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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 10ac, 120ac, 120ba, 120bb, 120bc, 120ca, 120cb, 120cc, 120da, 120db, 120dc.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, lines 9-10, “as a result that all of the images of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference are displayed” should be - as a result of all of the images of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference being displayed-.
In claim 5, lines 7-8, “as a result that all of the images of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference are displayed” should be - as a result of all of the images of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference being displayed-.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,379,395 in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,909,059.
Current claims 2-4
Claims 1 and 4 of the ‘395 patent in view of ‘059 patent
2. A transmission terminal for transmitting and receiving images and audio to and from a plurality of locations and for conducting a video conference, the transmission terminal comprising:
(‘395, claim 1) 1. A transmission terminal, that transmits an image to and receives images from a plurality of other bases, and participates in a video conference, the transmission terminal comprising: processing circuitry configured to: control display of images with respect to corresponding bases which are participating in the video conference in a manner depending on a number of bases which are participating in the video conference;
a display controller configured to display, on a display screen, the images of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference and a number of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference, wherein the display controller unit is configured to:
(‘059, claim 1) processor processing circuitry configured to display, on a screen of the transmission terminal, information concerning a total number of transmission terminals participating in the video conference, and display, on the screen of the transmission terminal, respective sets of image data transmitted by transmission terminals participating in the video conference to each other,
display a predetermined upper limit value of the images in a case where one image becomes smaller as a result that all of the images of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference are displayed; and
(‘395, claim 1) wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to control display of the images with respect to corresponding bases which are participating in the video conference such that the number of the images to be displayed is smaller than the number of bases which are participating in the video conference.
display, on the display screen, an image of a location that is a transmission source of the audio among the plurality of locations participating in the video conference, as a main location image.
(‘395, claim 4) 4. The transmission terminal according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: control display of images of the transmission terminal and the corresponding bases which are participating in the video conference according to the number of the bases which are participating in the video conference, wherein the images of the transmission terminal and the corresponding bases include a main image and a plurality of secondary images, and a size of the main image is larger than sizes of the plurality of secondary images.
3. The transmission terminal according to claim 2, wherein the images are displayed such that the number of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference is greater than the upper limit value of the images displayed on the display screen.
4. The transmission terminal according to claim 2, wherein an image of each respective location of the plurality of locations is displayed on the display screen by combining image data having different resolutions.
Both the current claim 2 and claim 1 of the ‘395 patent disclose a transmission terminal for transmitting and receiving images and audio to and from a plurality of locations and for conducting a video conference, the transmission terminal comprising a display controller unit configured to display a predetermined upper limit value of the images in a case where one image becomes smaller as a result that all of the images of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference are displayed.
Both the current claim 2 and claim 4 of the ‘395 patent disclose displaying, on the display screen, an image of a location that is a transmission source of the audio among the plurality of locations participating in the video conference, as a main location image.
Current claim 2 further discloses a display controller configured to display, on a display screen, the images of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference and a number of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference. The ‘395 patent does not appear to explicitly disclose this. However, claim 1 of the ‘059 patent discloses this aspect of the invention, as shown above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the display controller of the ‘395 patent with the display of a number of locations as disclosed by the ‘059 patent by incorporating a number of locations into the user interface. The motivation for doing so would have been to show the number of conference participants.
Therefore, claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting.
Current claim 3 and claim 1 of the ‘395 patent disclose wherein the images are displayed such that the number of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference is greater than the upper limit value of the images displayed on the display screen.
Claim 3 is therefore rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting.
Current claim 4 and claim 4 of the ‘395 patent disclose wherein an image of each respective location of the plurality of locations is displayed on the display screen by combining image data having different resolutions.
Therefore, claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting.
Claims 5-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,379,395 in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,909,059.
Current claims 5-7
Claims 5 and 8 of the ‘395 patent in view of the ‘059 patent
5. (New) A method implemented on a transmission terminal, the method comprising: displaying, by processing circuitry of the transmission terminal, on a display screen, images of a plurality of locations participating in a video conference and a number of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference;
(‘395, claim 5) 5. A method implemented on a transmission terminal that transmits an image to and receives images from a plurality of other bases, and participates in a video conference, the method comprising: controlling, by processing circuitry of the transmission terminal, display of images with respect to corresponding bases which are participating in the video conference in a manner depending on the number of bases which are participating in the video conference, and
(‘059, claim 4) displaying on a screen of the transmission terminal, information concerning a total number of transmission terminals participating in the video conference
displaying, by the processing circuitry of the transmission terminal, a predetermined upper limit value of the images in a case where one image becomes smaller as a result that all of the images of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference are displayed; and
(‘395, claim 5) controlling, by the processing circuitry, display of the images with respect to corresponding bases which are participating in the video conference such that the number of the images to be displayed is smaller than the number of bases which are participating in the video conference.
displaying, by the processing circuitry of the transmission terminal, on the display screen, an image of a location that is a transmission source of the audio among the plurality of locations participating in the video conference, as a main location image.
(‘395 claim 8) 8. The method according to claim 5, wherein the method further comprises: controlling, by the processing circuitry of the transmission terminal, display of images with respect to the transmission terminal and the corresponding bases which are participating in the video conference in a manner depending on the number of bases which are participating in the video conference, wherein the images of the transmission terminal and the corresponding bases include a main image and a plurality of secondary images, and a size of the main image is larger than sizes of the plurality of secondary images.
6. (New) The method according to claim 5, further comprising: displaying, by the processing circuitry of the transmission terminal, the images such that the number of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference is greater than the upper limit value of the images displayed on the display screen.
7. The method according to claim 5, further comprising: displaying, by the processing circuitry of the transmission terminal, an image of each respective location of the plurality of locations on the display screen by combining image data having different resolutions.
Claim 5 of the current application and claim 5 of the ‘395 patent disclose displaying, by processing circuitry of the transmission terminal, on a display screen, images of a plurality of locations participating in a video conference; and displaying, by the processing circuitry of the transmission terminal, a predetermined upper limit value of the images in a case where one image becomes smaller as a result that all of the images of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference are displayed.
Current claim 5 and claim 8 of the ‘395 patent disclose displaying, by the processing circuitry of the transmission terminal, on the display screen, an image of a location that is a transmission source of the audio among the plurality of locations participating in the video conference, as a main location image.
Current claim 5 also discloses displaying a number of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference. This is not explicitly disclosed by the claims of the ‘395 patent.
However, claim 4 of the ‘059 patent discloses displaying a number of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the display controller of the ‘395 patent with the display of a number of locations as disclosed by the ‘059 patent by incorporating a number of locations into the user interface. The motivation for doing so would have been to show the number of conference participants.
Therefore, claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting.
Current claim 6 and claim 5 of the ‘395 patent disclose wherein the images are displayed such that the number of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference is greater than the upper limit value of the images displayed on the display screen.
Claim 6 is therefore rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting.
Current claim 7 and claim 8 of the ‘395 patent disclose wherein an image of each respective location of the plurality of locations is displayed on the display screen by combining image data having different resolutions.
Therefore, claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting.
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) 2, 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 2012/0182384), hereafter referred to as Anderson’384 in view of Abate et al. (US 2012/0182381), hereafter referred to as Abate’381.
Referring to independent claim 2, Anderson’384 teaches a transmission terminal (internet devices 104-107, see figure 1 and paragraph 145, lines 2-3) for transmitting and receiving images and audio to and from a plurality of locations (video streaming server 103, see figure 1 and paragraph 145, lines 9-11; video panel 1305 displays speaker’s video, see figure 13 and paragraph 337, lines 1-2) and for conducting a video conference (web server 102, video streaming server 103, see figure 1 and paragraph 145, lines 9-11), the transmission terminal comprising: a display controller configured to display, on a display screen, the images of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference (simultaneous videoconference with up to a set number of visible participants, paragraph 10, lines 2-5; images displayed next to listening participants’ names, paragraph 62, lines 3-5) and a number of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference (number of participants in the conference is displayed via the Participant Count 1311, see figure 13 and paragraph 341, lines 1-2), wherein the display controller is configured to: display a predetermined upper limit value of the images (simultaneous videoconference with up to a set number of visible participants, paragraph 10, lines 2-5); and display, on the display screen, an image of a location that is a transmission source of the audio among the plurality of locations participating in the video conference, as a main location image (Video Panel 1305 displays the current speaker's video, see figure 13 and paragraph 337, lines 1-2).
Anderson’384 does not appear to explicitly teach a case where one image becomes smaller as a result that all of the images of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference are displayed.
However, Abate’381 teaches a case where one image becomes smaller as a result that all of the images of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference are displayed (inactive participant’s image in roster area 304 is less visually prominent than active participant’s image in stage area 302, see figure 3 and paragraph 52, lines 6-9).
Anderson’384 and Abate’381 are analogous because they are both drawn to the same inventive field of video communication.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Anderson’384 and Abate’381 before them, to modify the transmission terminal of Anderson’384 to include the main and secondary images of Abate’381 by displaying image data of active and inactive participants on the screen of each base.
The motivation for doing so would have been to manage video data in a way that does not serve as a distraction to the conference itself (paragraph 8, lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Anderson’384 and Abate’381 to bring about the invention as claimed.
Note that independent claim 5 contains the corresponding limitations of claim 2 as shown above; therefore, it is rejected using the same reasoning accordingly.
As to claim 4, Anderson’384 does not appear to explicitly teach the transmission terminal according to claim 2, wherein an image of each respective location of the plurality of locations is displayed on the display screen by combining image data having different resolutions.
However, Abate’381 teaches wherein an image of each respective location of the plurality of locations is displayed on the display screen by combining image data having different resolutions (inactive participant’s image in roster area 304 is less visually prominent than active participant’s image in stage area 302, see figure 3 and paragraph 52, lines 6-9).
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Anderson’384 and Abate’381 before them, to modify the transmission terminal of Anderson’384 to include the main and secondary images of Abate’381 by displaying image data of active and inactive participants on the screen of each base.
The motivation for doing so would have been to manage video data in a way that does not serve as a distraction to the conference itself (paragraph 8, lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Anderson’384 and Abate’381 to bring about the invention as claimed.
Note that claim 7 contains the corresponding limitations of claim 4 as shown above; therefore, it is rejected using the same reasoning accordingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Also, claims 3 and 6 cannot be allowed due to objections and double patenting rejections as indicated above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 3, the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate, explicitly teach, or fairly suggest wherein the images are displayed such that the number of the plurality of locations participating in the video conference is greater than the upper limit value of the images displayed on the display screen.
Further, it would not have been obvious to combine the above limitations with the limitations of the antecedent claim.
Marignan et al. (US 2012/0072961) discloses a broadcast system configured to provide that the direct transmission of the video stream from the transmitting terminal to the broadcast server and the continuous rebroadcast of said video stream from the broadcast server to said invited terminals are automatically initiated upon the expiration of the predetermined duration. However, this does not appear to disclose the subject matter determined to be allowable.
Yada (US 2013/0076764) discloses a display screen sharing system wherein the transmission side terminal comprises a maximum display area frame control unit that calculates a maximum size of a display area that can be displayed at the reception side terminal(s) based on the display area information supplied from the reception side terminal(s). However, this does not appear to disclose the subject matter determined to be allowable.
Fan et al. (US 2015/0294022) discloses a transceiving unit configured to send the URL, the picture quality value and the maximum resolution value of the picture to be transmitted to a picture bed server, and receive the returned picture which had been processed by the picture bed server according to the URL, the picture quality value and the maximum resolution value of the picture to be transmitted, and send it to a display screen of the terminal device for display. However, this does not appear to disclose the subject matter determined to be allowable.
Note that claim 6 contains the corresponding limitations of claim 3 as shown above; therefore, it is considered to contain allowable subject matter by the same reasoning accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marignan et al. (US 2012/0072961) discloses a broadcast system configured to provide that the direct transmission of the video stream from the transmitting terminal to the broadcast server and the continuous rebroadcast of said video stream from the broadcast server to said invited terminals are automatically initiated upon the expiration of the predetermined duration.
Yada (US 2013/0076764) discloses a display screen sharing system wherein the transmission side terminal comprises a maximum display area frame control unit that calculates a maximum size of a display area that can be displayed at the reception side terminal(s) based on the display area information supplied from the reception side terminal(s).
Fan et al. (US 2015/0294022) discloses a transceiving unit configured to send the URL, the picture quality value and the maximum resolution value of the picture to be transmitted to a picture bed server, and receive the returned picture which had been processed by the picture bed server according to the URL, the picture quality value and the maximum resolution value of the picture to be transmitted, and send it to a display screen of the terminal device for display.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B ROCHE whose telephone number is (571)270-1721. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:30 - 7.
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, Henry Tsai can be reached at (571)272-4176. 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.
/J.B.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2184
/HENRY TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights