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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected:
Claims 1 (“method”), 19 (“medium”), and 20 (“device”) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, because if one precludes the phrase “by a processing system” in these claims, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations cover their performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
The independent claims 1, 19 and 20 concern managing communication among plurality of participants in a “communication group” comprising at least “three users of an extended reality environment” (“XR” also referred to as “virtual reality (VR)” “augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), cinematic reality (CR)” (spec ¶ 0003 lines 1-4)).
The “communication group” is “establish[ed]” e.g., by “observation” and “exchange of verbal/audio communications” “text based messages such as email” “short messaging services” “application messaging within the extended reality environment” “through” “gestures” “such as clicking or tapping on another user’s avatar to add or remove the other user from a communication group” “through observation of” “calendars” “e.g.” “observation that the first user has a virtual meeting scheduled” “or through an observation that at least 3 users are within physical proximity of each other” (spec. ¶ 0042).
The method begins by “tracking” “locations and directional positions of the members of the communication group” (spec. ¶ 0023 sentence 1: “such as [using] cameras, microphones, radio frequency identification, motion sensors, or the like”). It then “determin[es]” “that a second user of the at least three users is an intended recipient of a first utterance made by a first user of a of the at least three users”. At this point, “the first utterance” is “present[ed]” “to the second user” with a “directionality” “based on a location and a directional position of the first user relative to the second user” (e.g., by “control [of] the audio of the user’s user end point devices” (spec. ¶ 0028 lines 8-9); “For instance, if the second user is detected to be leaning toward the first user, then the volume of the first utterance may be increased to reflect the second user’s movement” (spec. ¶ 0056 last 4 lines)).
Therefore, these limitations correspond to processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by a processing system” language, a person (mapped to the function of the “processing system” with “extended reality”), could “track” locations and positions of the 3 members of the “communication group”, and could also determine that e.g. a “second person” in the “communication group” is an intended recipient of a “first utterance” made by a “first user”, and could “present” the “first utterance” to the “second user” based “on a location and a directional position of the first user relative to the second user”, in case the “second user” somehow could not hear the “first utterance” due to hearing impairment and/or excess noise in their ambient environment. The series of steps appear to be based on a series of observations of locations of members which are all performable by human observation and prediction which correspond to one of the four categories of human activities for assessing if claim falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite only one additional element, namely a “processing system” responsible for the “establishing”, “tracking”, “determining”, and “presenting” limitations and is therefore recited at a high-level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions, and therefore it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Furthermore, according to Sp. ¶ 0083 S1, a “processor” (e.g. responsible for the “processing system”) “may comprise, for example, a microprocessor, a central processing unit (CPU), or the like”, which corresponds to nothing other than a generic computer component. As a result this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the “processing system’s” associated “processor” also is not defined to correspond to anything beyond a generic computer component. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “processing system” to perform all the “establishing”, “tracking”, “determining”, and “presenting” limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the action of “observation of a direct communication …” of “at least three users” corresponds to an observation operation “Mental Processes” abstract idea category.
Regarding claim 3, the use of “playback devices” in “establishing” “a communication group” amounts to nothing more than adding “well-understood, routine” additional elements performing generic functions.
Regarding claim 4, to use “ambient sensors” to “observe” “at least three users” corresponds to an observation operation “Mental Processes” abstract idea category, with “ambient sensors” performing “well understood routine” additional elements performing generic functions.
Regarding claim 5, the action of “tracking” “locations and directional positions” corresponds to an observation operation “Mental Processes” abstract idea category.
Regarding claim 6, the person emulating the processing system would have no trouble determining which individual a conversation is directed to based on the content of the conversation.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the person emulating the processing system could present the “first utterance” to the “second person” by simply repeating it, with the “ambient audio device” and/or “endpoint device” amounting to adding a “well-understood routine” additional element with generic functions.
Regarding claim 9, the person emulating the processing system could present the “first utterance” to the “second person” by simply repeating it from the location of the “first person” to help him perceive it according to a relative location from the “second person”.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the person emulating the processing system could present a “second utterance” attributed from a “third user” who is different from the “first user” from the location of the “third user” which is also different from the location of the “first user” and also possesses a different direction (directional position).
Regarding claim 12, the person emulating the processing system could present a “second utterance” attributed from a “third user” who is different from the “second user” from the location of the “third user” which enables the “second user” to perceive “third user” to originate from the location of the “third user” relative to himself.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the person emulating the processing system could present a “second utterance” attributed to the “first user to the second user”, but not from the location of the “first user” but rather by movement to a different location resulting in a different directionality associated with this presentation with respect to the first utterance.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the person emulating the processing system (that could also correspond to the claim’s “object”) could issue an audible warning to the second user to e.g. move to a different location to enable him to perceive his audio better.
IMPORTANT: if claim 15 gets restricted to only allow the “warning” to be attributed to an “avatar”, the claim will overcome 101 rejection.
Regarding claim 17, to update “locations and” “directional positions” will require simple observations and/or evaluation of their conversation both of which fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 18, the person emulating the processing system could provide a gesture (a non-audible feedback) towards a speaker in the communication group so other members of the communication group can determine who is currently speaking.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI KAZUNORI (JP 2020-088516), and further in view of McMillan (EP 2 953 351).
Regarding claim 1, SUZUKI KAZUNORI does teach a method comprising:
establishing, by a processing system including at least one processor, a communication group including at least three users of an extended reality environment as members (¶ “(57)” lines 1+: “To implement” (to establish) “a video conference system” (a communication group); “A video conference system” (the communication group) “includes: a plurality of microphones 24 for collecting voice of a speaker” (comprises a “speaker” (a first user or member)); ¶ 0027 lines 1+: “in the video conference system” (the communication group) “the imaging unit is disposed between each of the plurality of participants” (also comprises a “plurality of participants” (potential second users or members), so in sum the “video conference” (the communication group) comprises of at least 3 members)); ¶ 0011 lines 1-2: it comprises of “DSPs (Digital Signal Processor)” (at least one processor));
determining, by the processing system, that a second user of the at least three users is an intended recipient of a first utterance made by a first user of the at least three users (¶ “(57)” last sentence: “A direction of voice” (a first utterance) “from the plurality of loudspeakers 30 perceived by a participant 32” (intended to be received by a second user) “participating in a conference” (in the communication group)); and
presenting, by the processing system, the first utterance to the second user, where a directionality associated with a presentation of the first utterance is based on a location and a directional position of the first user relative to the second user ( ¶ “(57)” last sentence: “A direction of voice” (direction of the first utterance) “from the plurality of loudspeakers 30 perceived by a participant 32” (received by (presented to) the intended second user) “participating in a conference while viewing video on the display unit 28 and listening to the voice from the plurality of loudspeakers 30 agrees with a direction of the speaker” (is based on also direction of the “speaker” (directional position of the first user relative to it)) “displayed in the video”).
SUZUKI KAZUNORI do not specifically disclose:
tracking, by the processing system, locations and directional positions of the members of the communication group within the extended reality environment and within physical environments of the members;
McMillan do teach:
tracking, by the processing system, locations and directional positions of the members of the communication group within the extended reality environment and within physical environments of the members (¶ 0019 lines 1+: “a video conference” (a communication group) “may be supported by any of a wide variety of electronic devices that capture and transmit video images of a participant at a first location and that receive and display video images of other participants at a second location” (“locations” (the locations) of “participants” (members) are “captur[ed]” (tracked)); Col 18 lines 33+: “determining that one of the multiple other participants is speaking based upon a direction” (tracking a directional position of a “participant” (member of the communication group)) “from which sound originates relative to the respective positions of multiple other participants within the incoming video stream”).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the methods pertaining to “captur[ing]” “participants” “location” of “video conference” of McMillan into the “video conference” “implement[ation]” of SUZUKI KAZUNORI would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable SUZUKI KAZUNORI to “improve[] the meeting experience by showing close up views of the active speakers” by virtue of “Speaker tracking” as disclosed in Tangeland et al. (US Patent 9,942,518) Col. 1 lines 25-27.
Regarding claim 2, SUZUKI KAZUNORI do teach the method of claim 1, wherein the establishing is performed through at least one of:
an observation of a direct communication between the at least three users (¶ 0064 last 4 lines: “By listening to the sound signal amplified by the speaker 30, the participant of the conference can feel as if the sound is emitted from the position of the speaker displayed on the screen, and can easily identify the speaker without a sense of discomfort” (i.e., this is an example of a direct communication between a “participant” (at least one second user) and the “speaker” (the first user) both via image as well as audible means even though they may be located remote from each other),
an observation of gestures of the at least three users, an observation of automated calendars of the at least three users, an observation that the at least three users are within proximity of each other, or an observation of a split in an existing communication group including the at least three users.
Regarding claim 3, SUZUKI KAZUNORI do teach the method of claim 1, wherein the establishing includes selecting one or more playback devices through which communications between members of the communication group are to be presented (¶ “(57)” last sentence: “A direction of voice from the plurality of loudspeakers 30” (one playback device) “perceived by a participant 32 participating in a conference while viewing video on the display unit 28” (a second playback device used in the “video conference” (communication group)).
Regarding claim 4, SUZUKI KAZUNORI do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the tracking is based on data received from ambient sensors located in physical environments in which the at least three users are observed.
McMillan do teach the method of claim 1, wherein the tracking is based on data received from ambient sensors located in physical environments in which the at least three users are observed (¶ 0036 sentence 1: “As shown in Figure 4, the camera 14” (an ambient sensor) “for capturing video images” (for tracking) “of the participant” (each user and for each of the users) “may alternatively be embodied by a mobile device 50, such as a mobile telephone, a smartphone, a PDA or the like”).
For obviousness to combine SUZUKI KAZUNORI and McMillan see claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, SUZUKI KAZUNORI do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the tracking is based on data received from user endpoint devices used by the at least three users.
McMillan do teach the method of claim 1, wherein the tracking is based on data received from user endpoint devices used by the at least three users (¶ 0036 sentence 1: “As shown in Figure 4, the camera 14” “for capturing video images” (tracking) “of the participant” (each of the users) “may alternatively be embodied by a mobile device 50, such as a mobile telephone, a smartphone” (using an endpoint device associated with each user) “a PDA or the like”).
For obviousness to combine SUZUKI KAZUNORI and McMillan see claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, SUZUKI KAZUNORI do teach the method of claim 1, wherein the presenting comprises controlling an ambient audio device in a physical environment of the second user to present the first utterance (¶ “(57)” lines 7+: “a plurality of loudspeakers” (an ambient audio device of the second user) “for amplifying” (for controlling) “the voice signal” (to present the first utterance) “received from the reproduction unit 18A”).
Regarding claim 8, SUZUKU KAZUNORI do teach the method of claim 1, wherein the presenting comprises controlling a user endpoint device of the second user to present the first utterance (¶ “(57)” lines 7+: “a plurality of loudspeakers” (an endpoint device of the second user) “for amplifying” (for controlling) “the voice signal” (to present the first utterance) “received from the reproduction unit 18A”
Regarding claim 9, SUZUKI KAZUNORI do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the presenting comprises playing the first utterance in a manner that causes the second user to perceive that the first user is positioned in a specific location relative to the second user.
McMillan do teach the method of claim 1, wherein the presenting comprises playing the first utterance in a manner that causes the second user to perceive that the first user is positioned in a specific location relative to the second user (¶ 0019 lines 1+: “a video conference may be supported by any of a wide variety of electronic devices that capture and transmit video images” (a presentation comprises) “of a participant at a first location” (a first user in a specific location) “and that receive and display video images of other participants at a second location” (relative to a second user’s location)).
For obviousness to combine SUZUKI KAZUNORI and McMillan see claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, SUZUKI KAZUNORI does teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processing system including at least one processor, cause the processing system to perform operations (¶ 0011),
the operations comprising:
establishing a communication group including at least three users of an extended reality environment as members (¶ “(57)” lines 1+: “To implement” (to establish) “a video conference system” (a communication group); “A video conference system” (the communication group) “includes: a plurality of microphones 24 for collecting voice of a speaker” (comprises a “speaker” (a first user or member)); ¶ 0027 lines 1+: “in the video conference system” (the communication group) “the imaging unit is disposed between each of the plurality of participants” (also comprises a “plurality of participants” (potential second users or members), so in sum the “video conference” (the communication group) comprises of at least 3 members)); ¶ 0011 lines 1-2: it comprises of “DSPs (Digital Signal Processor)” (at least one processor));
determining that a second user of the at least three users is an intended recipient of a first utterance made by a first user of the at least three users (¶ “(57)” last sentence: “A direction of voice” (a first utterance) “from the plurality of loudspeakers 30 perceived by a participant 32” (intended to be received by a second user) “participating in a conference” (in the communication group)); and
presenting the first utterance to the second user, where a directionality associated with a presentation of the first utterance is based on a location and a directional position of the first user relative to the second user ( ¶ “(57)” last sentence: “A direction of voice” (direction of the first utterance) “from the plurality of loudspeakers 30 perceived by a participant 32” (received by (presented to) the intended second user) “participating in a conference while viewing video on the display unit 28 and listening to the voice from the plurality of loudspeakers 30 agrees with a direction of the speaker” (is based on also direction of the “speaker” (directional position of the first user relative to it)) “displayed in the video”).
SUZUKI KAZUNORI do not specifically disclose:
tracking locations and directional positions of the members of the communication group within the extended reality environment and within physical environments of the members;
McMillan do teach:
tracking locations and directional positions of the members of the communication group within the extended reality environment and within physical environments of the members (¶ 0019 lines 1+: “a video conference” (a communication group) “may be supported by any of a wide variety of electronic devices that capture and transmit video images of a participant at a first location and that receive and display video images of other participants at a second location” (“locations” (the locations) of “participants” (members) are “captur[ed]” (tracked)); Col 18 lines 33+: “determining that one of the multiple other participants is speaking based upon a direction” (tracking a directional position of a “participant” (member of the communication group)) “from which sound originates relative to the respective positions of multiple other participants within the incoming video stream”).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the methods pertaining to “captur[ing]” “participants” “location” of “video conference” of McMillan into the “video conference” “implement[ation]” of SUZUKI KAZUNORI would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable SUZUKI KAZUNORI to “improve[] the meeting experience by showing close up views of the active speakers” by virtue of “Speaker tracking” as disclosed in Tangeland et al. (US Patent 9,942,518) Col. 1 lines 25-27.
Regarding claim 20, SUZUKI KAZUNORI does teach a device comprising: a processing system including at least one processor; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to perform operations (¶ 0011), the operations comprising:
the operations comprising:
establishing a communication group including at least three users of an extended reality environment as members (¶ “(57)” lines 1+: “To implement” (to establish) “a video conference system” (a communication group); “A video conference system” (the communication group) “includes: a plurality of microphones 24 for collecting voice of a speaker” (comprises a “speaker” (a first user or member)); ¶ 0027 lines 1+: “in the video conference system” (the communication group) “the imaging unit is disposed between each of the plurality of participants” (also comprises a “plurality of participants” (potential second users or members), so in sum the “video conference” (the communication group) comprises of at least 3 members)); ¶ 0011 lines 1-2: it comprises of “DSPs (Digital Signal Processor)” (at least one processor));
determining that a second user of the at least three users is an intended recipient of a first utterance made by a first user of the at least three users (¶ “(57)” last sentence: “A direction of voice” (a first utterance) “from the plurality of loudspeakers 30 perceived by a participant 32” (intended to be received by a second user) “participating in a conference” (in the communication group)); and
presenting the first utterance to the second user, where a directionality associated with a presentation of the first utterance is based on a location and a directional position of the first user relative to the second user ( ¶ “(57)” last sentence: “A direction of voice” (direction of the first utterance) “from the plurality of loudspeakers 30 perceived by a participant 32” (received by (presented to) the intended second user) “participating in a conference while viewing video on the display unit 28 and listening to the voice from the plurality of loudspeakers 30 agrees with a direction of the speaker” (is based on also direction of the “speaker” (directional position of the first user relative to it)) “displayed in the video”).
SUZUKI KAZUNORI do not specifically disclose:
tracking locations and directional positions of the members of the communication group within the extended reality environment and within physical environments of the members;
McMillan do teach:
tracking locations and directional positions of the members of the communication group within the extended reality environment and within physical environments of the members (¶ 0019 lines 1+: “a video conference” (a communication group) “may be supported by any of a wide variety of electronic devices that capture and transmit video images of a participant at a first location and that receive and display video images of other participants at a second location” (“locations” (the locations) of “participants” (members) are “captur[ed]” (tracked)); Col 18 lines 33+: “determining that one of the multiple other participants is speaking based upon a direction” (tracking a directional position of a “participant” (member of the communication group)) “from which sound originates relative to the respective positions of multiple other participants within the incoming video stream”).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the methods pertaining to “captur[ing]” “participants” “location” of “video conference” of McMillan into the “video conference” “implement[ation]” of SUZUKI KAZUNORI would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable SUZUKI KAZUNORI to “improve[] the meeting experience by showing close up views of the active speakers” by virtue of “Speaker tracking” as disclosed in Tangeland et al. (US Patent 9,942,518) Col. 1 lines 25-27.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan, and further in view of Erol et al. (US Patent 7,298,930).
Regarding claim 6, SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the determining is based on a context of the first utterance.
Erol et al. do teach the method of claim 1, wherein the determining is based on a context of the first utterance (Fig. 5 shows a summary of conversations among three remote users of a “meeting video” (communication group (Col. 9 line 17)), e.g., “DEREK: what do you—what do you think the cultural factors are, Dar?” (i.e., here “Dar” (an intended recipient or second user of a first utterance by “DEREK” (a first user)) is determined from the context of the said first utterance)).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the “meeting video” techniques of Erol et al. into the “video conference” techniques of SUZUKI KAZUNORI in SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan to enable each “participant” (other than the “speaker”) to acquire the capability of also becoming a “speaker” and not just be “listener” in the “video conference” and as such help enable the “video conference” to become more interactive.
Regarding claim 10, SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the processing system, that the second user is an intended recipient of a second utterance made by a third user of the at least three users; and
presenting, by the processing system, the second utterance to the second user, where a directionality associated with a presentation of the second utterance is based on a location and a directional position of the third user relative to the second user.
Erol et al. do teach:
determining, by the processing system, that the second user is an intended recipient of a second utterance made by a third user of the at least three users (Fig. 5 panel “514” lines 2: “DEREK” (a third user) “what do you—what do you think the cultural factors are, Dar” (sending a second utterance to “Dar” (a second user)) this follows what occurred in panel “512” lines 1+: “BERNA” (a first user) “But, um, let me see if I can get this document. Is this a GW copier?” (sending a first utterance to the “meeting video” (Col. 9 line 17) participants including “Dar” (the second user));
and
presenting, by the processing system, the second utterance to the second user, where a directionality associated with a presentation of the second utterance is based on a location and a directional position of the third user relative to the second user (Fig. 5 panel “514” lines 2: “DEREK” (a third user) “what do you—what do you think the cultural factors are, Dar” (“Dar” (the second user) is directly presented with the second utterance) and as Fig. 5 shows each point of speech is associated with an “azimuth” (a directionality associated with the presentation of e.g. the second utterance) which according to Col. 5 line 52: “azimuth” (the directionality) is “of the sound source” (is associated with e.g. the third user sound source and is thus dependent on its location); note “Azimuth varies from 0 to 360 degrees” (Col. 5 lines 63-64)).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the “meeting video” techniques of Erol et al. into the “video conference” techniques of SUZUKI KAZUNORI in SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan to enable each “participant” (other than the “speaker”) to acquire the capability of also becoming a “speaker” and not just be “listener” in the “video conference” and also have its “azimuth” tracked in time to better enable the “video conference” to track each “participant” and help making it more interactive.
Regarding claim 11, SUZUKI KAZUNORI do not specifically disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the third user is different from the first user, and the location and the directional position of the third user relative to the second user are different from the location and the directional position of the first user relative to the second user.
Erol et al. do teach the method of claim 10, wherein the third user is different from the first user, and the location and the directional position of the third user relative to the second user are different from the location and the directional position of the first user relative to the second user (Fig. 5: “Derek” (the third user) is different from “BERNA” (the first user) and they are located at “remote” (different locations) while “participat[ing] in meetings” (Col. 1 lines 33-34), and since “azimuth” (directional position or directionality) according to Col. 5 line 52: “azimuth” is “of the sound source” (is uniquely associated with each speaker or user and is thus dependent on its location and this for “Derek” (the third user) is different than from that of “BERNA” (the first user) relative to the second user); note “Azimuth varies from 0 to 360 degrees” (Col. 5 lines 63-64)).
For obviousness to combine SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan and Erol et al. see claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan do teach the method of claim 11, wherein the presenting the second utterance comprises playing the second utterance in a manner that causes the second user to perceive that the third user is positioned in a specific location relative to the second user (McMillan: ¶ 0019 lines 1+: “a video conference may be supported by any of a wide variety of electronic devices that capture and transmit video images” (a presentation comprises) “of a participant at a first location” (a third user in a specific location) “and that receive and display video images of other participants at a second location” (relative to a second user’s location)).
Regarding claim 13, SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
presenting, by the processing system, a second utterance of the first user to the second user, where a directionality associated with the presentation of the second utterance is different from the directionality associated with the first utterance.
Erol et al. do teach:
presenting, by the processing system, a second utterance of the first user to the second user, where a directionality associated with the presentation of the second utterance is different from the directionality associated with the first utterance (Fig. 5 panel “512”: “BERNA” (the first user) “Oh, I—I’m going to user the …” (presents a second utterance after “BERNA: But, um, let me see if I can get this document. Is this a GW copier?” (a first utterance by the first user) directed at e.g., “DAR-SHYANG” (the second user) and as the top panel of the Fig. 5 shows each of these undergo “sound localization” by assignment of an “azimuth” (directionality) which is unique to users while producing utterances) because the “azimuth” is associated with “the sound source” (Col. 5 line 52)).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the “meeting video” techniques of Erol et al. into the “video conference” techniques of SUZUKI KAZUNORI in SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan to enable each “participant” (other than the “speaker”) to acquire the capability of also becoming a “speaker” and not just be “listener” in the “video conference” and also have its “azimuth” tracked in time to better enable the “video conference” to track each “participant” and help making it more interactive.
Regarding claim 14, SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan do not specifically disclose the method of claim 13, wherein the directionality associated with the presentation of the second utterance is different from the directionality associated with the first utterance due to at least one of: a movement of the first user subsequent to presentation of the first utterance or a movement of the second user subsequent to presentation of the first utterance.
Erol et al. do teach the method of claim 13, wherein the directionality associated with the presentation of the second utterance is different from the directionality associated with the first utterance due to at least one of: a movement of the first user subsequent to presentation of the first utterance or a movement of the second user subsequent to presentation of the first utterance (Col. 5 line 52: “azimuth” (the directionality of) “of the sound source” (associated with the second utterance depends on the “source” (i.e. location, where the location according to Col. 7 lines 49-50 could arise “such as a person getting up and moving around” (to be attributed to a movement of the “source” (e.g. the first and/or second user)).
For obviousness to combine SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan and Erol et al. see claim 13.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan, and further in view of Lian et al. (US 2013/0120522).
Regarding claim 15, SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
Presenting, by the processing system, a spatial awareness warning to the second user, wherein the spatial awareness warning emanates from an object or an avatar in the extended reality environment.
Lian et al. do teach:
Presenting, by the processing system, a spatial awareness warning to the second user, wherein the spatial awareness warning emanates from an object or an avatar in the extended reality environment (¶ 0043 S1+: “Multipoint manager element 20 may generate any suitable notification that alerts” (a spatial awareness warning) “participant 48a” (a second user) “that participant 40 is speaking to her” “such notification may include” “a proprietary sound” “an avatar” (emanating from an avatar) “conducive to alerting a given participant in a video conference”).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the methods pertaining to functions of the “video conference” management of Lian et al. into the “video conference” “implement[ation]” of SUZUKI KAZUNORI in SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan to provide useful “alert” “notification[s]” when needed to inform a participant of a “video conference” of e.g., proper attendance practices when e.g. he fails to respond to another participant by using an “avatar” as disclosed in Lian et al. ¶ 0043.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan and Lian et al., and further in view of Hildreth (US 2009/0079813).
Regarding claim 16, SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan and Lian et al. do not specifically disclose the method of claim 15, wherein the spatial awareness warning comprises a synthesized speech emanating from the object or the avatar in the extended reality environment.
Hildreth does teach the method of claim 15, wherein the spatial awareness warning comprises a synthesized speech emanating from the object or the avatar in the extended reality environment (¶ 0041 S2+: “user 104 is alerted” (a warning to a second user) “by applying a text-to-speech” (using a synthesized speech) “when conducting a formal teleconference” (in a communication group) “by generating a visual avatar” (emanated from an avatar)).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate the “alert” using “text-to-speech” methods in “teleconference” using “avatars” of Hildreth into the “notification” methods using “avatars” of Lian et al. in “SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan and Lian et al.” would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable Lian et al. in “SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan and Lian et al.” to provide a much more informative audible “notification” than a simple “proprietary sound” provided by Lian et al. (¶ 0043 lines 7-8) which would greatly benefit a visual impaired person.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan, and further in view of Tangeland et al. (US Patent 9,942,518).
Regarding claim 17, SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
updating, by the processing system, the locations and the directional positions of the members of the communication group based on at least one contextual clue.
Tangeland et al. do teach:
updating, by the processing system, the locations and the directional positions of the members of the communication group based on at least one contextual clue (Col. 2 lines 26+: “By evaluating” (updating) “the direction” (directional positions of) “participants” (members of the communication group) “are looking and the speaker tracking history, it can be determined if there is a local discussion occurring during the video conference session (meeting), and thus find an appropriate framing to give participants at a far-end endpoint the most contextually rich experience”; Col. 3 lines 22+: “ (ii) detects” (updating) “positions” (locations of) “of talking participants (i.e., “talkers”, “active speakers”, etc.)” (members) “based on audio detected” (based on at least one contextual cue) “by MA 118, and (iii) performs group-based speaker tracking as described below”).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the “video conference” techniques of Tangeland et al. into those of SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan would enable “improve[] the meeting experience by showing close up views of the active speakers” by virtue of “Speaker tracking” as disclosed in Tangeland et al. (US Patent 9,942,518) Col. 1 lines 25-27.
Regarding claim 18, SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan do not specifically disclose the method of claim 17, wherein the updating comprises providing a non- audible feedback to one or more of the members of the communication group to indicate a member of the communication group who is currently speaking.
Tangeland et al. do teach the method of claim 17, wherein the updating comprises providing a non- audible feedback to one or more of the members of the communication group to indicate a member of the communication group who is currently speaking (Col. 1 lines 21+: “The video conference system may frame close-up or zoomed-in camera views” (providing non-audible feedback) “of talking participants (i.e., talkers)” (to other members of the conference to indicate who is speaking)).
For obviousness to combine SUZUKI KAZUNORI in view of McMillan and Tangeland et al. see claim 17.
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 18, 17, 7, 8, 19, 20 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,272,373. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because :
19/096,063
1. A method comprising: establishing, by a processing system including at least one processor, a communication group including at least three users of an extended reality environment as members;
tracking, by the processing system, locations and directional positions of the members of the communication group within the extended reality environment and within physical environments of the members;
determining, by the processing system, that a second user of the at least three users is an intended recipient of a first utterance made by a first user of the at least three users; and
presenting, by the processing system, the first utterance to the second user, where a directionality associated with a presentation of the first utterance is based on a location and a directional position of the first user relative to the second user.
12,272,373
1. A method comprising: establishing, by a processing system including at least one processor, a communication group including at least three users of an extended reality environment as members;
tracking, by the processing system, locations and directional positions of the members of the communication group within the extended reality environment and within physical environments of the members;
determining, by the processing system, that a second user of the at least three users is an intended recipient of a first utterance made by a first user of the at least three users; and
presenting, by the processing system, the first utterance to the second user, where a directionality associated with a presentation of the first utterance is based on a location and a directional position of the first user relative to the second user; and
presenting by the processing system, a spatial awareness warning to the second user, based on the location and the directional position of the second user.
“every limitation in the instant application claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 is taught in the conflicting application claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 18, 17, 7, 8, 19, 20 respectively and therefore the instant application claim is obvious in view of the conflicting claims, In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982)”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bitran et al. (US 2017/0039339) ¶ 0053 S3+: “The activity warning” (a spatial awareness warning) “to encourage the user” (to a second user) “to reschedule” “[to] attend the meeting” for “attendance” by “video-conference” (in a video conference communication group) [by] “projection of an avatar” (emanating from an avatar), where according to ¶ 0040 S2: “The activity warning may include audio”. This reference was not as combinable with the primary references as Lain et al. (US 2013/0120522) as its “warning” was specifically for medical applications.
Also as mentioned in the 101 rejections, amending claim 15 to restricting it to only “avatar” “presenting” the “spatial awareness” will help overcome 101 for this claim.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZAD KAZEMINEZHAD whose telephone number is (571)270-5860. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am to 11:30 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, Paras D. Shah can be reached at (571) 270-1650. 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.
/Farzad Kazeminezhad/
Art Unit 2653
September 30th 2026.
Prosecution Insights