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 .
Priority
The Instant Application filed, 03/22/2025, claims foreign priority to DKPA202470132, filed 05/02/2024 and claims foreign priority to EP24173624.8, filed 04/30/2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 10-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Circosta et al. (2023/0396658).
As per claim 1, Circosta et al. teaches a method of controlling a conference between a first communication device and a second communication device, the method comprising:
setting up the conference with associated conference requirements [paragraph 0021];
receiving a participation request to participate in the conference from the second communication device, the participation request comprising a device configuration [paragraph 0014];
determining whether the device configuration satisfies the conference requirements [paragraph 0041]; and
including the second communication device in the conference if the device configuration satisfies the conference requirements [paragraph 0048].
As per claim 2, Circosta et al. teaches the method of claim 1, comprising rejecting the participation request if the device configuration does not satisfy the conference requirements [paragraph 0049].
As per claim 3, Circosta et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the act of setting up a conference with associated conference requirements comprises transmitting a conference invitation comprising the conference requirements [paragraph 0056].
As per claim 8, Circosta et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conference requirements comprise communication device requirements for participating in the conference, and wherein the act of determining whether the device configuration satisfies the conference requirements comprises determining whether a communication device parameter of the device configuration satisfies the communication device requirements [paragraph 0037].
As per claim 10, Circosta et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the device configuration is indicative of one or more devices associated with a participant for the conference [paragraph 0034].
As per claim 11, Circosta et al. teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the one or more devices comprise the second communication device [paragraph 0044].
As per claim 13, Circosta et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the device configuration comprises a digital signature [paragraph 0052].
As per claim 14, Circosta et al. teaches an electronic device comprising an interface, memory circuitry, and processor circuitry, the processor circuitry configured to perform the method of claim 1 [paragraph 0033].
As per claim 15, Circosta et al. teaches the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the electronic device is a communication device [paragraph 0028].
Claims 16-20 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
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) 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Circosta et al. (2023/0396658) in view of Jensen (2024/0137464).
As per claim 4, Circosta et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1 as above but fails to explicitly teach, however, Jensen in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the conference requirements comprise audio device requirements for participating in the conference, and wherein the act of determining whether the device configuration satisfies the conference requirements comprises determining whether an audio device parameter of the device configuration satisfies the audio device requirements [Jensen, paragraphs 0083-0084].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Circosta et al. with Jensen in order to ensure a client device operates in a compliant manner when the client device executes virtual conference client software and attempts to connect to a virtual conference provider.
As per claim 5, Circosta-Jensen teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the audio device requirements comprise audio device type requirements indicative of a required audio device type, and wherein the act of determining whether the device configuration satisfies the conference requirements comprises determining whether an audio device type parameter of the device configuration satisfies the audio device type requirements [Jensen, paragraphs 0083-0084].
As per claim 6, Circosta-Jensen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conference requirements comprise video device requirements for participating in the conference, and wherein the act of comprises determining whether a video device parameter of the device configuration satisfies the video device requirements [Jensen, paragraph 0086].
As per claim 7, Circosta-Jensen teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the video device requirements comprise video device type requirements indicative of a required video device type, and wherein the act of determining whether the device configuration satisfies the conference requirements comprises determining whether a video device type parameter of the device configuration satisfies the video device type requirements [Jensen, paragraph 0086].
As per claim 9, Circosta-Jensen teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the communication device requirements comprise communication device type requirements indicative of a required communication device type, and wherein the act of determining whether the device configuration satisfies the conference requirements comprises determining whether a communication device type parameter of the device configuration satisfies the communication device type requirements [Jensen, paragraph 0084].
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Circosta et al. (2023/0396658) in view of Lyons (2023/0030230).
As per claim 12, Circosta et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1 as above but fails to explicitly teach, however, Lyons in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the device configuration comprises a message authentication code [Lyons, paragraph 0086].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Circosta et al. with Lyons in order to provide a device management system that detects an attempt to access a user account by an unenrolled device.
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 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 on (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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights