplemental meeting system, when a meeting/teleconference system is not available by using address of the meeting/teleconference system).
As to claim 5, Demsky et al teach that determining that the cloud-based teleconferencing service is unavailable comprises determining that an Internet connection to the cloud-based teleconferencing service cannot be established, and wherein the first user identifier is transmitted to the second computing device based on determining that the Internet connection to the cloud-based teleconferencing service cannot be established (figure 3, pars. 0038, 0041-0042, 0044-0045, using supplemental meeting system, when a meeting/teleconference system is not available).
As to claims 6-7, DeRosa et al teach that the computer system comprises a domain name system (DNS) server; and before determining that the cloud-based teleconferencing service is unavailable, transmitting, to the computer system, the meeting identifier and a second user identifier corresponding to a user of the first computing device (figures 4-5, pars. 0042-0043, providing meeting information to the application server).
As to claims 8-9, DeRosa et al teach that while the first peer-to-peer connection is active, determining that the cloud- based teleconferencing service is available;
in response to determining that the cloud-based teleconferencing service is available and in accordance with a determination that one or more criteria are satisfied, establishing an Internet connection to the cloud-based teleconferencing service; and transmitting the first live teleconferencing stream to the cloud-based teleconferencing service via the Internet connection; and also teach that while the first peer-to-peer connection is active, recording the second live teleconferencing stream received from the second computing device via the first peer-to-peer connection; and after establishing the Internet connection to the cloud-based teleconferencing service, transmitting a recording of the second live teleconferencing stream to the cloud-based teleconferencing service via the Internet connection (figures 1-2, pars. 0037-0028, 0031-0040, receiving teleconference information and scheduling and confirming rejections or acceptance of the teleconference and establishing the teleconferencing session).
As to claims 10-11, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1 and 8-9 above, since claims 10-11 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1 and 8-9 (repeating the method of steps for new computing device).
As to claims 12-19, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1-8 above, since claims 12-19 are merely an apparatus for the method of operations defined in the method claims 1-8, and claims 12-19 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1-8.
As to claim 20, it is also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1 and 6-7 above, since claims 20 does not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1 and 86-7.
Additional References
The examiner as of general interest cites the following references.
a. Htus, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0181165 A1.
b. Forssoll, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0061398 A1.
Content Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bharat Barot whose telephone number is (571)272-3979. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on (571)272-5863. 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.
/BHARAT BAROT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights