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 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.
Claim 27 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the components" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 29-30, 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US 9609137 B1, “Williams”) in view of Potts et al. (US 2011/0255446 A1, “Potts”).
As to claims 21, 29, 37, Williams discloses a conferencing system for facilitating enhanced communication between users (col. 2, lines 35-56), the conferencing system comprising:
a communication interface configured to provide a conference between multiple user devices having access to a multi-channel communication (col. 5, lines 3-30),
wherein the communication interface is in communication with a communication system component that enables multi-channel voice collaboration, audio routing, and monitoring (col. 2, lines 48-56; col. 6, lines 17-64), and
wherein the communication system component interfaces with source feeds via four-wire audio or SIP.
Williams differs from claims 21, 29, 37 in that although it teaches the workstations as being turrets used by traders (col. 3, lines 33-46), it does not explicitly disclose the above underlined limitation.
Potts teaches a turret communication system in which a turret device 102 can be a hard turret or a soft turret (para. 0016), using SIP (para. 0017-0019) and multiple types of lines, including a hoot-n-holler line (para. 0030). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Williams with the above teaching of Potts in order to support additional functionality for turrets (Potts: para. 0007).
As to claims 22, 30, 38, Williams in view of Potts teaches: wherein the communication system component comprises a SIP PBX that provides call routing and switching functions and enables communications between matrix and PBX endpoints (Potts: SIP user agents are connected via a softswitch 105, para. 0018), and wherein the communication system component is interoperable and interfaces with IP PBXs, hardware intercom systems, and two-way radios for communications between any one or a combination of: VR control rooms, physical control rooms, and field operations (Williams: bi-directional communication with remote users, col. 5, lines 52-59; intercom conversations, col. 6, lines 17-36; wireless networks, col. 10, lines 1-6).
Claim(s) 21, 23, 29, 31, 37, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barzuza et al. (US 2015/0215351 A1, “Barzuza”) in view of Seligmann et al. (US 2014/0241340 A1, “Seligmann”).
As to claims 21, 29, 37, Barzuza discloses a conferencing system for facilitating enhanced communication between users (enhanced communication between remote participants using augmented and virtual reality, Abstract), the conferencing system comprising:
a communication interface (conferencing system comprises a communication interface and a processing system, para, 0014) configured to provide a conference between multiple user devices having access to a multi-channel communication (para. 0029, 0055, 0077),
wherein the communication interface is in communication with a communication system component that enables multi-channel voice collaboration, audio routing, and monitoring (para. 0028-0029, 0032-0033, 0054-0058), and
wherein the communication system component interfaces with source feeds via four-wire audio or SIP (para. 0077, 0083).
Barzuza differs from claims 21, 29, 37 in that although it teaches conferencing between multiple participants using a plurality of different communication links, networks, and protocols (para. 0077, 0083), it does not specifically disclose the above underlined limitation, i.e. a multi-channel communication.
Seligmann teaches communication via multiple, open and/or dedicated communication lines (para. 0007, 0028-0030). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barzuza with the above teaching of Seligmann in order to provide open communication among a plurality of users.
As to claims 23, 31, 39, Barzuza in view of Seligmann teaches: wherein the communication interface is in communication with a video system component that provides multi-channel video monitoring and interfacing (Seligmann: multi-channel video monitoring and interfacing, para. 0007, 0011, 0030, 0034-0035, 0038),
wherein the video system component enables monitoring of one or more video surfaces via user interfaces that can be sized and placed anywhere in three-dimensional space created in the client communications interface (Barzuza: documents, whiteboards, projected slide, 3D objects, etc. may be presented in the VR video, para. 0033, 0040-0041, 0047-0049),
wherein the communication interface is in communication with a data component that provides real-time telemetry data monitoring and interfacing, enabling monitoring of real-time telemetry data via user interfaces on one or more viewing surfaces that can be sized and placed anywhere within three dimensional space of the client communications interface, and wherein the communication interface is in communication with a whiteboard component that provides three-dimensional white boarding functionality, enabling mark- up, writing, note capture, and drawing functionality in collaboration with other user on other devices in three dimensional space (Barzuza: determining whether markings on a whiteboard should be displayed, para. 0033, 0040, 0047, 0049).
Claim(s) 24, 27, 32, 35, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barzuza in view of Seligmann, as applied to claims 23, 31, 39 above, and further in view of High et al. (US 2017/0127023 A1, “High”).
Barzuza in view of Seligmann differs from claims 24, 32, 40 in that it does not teach: wherein the communication interface is in communication with an audio/video ambience component that provides audio/video to create immersive virtual environments tailored to specific applications.
High teaches a virtual conference system including virtualization devices 108 with video cameras 108c and audio device 108d for facilitating sensing of the space for virtualization elsewhere and for virtualizing a remote space in each local space (para. 0024-0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barzuza in view of Seligmann with the above teaching of High in order to provide a visually authentic representation of the local region (High: para. 0026).
As to claims 27, 35, Barzuza in view of Seligmann and High teach: wherein the communication interface is configured to enable navigation by swiping, pinching, zooming in, or zooming out on content being viewed (Barzuza: para. 0037, 0042, 0044, 0049-050, 0071; High: para. 0085),
wherein the components can be adjusted and placed into desired locations via user input within 3D, virtual and/or augmented reality space of the generated client communications interface (High: user manipulation of virtualized objects, para. 0039), and
wherein components can be selected in AR or VR (Barzuza: AR and VR, Abstract; High: virtual reality, para. 0003. 0031-0032).
Claim(s) 25, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barzuza in view of Seligmann, as applied to claims 21, 29 above, and further in view of Lenchner et al. (US 9785741 B2, “Lenchner”).
As to claims 25, 33, Barzuza in view of Seligmann teaches: wherein the communication interface is in communication with a data component that provides non-audio data to one or more user devices (Barzuza: conference data includes text or video, para. 0033), and
wherein talk/listen paths can be activated by patching channels by drawing an actual line between two or more user devices (Seligmann: Fig. 3, para. 0035), but differs from claim 25 in that it does not teach:
wherein the data component comprises a geo-positioning and mapping component that collects geo-position data from one or more user devices and displays such data as part of the conferencing system,
wherein the geo-positioning and mapping component allows the use of mapping software in VR, which enables navigation through any location on earth in 3D virtual and/or augmented reality space with voice and/or audio monitor channels tied to the geo position of each user device, both in VR and in the real world, and appearing on the map.
Lenchner teaches providing an immersive 3D model of a conference environment using mapping and navigation (col. 3, lines 5-19; col. 5, line 57 – col. 6, line 55; col. 15, lines 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barzuza in view of Seligmann with the above teaching of Lenchner in order to provide a more realistic, immersive telepresence among users.
Claim(s) 26, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barzuza in view of Seligmann, as applied to claims 21, 29 above, and further in view of Kraver (US 2016/0217615 A1).
Barzuza in view of Seligmann differs from claim 26 in that it does not teach: wherein the communication interface is in communication with a control console component that provides a control surface for controlling at least one of: lighting, audio switching, audio mixing consoles, video switching, and local or remote audio and video sources, local and remote telemetry data from an intuitive UI, wherein the control console component supports industry standard protocols for controlling smart systems via web based applications and makes control APIs available to third party devices, and wherein the control console component enables control of both physical and soft systems via user interfaces in the client communication interface.
Kraver teaches a multi-user virtual reality environment enabling control of both physical and soft systems via user interface, including lighting, etc. (para. 0050, 0053, 0076, 0079, 0099) and using APIs (para. 0078, 0080). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barzuza in view of Seligmann with the above teaching of Kraver in order to provide user with the sensation of being in a single local physical environment with other users (Kraver: para. 0043).
Claim(s) 28, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barzuza in view of Seligmann, as applied to claims 21, 29 above, and further in view of Lenchner and Chen et al. (US 2018/0137432, “Chen”).
Barzuza in view of Seligmann differs from claims 28, 36 in that it does not teach: wherein the communication interface is in communication with an audio analysis component that analyzes incoming human speech audio data for substantive content and human emotion content,
wherein the audio analysis component comprises artificial intelligence software and machine learning software,
wherein the substantive content comprises situational context including at least one of: a medical emergency, a product or service complaint, a financial inquiry, a product or service order, a product or service review, a credit card inquiry, and a request to display a whiteboard, and
wherein the human emotion content corresponds to one or a combination of: distress, pain, anger, frustration, happiness, satisfaction, annoyance, and panicking.
Lenchner teaches speech recognition and responding to speech by the remote users to understand their intent and respond accordingly, e.g. voice commands (col. 4, line 54 -col. 5, line 12; col. 6, lines 56-84) and situational context (speech content includes a request to modify displayed content, add/remove content; col. 8, lines 3-17; col. 15, lines 35-45).
Chen teaches employing artificial intelligence to analyze voice data (para. 0035, 0045) and determining human emotion (para. 0014-0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barzuza in view of Seligmann with the above teachings of Lenchner and Chen in order to provide for voice commands.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,701,319 in view of Potts.
Claim 1 (present application)
Claim 1 (US 10,701,319)
A conferencing system for facilitating enhanced communication between users, the conferencing system comprising:
A conferencing system for facilitating enhanced communication between users, the conferencing system comprising:
a communication interface configured to provide a conference between multiple user devices having access to a multi-channel communication,
a communication interface configured to, during a conference session, provide a virtual and/or augmented conference between multiple users having access to a multi-channel, multi-access, always-on, and non-blocking communication
wherein the communication interface is in communication with a communication system component that enables multi-channel voice collaboration, audio routing, and monitoring, and
wherein the communication system component interfaces with source feeds via four-wire audio or SIP.
Claim 1 of US 10,701,319 differs from claim 21 of the present application in that it does not recite: wherein the communication interface is in communication with a communication system component that enables multi-channel voice collaboration, audio routing, and monitoring, and wherein the communication system component interfaces with source feeds via four-wire audio or SIP.
Potts teaches a turret communication system in which a turret device 102 can be a hard turret or a soft turret (para. 0016), using SIP (para. 0017-0019) and multiple types of lines, including a hoot-n-holler line (para. 0030) for multi-channel voice collaboration, audio routing and monitoring. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of the patent with the above teaching of Potts in order to support additional functionality for turrets (Potts: para. 0007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Minutello et al. (US 2016/0373584 A1) teach a turret system which includes multimedia data communication.
Bakshi et al. (US 2009/0022299 A1) teach a turret system with SIP PBX.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stella L Woo whose telephone number is (571)272-7512. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
STELLA L. WOO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2693
/Stella L. Woo/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights