DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected in the Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of 18/167536 filed 2/10/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections
Claim Rejections - Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 9 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12206722. Examiner maps Claim 9 of the patent to Claim 1 of the instant claimset and the other claims are similarly situated.
Claim 9 of ‘722
Instant Claim 1
Notes
9. A method, comprising: determining audio and/or video content of a virtual meeting is being shared;
1. A method, comprising: transmitting, from the first UE and to a second UE, the audio and/or video data;
Being shared requires transmitting
storing audio and/or video data corresponding to the audio and/or video content in a temporary storage buffer;
storing, by a first user equipment (UE), audio and/or video data associated with audio and/or video content associated with a virtual meeting;
Storing is broader than storing in a temporary storage buffer
receiving a request for a portion of the audio and/or video data, wherein the portion of the audio and/or video data is identified by a beginning time stamp and an ending time stamp associated with a temporary disruption of a network being used for the virtual meeting;
receiving, by the first UE and after transmitting the audio and/or video data, a message associated with a network disruption of the second UE, wherein the message indicates a first time stamp, associated with a beginning of the network disruption, and a second time stamp, associated with an end of the network disruption;
Both claims require receiving a message with beginning and ending timestamps for a network disruption.
and transmitting the portion of the audio and/or video data at an accelerated playback rate, wherein the accelerated playback rate is based on a duration of the temporary disruption.
and retransmitting, by the first UE and based on receiving the message, at least a portion of the audio and/or video data associated with the network disruption.
Both claims require retransmission of the data missed because of the disruption, but the instant claims are broader in that they do not require an accelerated playback.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutaia (US Pub. 2004/0190700) in view of Tiwari (US Pub. 2022/0286312).
With respect to Claim 1, Cutaia teaches a method, comprising: storing, by a first user equipment (UE), audio and/or video data associated with audio and/or video content associated with a virtual meeting; (Fig. 1, paras. 13-19, 26, 29; Devices such as computers have an audio conference. Replay module stores audio from the conference to be replayed later. Replay module may be its own element, part of the conference bridge, or part of the devices themselves. Para. 24; system also applicable to video conference.)
transmitting, from the first UE and to a second UE, the audio and/or video data; (para. 17; participant audio is sent to other participants via the conference bridge.)
receiving, by the first UE and after transmitting the audio and/or video data, a message associated with a network disruption of the second UE, (A network disruption will be taught later. para. 19; If a participant misses portions of a conference the participant can request replay of the buffered audio. Para. 19-20, 29, 35, 41; rejoin conference with replay function to replay audio at an increased speed to catch them up.)
and retransmitting, by the first UE and based on receiving the message, at least a portion of the audio and/or video data associated with the network disruption. (paras. 19, 32-33, 35; replay of conference is transmitted to requested participant.)
But Cutaia does not explicitly teach a network disruption.
Tiwari, however, does teach a network disruption (para. 19; system determines a client is disconnected from an active meeting.)
wherein the message indicates a first time stamp, associated with a beginning of the network disruption, and a second time stamp, associated with an end of the network disruption; (paras. 26-27; system determines a disconnect and reconnect and saves timestamp data of the disconnect period. Para. 29; user A is disconnected from 9:10 to 9:13. See also Cutaia, paras. 19, 29-30; replay request.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Cutaia with the network disruption in order to allow for a user to get caught up on the meeting regardless of whether the lack of attendance was intentional or not. (Tiwari, para. 17; disconnected user can recapture lost content.)
With respect to Claim 2, modified Cutaia teaches the method of claim 1, and Cutaia also teaches further comprising: recording the audio and/or video content. (para. 16, 19, 27; buffering/storage of audio.)
With respect to Claim 3, modified Cutaia teaches the method of claim 1, and Cutaia also teaches wherein the message is received from a network device. (Fig. 3, paras. 19, 32-33, 35; participant has buttons to rejoin conference and request replay.)
With respect to Claim 4, modified Cutaia teaches the method of claim 3, and Cutaia also teaches wherein the at least the portion of the audio and/or video data is retransmitted to the network device. (paras. 19, 32-33, 35; replay of conference is transmitted to requested participant.)
With respect to Claim 5, modified Cutaia teaches the method of claim 1, and Tiwari also teaches further comprising: determining a duration of the network disruption based on receiving the message. (para. 24; system calculates length of disconnect period. Para. 29; User A is disconnected from 9:10 to 9:13, which renders determining a duration obvious.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 6, modified Cutaia teaches the method of claim 1, and Tiwari also teaches wherein the message is a notification of the network disruption. (para. 19; system detects when a disconnect occurs including time of disconnection.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 7, modified Cutaia teaches the method of claim 1, and Tiwari also teaches wherein the message is received during the network disruption of the second UE. (para. 19; system detects when a disconnect occurs including time of disconnection.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 8, modified Cutaia teaches the method of claim 1, and Cutaia also teaches wherein the message is received after a resolution of the network disruption of the second UE. (Para. 19-20, 29, 35, 41; rejoin conference with replay function to replay audio at an increased speed to catch them up. See also Tiwari, para. 19; system detects when a reconnect occurs including time of disconnection.)
With respect to Claim 9, Cutaia teaches a method, comprising: storing, by a first user equipment (UE), audio and/or video data associated with audio and/or video content; (Fig. 1, paras. 13-19, 26, 29; Devices such as computers have an audio conference. Replay module stores audio from the conference to be replayed later. Replay module may be its own element, part of the conference bridge, or part of the devices themselves. Para. 24; system also applicable to video conference.)
transmitting, by the first UE and to a second UE, the audio and/or video data; (para. 17; participant audio is sent to other participants via the conference bridge.)
determining, by the first UE, a network disruption after the network disruption resolves; (A network disruption will be taught later. para. 19; If a participant misses portions of a conference the participant can request replay of the buffered audio. Para. 19-20, 29, 35, 41; rejoin conference with replay function to replay audio at an increased speed to catch them up. See also Tiwari, para. 19; system detects when a reconnect occurs including time of disconnection.)
and retransmitting, by the first UE and based on determining the network disruption, at least a portion of the audio and/or video data associated with the network disruption. (paras. 19, 32-33, 35; replay of conference is transmitted to requested participant.)
But Cutaia does not explicitly teach a network disruption.
Tiwari, however, does teach a network disruption (para. 19; system determines a client is disconnected from an active meeting. paras. 26-27; system determines a disconnect and reconnect and saves timestamp data of the disconnect period. Para. 29; user A is disconnected from 9:10 to 9:13. See also Cutaia, paras. 19, 29-30; replay request.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Cutaia with the network disruption in order to allow for a user to get caught up on the meeting regardless of whether the lack of attendance was intentional or not. (Tiwari, para. 17; disconnected user can recapture lost content.)
With respect to Claim 10, modified Cutaia teaches the method of claim 9, and Cutaia also teaches wherein the audio and/or video data is stored in a temporary buffer of the first UE. (para. 16, 19, 27; buffering/storage of audio. Paras. 16, 26; replay module may be part of devices. para. 19; buffer may be previous five minutes.)
With respect to Claim 11, modified Cutaia teaches the method of claim 10, and Tiwari also teaches further comprising: overwriting, based on retransmitting the at least the portion of the audio and/or video data, the at least the portion of the audio and/or video data with additional audio and/or video data when the temporary buffer is full. (para. 23; system may delete the catch up recording once the user catches up in order to save memory. See also Cutaia, para. 19; buffer may buffer the previous five minutes of audio.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 15, Cutaia teaches a first user device (UE), comprising: cause audio and/or video data, associated with audio and/or video content associated with a virtual meeting, to be stored; (Fig. 1, paras. 13-19, 26, 29; Devices such as computers have an audio conference. Replay module stores audio from the conference to be replayed later. Replay module may be its own element, part of the conference bridge, or part of the devices themselves. Para. 24; system also applicable to video conference.)
transmit, to a second UE, the audio and/or video data; (para. 17; participant audio is sent to other participants via the conference bridge.)
and retransmit, by the first UE, to the second UE, and based on determining the network disruption, at least a portion of the audio and/or video data associated with the network disruption. (A network disruption will be taught later. para. 19; If a participant misses portions of a conference the participant can request replay of the buffered audio. Para. 19-20, 29, 35, 41; rejoin conference with replay function to replay audio at an increased speed to catch them up. paras. 19, 32-33, 35; replay of conference is transmitted to requested participant.)
But Cutaia does not explicitly teach a network disruption.
Tiwari, however, does teach one or more processors, configured to: (para. 43; processor)
determine, by the first UE, a network disruption between the first UE and the second UE; (para. 19; system determines a client is disconnected from an active meeting. paras. 26-27; system determines a disconnect and reconnect and saves timestamp data of the disconnect period. Para. 29; user A is disconnected from 9:10 to 9:13. See also Cutaia, paras. 19, 29-30; replay request.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the UE of Cutaia with the network disruption in order to allow for a user to get caught up on the meeting regardless of whether the lack of attendance was intentional or not. (Tiwari, para. 17; disconnected user can recapture lost content.)
With respect to Claim 16, modified Cutaia teaches the first UE of claim 15, and Tiwari also teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine that the network disruption has resolved; (paras. 26-27; system determines a disconnect and reconnect and saves timestamp data of the disconnect period. Para. 29; user A is disconnected from 9:10 to 9:13. See also Cutaia, paras. 19, 29-30; replay request.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
And Cutaia also teaches and transmit additional audio and/or video content after retransmitting the at least the portion of the audio and/or video data and determining that the network disruption has resolved. (para. 35; live audio stream after playing out the audio buffer. para. 23; layering to transmit live conference and replay audio. See also Tiwari, para. 22; replay at an accelerated pace until synchronizing with the live meeting.)
With respect to Claim 17, modified Cutaia teaches the first UE of claim 15, and Tiwari also teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a time stamp associated with a beginning of the network disruption. (paras. 26-27; system determines a disconnect and reconnect and saves timestamp data of the disconnect period. Para. 29; user A is disconnected from 9:10 to 9:13.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 18, modified Cutaia teaches the first UE of claim 15, and Cutaia also teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: record the audio and/or video content. (para. 16, 19, 27; buffering/storage of audio.)
With respect to Claim 19, modified Cutaia teaches the first UE of claim 15, and Cutaia also teaches wherein the audio and/or video data is to be stored in a temporary buffer of the first UE. (para. 16, 19, 27; buffering/storage of audio. Paras. 16, 26; replay module may be part of devices. para. 19; buffer may be previous five minutes.)
With respect to Claim 20, modified Cutaia teaches the first UE of claim 19, and Tiwari also teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: overwrite, based on retransmitting the at least the portion of the audio and/or video data, the at least the portion of the audio and/or video data with additional audio and/or video data when the temporary buffer is full. (para. 23; system may delete the catch up recording once the user catches up in order to save memory. See also Cutaia, para. 19; buffer may buffer the previous five minutes of audio.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cutaia (US Pub. 2004/0190700) in view of Tiwari (US Pub. 2022/0286312), and further in view of Li (US Pub. 2016/0337510).
With respect to Claim 12, modified Cutaia teaches the method of claim 9, but does not explicitly further comprising: receiving a setting to determine the network disruption.
Li, however, does teach further comprising: receiving a setting to determine the network disruption. (para. 53, 111-116; machine learning used to measure QoS and link failure by weighing both human dynamics and physical parameters such as packet loss. Weights and models selected are settings.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Cutaia with the network disruption settings in order to improve user quality of service by detecting call performance. (Li, para. 26)
With respect to Claim 13, modified Cutaia teaches the method of claim 9, but does not explicitly teach wherein the network disruption is determined based on a connection failing to satisfy at least one of a speed threshold, a bandwidth threshold, a data packet loss rate threshold, or a transmitting signal strength threshold.
Li, however, does teach wherein the network disruption is determined based on a connection failing to satisfy at least one of a speed threshold, a bandwidth threshold, a data packet loss rate threshold, or a transmitting signal strength threshold. (para. 53, 111-116; machine learning used to measure QoS and link failure by weighing both human dynamics and physical parameters such as packet loss. Weights and models selected are settings.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Cutaia with the network disruption based on data packet loss in order to improve user quality of service by detecting call performance based on metrics. (Li, para. 26)
With respect to Claim 14, modified Cutaia teaches the method of claim 9, but does not explicitly teach wherein the network disruption is determined using a machine learning model associated with at least one of a bandwidth, a data packet loss rate, a transmission signal strength, or a connection speed.
Li, however, does teach wherein the network disruption is determined using a machine learning model associated with at least one of a bandwidth, a data packet loss rate, a transmission signal strength, or a connection speed. (para. 53, 111-116; machine learning used to measure QoS and link failure by weighing both human dynamics and physical parameters such as packet loss. Weights and models selected are settings.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Cutaia with the machine learning model in order to improve user quality of service by detecting call performance. (Li, para. 26)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights