DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 46 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it/they use(s) the term “configured to” with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Regarding Claim 46, “a means for initiating a recording during a teleconference”. Corresponding structure is found in paragraph 19, however, there is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for initiating a recording during a teleconference.
“a means for obtaining a first indication, associated with a teleconference participant, for creating a segment within the recording”. Corresponding structure is found in paragraph 19. Obtaining is viewed as a coextensive function and therefore, an algorithm is not required.
“a means for obtaining a past duration value associated with the first indication”. Corresponding structure is found in paragraph 19. Obtaining is viewed as a coextensive function and therefore, an algorithm is not required.
“a means for using the past duration value to determine a start time for the segment during the teleconference”. Corresponding structure is found in paragraph 19, however, there is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for using the past duration value to determine a start time for the segment during the teleconference.
“a means for obtaining a second indication associated with the teleconference participant, for ending the segment”. Corresponding structure is found in paragraph 19. Obtaining is viewed as a coextensive function and therefore, an algorithm is not required.
“a means for determining, responsive to the second indication, an end time for the segment during the teleconference”. Corresponding structure is found in paragraph 19, however, there is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for determining, responsive to the second indication, an end time for the segment during the teleconference.
“a means for creating the segment using the start time and end time”. Corresponding structure is found in paragraph 19, however, there is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for creating the segment using the start time and end time.
“a means for providing the teleconference participant access to the segment”. Corresponding structure is found in paragraph 19, however, there is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for providing the teleconference participant access to the segment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the Federal Circuit has stated that "a microprocessor can serve as structure for a computer-implemented function only where the claimed function is ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor itself." EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 622, citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "‘It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.’" EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 621, quoting Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). "‘[S]pecial programming’ includes any functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose computer." EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 623 (citations omitted). "Examples of such coextensive functions are ‘receiving’ data, ‘storing’ data, and ‘processing’ data—the only three functions on which the Katz court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for the district court to determine whether disclosure of a microprocessor was sufficient." Id. at 622. Thus, "[a] microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm."
Claims 30, 41, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 30, the term "poor link quality" in Claim 30 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "poor link quality" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 41, the term "poor link quality" in Claim 41 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "poor link quality" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 46, Claim 46 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for a means for initiating a recording during a teleconference; a means for obtaining a first indication, associated with a teleconference participant, for creating a segment within the recording; a means for obtaining a past duration value associated with the first indication; a means for using the past duration value to determine a start time for the segment during the teleconference; a means for obtaining a second indication associated with the teleconference participant, for ending the segment; a means for determining, responsive to the second indication, an end time for the segment during the teleconference; a means for creating the segment using the start time and end time; and a means for providing the teleconference participant access to the segment.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 24, 28, 32-35, 39, and 43-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al (“Jones”, US 20130198288, included in IDS filed 3/6/2025) in view of Lintz et al (“Lintz”, US 20190034528, included in IDS filed 3/6/2025).
Regarding Claim 24, Jones teaches a system comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform:
initiating a recording during a teleconference (par 68; par 70; par 72-75; The start time is when the recording is started. The user can also start the live recording by activating the “always on” mode.);
obtaining a first indication, associated with a teleconference participant, for creating a segment (par 68; par 70; par 72-75; The start time is when the recording is started. The user can also start the live recording by activating the “always on” mode. The first indication is the starting of the live recording by activating the “always on” mode.);
obtaining a second indication associated with the teleconference participant, for ending the segment (par 68; par 70; par 72-75; The user can stop the live recording by deactivating the “always on” mode. The second indication is the deactivating of the “always on” mode. The end time is the time when the recording ends when the “always on” mode is deactivated.);
determining, responsive to the second indication, an end time for the segment during the teleconference (par 68; par 70; par 72-75; The user can stop the live recording by deactivating the “always on” mode. The second indication is the deactivating of the “always on” mode. The end time is the time when the recording ends when the “always on” mode is deactivated.);
and providing the teleconference participant access to the segment (par 55).
Jones does not explicitly teach segment within the recording; obtaining a past duration value associated with the first indication; using the past duration value to determine a start time for the segment during the teleconference; creating the segment using the start time and end time.
Lintz teaches segment within the recording (par 59-61);
obtaining a past duration value associated with the first indication (par 59-61; The past duration value is the predetermined first duration. The first indication is the selection of a desired duration for the predetermined first duration.);
using the past duration value to determine a start time for the segment during the teleconference (par 59-61; The start time is the start boundary. The past duration is the predetermined first duration. The end time is the timestamp associated with a match.);
creating the segment using the start time and end time (par 59-61; The start time is the start boundary. The past duration is the predetermined first duration. The end time is the timestamp associated with a match.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jones with the metadata of Lintz because it allows for a user to search for specific events in a recorded video using search terms and set start and end boundaries of a video based on the search (Lintz; par 3; par 54; par 59-61).
Regarding Claim 28, Jones and Lintz teaches the system of claim 24.
Jones further teaches wherein the first indication and the second indication are provided by a client device associated with the teleconference participant (par 68; par 70; par 72-75; The start time is when the recording is started. The user can also start the live recording by activating the “always on” mode. The first indication is the starting of the live recording by activating the “always on” mode. The user can stop the live recording by deactivating the “always on” mode. The second indication is the deactivating of the “always on” mode. The end time is the time when the recording ends when the “always on” mode is deactivated.).
Regarding Claim 32, Jones and Lintz teaches the system of claim 24.
Jones further teaches comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform: tagging the segment, wherein the tag is provided by a live-custom recorder engine prior to said providing the teleconference participant access to the segment (par 55; The link is the URL which may be distributed (provided) to users. The recorded conference is referenced (tagged) with a URL.).
Regarding Claim 33, Jones and Lintz teaches the system of claim 24.
Jones further teaches second indication during the teleconference (par 68; par 70; par 72-75; The user can stop the live recording by deactivating the “always on” mode. The second indication is the deactivating of the “always on” mode. The end time is the time when the recording ends when the “always on” mode is deactivated.).
Jones does not explicitly teach comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform: obtaining a future duration value associated with the segment, wherein said determining, responsive to the second indication, an end time for the second indication during the teleconference includes using the future duration value to determine the end time for the segment.
Lintz teaches comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform: obtaining a future duration value associated with the segment (par 59-61; The future duration is the predetermined second duration.),
wherein said determining, responsive to the second indication, an end time for the second indication during the teleconference includes using the future duration value to determine the end time for the segment (par 59-61; The future duration is the predetermined second duration. The end time is the timestamp associated with a match.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jones and Lintz with the video request of Han, because it allows for a user to easily search for videos by typing in a name or URL (Han; par 56).
Regarding Claim 34, Jones and Lintz teaches the system of claim 24.
Jones further teaches comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform: providing access to the segment via a link to the segment (par 55; The link is the URL which may be distributed (provided) to users.).
Regarding Claim 35, Claim 35 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 24.
Regarding Claim 39, Claim 39 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 28.
Regarding Claim 43, Claim 43 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 32.
Regarding Claim 44, Claim 44 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 33.
Regarding Claim 45, Jones and Lintz teaches the method of claim 35.
Jones further teaches comprising: providing access to the segment via a link to the segment (par 55; par 74).
Regarding Claim 46, Claim 46 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 24.
Claims 25 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones and Lintz in view of Kudo (“Kudo”, US 20120027012, included in IDS filed 3/6/2025).
Regarding Claim 25, Jones and Lintz teaches the system of claim 24.
Jones further teaches live-custom recorder engine (Fig. 1, elements {102, 116}, par 34; par 37; The recorder engine is the client device 102.).
Jones and Lintz do not explicitly teach comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform: receiving, at a (communication device), a notification to start a sliding window history; requesting media packets from a conference management engine; receiving media packets from the conference management engine at the (communication device).
Kudo teaches comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform: receiving, at a (communication device), a notification to start a sliding window history (Fig. 2, elements {S1-S6, 12-13}, par 29-30; The notification to start a sliding window history is the invite. This is in accordance with instant specification paragraph 43. The communication device is the device 13.);
requesting media packets from a conference management engine (Fig. 2, elements {S1-S6, 12-13}, par 29-30; The conference management engine is the device 12.);
receiving media packets from the conference management engine at the (communication device) (Fig. 2, elements {S1-S6, 12-13}, par 29-30; The conference management engine is the device 12. The communication device is the device 13.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jones and Lintz with the peer-to-peer communication of Kudo because peer-to-peer communication allows for communication between devices without the need for a server. This further allows for the conference to resume using peer-to-peer communications between devices in case the server of Jones modified by Lintz is down or overloaded, thereby reducing disruptions in the conference and improving performance.
Regarding Claim 36, Claim 36 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 25.
Claims 26 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones and Lintz in view of Pantazelos (“Pantazelos”, US 20180083978, included in IDS filed 3/6/2025).
Regarding Claim 26, Jones and Lintz teaches the system of claim 24.
Jones and Lintz do not explicitly teach wherein the teleconference participant is a first participant, comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform: receiving permission from the first participant to share the segment with a second participant.
Pantazelos teaches wherein the teleconference participant is a first participant, comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform: receiving permission from the first participant to share the segment with a second participant (Fig. 10B, element 1062, par 63; par 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jones and Lintz with the sharing permission of Pantazelos because it is allows for a recipient to receive a video without the video being circulated further, thereby improving privacy and security.
Regarding Claim 37, Claim 37 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 26.
Claims 27 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones and Lintz in view of Leske et al (“Leske”, US 20150215582, included in IDS filed 3/6/2025).
Regarding Claim 27, Jones and Lintz teaches the system of claim 24.
Jones and Lintz do not explicitly teach wherein the teleconference participant is a first participant, comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform: storing the first participant's feed in a higher quality format than a second participant's feed.
Leske teaches wherein the teleconference participant is a first participant, comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform: storing the first participant's feed in a higher quality format than a second participant's feed (par 43; The video streams are stored when they are streamed to devices.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jones and Lintz with the streaming quality adjustments of Leske because it allows for streaming at a lower quality for devices that do not require a high-quality stream, thereby saving system resources and improving performance.
Regarding Claim 38, Claim 38 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 27.
Claims 29-30 and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones and Lintz in view of Krishnaswamy et al (“Krishnaswamy”, US 20150264310, included in IDS filed 3/6/2025).
Regarding Claim 29, Jones and Lintz teaches the system of claim 24.
Jones and Lintz do not explicitly teach wherein said initiating a recording during a teleconference, and said creating the segment are performed on a server-side live-custom recorder engine.
Krishnaswamy teaches wherein said initiating a recording during a teleconference, and said creating the segment are performed on a server-side live-custom recorder engine (Fig. 4, elements 402-406, par 47-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jones and Lintz with the quality management of Krishnaswamy because it allows for recording of the conference to be performed by the server if there is a quality issue (Krishnaswamy; Fig. 4, elements 402-406, par 47-48), thereby reducing disruptions and resources used by the client device.
Regarding Claim 30, Jones and Lintz teaches the system of claim 24.
Jones and Lintz do not explicitly teach wherein said obtaining a past duration value associated with the first indication is performed on a server-side live-custom recorder engine upon detection of inadequate or poor link quality with a client device.
Krishnaswamy teaches wherein said obtaining a past duration value associated with the first indication is performed on a server-side live-custom recorder engine upon detection of inadequate or poor link quality with a client device (Fig. 4, elements 402-406, par 47-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jones and Lintz with the quality management of Krishnaswamy because it allows for recording of the conference to be performed by the server if there is a quality issue (Krishnaswamy; Fig. 4, elements 402-406, par 47-48), thereby reducing disruptions and resources used by the client device.
Regarding Claim 40, Claim 40 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 29.
Regarding Claim 41, Claim 41 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 30.
Claims 31 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones and Lintz in view of Han et al (“Han”, US 20180167436, included in IDS filed 3/6/2025).
Regarding Claim 31, Jones and Lintz teaches the system of claim 24.
Jones further teaches comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform: tagging the segment, wherein the tag is received prior to said providing the teleconference participant access to the segment (par 55; The link is the URL which may be distributed (provided) to users. The recorded conference is referenced (tagged) with a URL.).
Jones does not explicitly teach wherein the tag is received from a client device.
Han teaches wherein the tag is received from a client device (par 56; The tag is the URL.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jones and Lintz with the video request of Han, because it allows for a user to easily search for videos by typing in a name or URL (Han; par 56).
Regarding Claim 42, Claim 42 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 31.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Charish et al (US 20130027508, included in IDS filed 3/6/2025), Abstract - A method and system for providing an audio/video conference includes receiving audio from a moderator via a circuit-switched telephone network, transmitting a representation of the audio to a first listener group via the circuit-switched telephone network, and transmitting a representation of the audio to a second listener group via a packet-switched network. The audio/video conference may be transmitted to the first listener group and the second listener group in real-time or near real-time (e.g., within a few seconds). The method and system may be used with a circuit-switched telephone network such as, for example, a public switched telephone network. Further, the method and system may be used with a packet-switched network such as, for example, the Internet. The method and system further provide synchronization of video data, including slide data, and audio data related to the audio/video conference.
Ouyang et al (US 20160065626, included in IDS filed 3/6/2025), Abstract - In one embodiment, an attendee of an online conference is notified of hidden changes to shared content of the online conference. When an attendee changes their focus, as indicated by minimizing, covering, or otherwise obstructing shared content of an online conference, the conference is monitored for changes. If an event or change is detected in the online conference, the attendee is informed of the event and/or shown the change. In addition or as an alternative to event detection, a thumbnail image of the shared content is created so that the attendee can monitor for changes.
DeLuca (US 20200412561, included in IDS filed 3/6/2025), Abstract - A method, computer system, and computer program product for web conference replay association are provided. The embodiment may include recording a web meeting utilizing web conference software. The embodiment may also include parsing meeting invitation information associated with the recorded web meeting. The embodiment may further include extracting meeting-related information associated with the recorded meeting. The embodiment may also include updating meeting replay information based on the extracted meeting-related information by modifying an original meeting invitation. The embodiment may further include sending an update notification to a required participant.
Fieldman (US 10768885, included in IDS filed 3/6/2025), Abstract - One or more users log in to a video conference with a shared, online electronic whiteboard and draw upon a shared whiteboard. Each user has a video and audio stream that are sent to a recording server. Data describing each drawing action upon the shared whiteboard is sent to a database server and each action is then distributed to all users to update their whiteboards. Screenshots of the drawing actions are created by emulating a browser and inputting data describing each action from the database. Alternatively, screenshots are taken by each user computer (after each action or periodically) and sent to the recording server. Audiovisual manipulation software is used to create a whiteboard video from the screenshots are then combined with the audio and video streams to create a resulting video of the entire session. A video clip is created simply by sending begin and end timestamps during the session.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights