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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Trenh does not disclose the trigger event is a detected relative change of general movement in the first and/or second video as claimed. Applicant alleges that recognition of a gesture is a different operation than detection of a relative change of general movement in a video stream. Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assessment of the prior art as it pertains to the claimed limitations. Recognition of a gesture is a relative change of general movement, as general movement is not a specific gesture. A specific gesture would result in a relative change to said general movement such that it would be recognizable to the system.
Regarding claim 20 specifically, applicant argues that locating a gesture does not equate to locating a participant. However, as it is a person making the gesture, the location of the gesture correspond to the location of the participant.
Regarding the official notice taken that gesture-based recognition systems include pointing gestures to indicate object prominence was notoriously well known in the art at the time of effective filing, see Mai (2025/0021167)
Regarding the official notice taken that selecting from among multiple possible cameras during video teleconferencing was notoriously well known in the art at the time of effective filing, see Zamierowski et al. (2009/0102919)
Regarding the official notice taken keeping latency delays under 30 seconds in teleconferencing systems was notoriously well known in the art at the time of effective filing, see Takayama (2023/0262283, see paragraph 0050 where the latency delay is a standard 1 second for processing time).
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 17 recites the limitation "the second object" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the gesture" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-17, 19-20, 22, 23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trenh et al. (11,165,989, of record) [Trenh].
Regarding claims 15, 25, and 26, Trenh discloses A method for providing a shared digital video stream, the method comprising:
in a collecting step, collecting from a first digital video source a first digital video stream and from a second digital video source a second digital video stream (fig. 1, col. 2 lines 5-21);
in a first production step, producing the shared digital video stream as an output digital video stream based on consecutively considered frames of the first digital video stream so that image information from the first digital video source is visible in the shared digital video stream, but so that image information from the second digital video source is not visible in the shared digital video stream (fewer than all participants shown in shared video stream, fig. 2, col. 2 lines 22-43);
in a trigger detection step, automatically detecting a trigger by digitally analyzing the first digital video stream to automatically detect the trigger in the form of a detected relative change of general movement event in the first digital video (col. 4 lines 22-37)
the trigger being instructive, according to a predetermined production rule, to alter the production mode of the shared digital video stream (video prominence, col. 4 lines 22-37);
in a second production step, initiated in response to the detection of the trigger, producing the shared digital video stream as an output digital video stream based on consecutively considered frames of the second digital video stream so that image information from the second digital video source is visible in the shared digital video stream, and a different focus plane selection of the first digital video stream as compared to the first production step (difference participant is given prominence, col. 4 lines 38-60); and
in a publishing step, continuously providing the output digital video stream to two or more consumers of the shared digital video stream (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Trenh discloses the method of claim 15, wherein: the first digital video stream is continuously captured by a first digital camera; and the second digital video stream is continuously captured by a second digital camera (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Trenh discloses the method of claim 15, wherein: the second object is a human (figs 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 19, Trenh discloses the method of claim 15, wherein: the detection of the trigger comprises detecting a predetermined image pattern in turn comprising a relative change of movement in the first and/or second digital video stream (col. 4 line 61 - col. 5 line 11).
Regarding claim 20, Trenh discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising: determining a location of the participant and the object, in relation to the first camera and/or the second camera, using digital image processing based on the first and/or second digital video stream (col. 4 line 61 - col. 5 line 11).
Regarding claim 22, Trenh discloses the method of claim 15, wherein: the production in the second production step is configured to highlight or shift focus of the output digital video stream so as to provide increased visual focus to the object (prominent display, col. 5 lines 24- 49).
Regarding claim 23, Trenh discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising: a delaying step, wherein a latency is deliberately introduced with respect to at least the first and the second digital video stream, the latency being present in the shared digital video stream, wherein: the trigger detection step is performed based on the first and/or second digital video streams before introducing the latency (col. 7 lines 6-17 and 32-43).
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.
Claims 18, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trenh.
Regarding claim 18, Trenh discloses the method of claim 15, but fails to explicitly disclose the gesture is a pointing towards the object.
Examiner takes official notice that gesture-based recognition systems include pointing gestures to indicate object prominence were notoriously well known in the art at the time of effective filing.
It would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Trenh to include the gesture is a pointing towards the object.
Regarding claim 21, Trenh discloses the method of claim 15, but fails to disclose the second production step comprises determining a particular one second camera among several possible second cameras currently showing the object and selecting that second camera as the one providing the second video stream in question.
Examiner takes official notice that selecting from among multiple possible cameras during video teleconferencing was notoriously well known in the art at the time of effective filing, such as when a presenter wants to draw attention to a whiteboard.
It would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Trenh to include the second production step comprises determining a particular one second camera among several possible second cameras currently showing the object and selecting that second camera as the one providing the second video stream in question.
Regarding claim 24, Trenh discloses he method of claim 23, but fails to explicitly disclose the latency is at most 30 seconds.
Examiner takes official notice that keeping latency delays under 30 seconds in teleconferencing systems was notoriously well known in the art at the time of effective filing.
It would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Trenh to include the latency is at most 30 seconds.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC D SALTARELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-7302. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-1915. 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.
/DOMINIC D SALTARELLI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights