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 with respect to claim(s) 1,3-13,15-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1,3,5-6,8-9,13,15-16,18-19,21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al (US 2022/0086203) (hereinafter Morris) and Slotznick (US 11,343,293), and further in view of Zhang (US 2011/0137438).
As regarding claim 1, Morris discloses initiating, by at least one processor, operation of a software having allocated processing resources within a computing environment (see Morris client device execute browser application with plug-in);
initiating operation of a selective forwarding unit (SFU) within the computing environment (see Morris 0083-0085, server execute a SFU to select audio/video streams to provide to clients);
communicating, by the SFU, a plurality of audio streams from a plurality of audio devices to the client software (see Morris 0085, SFU selects which audio streams to provide to client devices with browser plug-in (0080));
receiving, by the software, the plurality of audio streams from the SFU (see Morris 0091, browser of client receives audio/video streams from SFU);
mixing, by the software, the plurality of audio streams into a single audio stream (see Morris 0091, browser application mix the received audio streams); and communicating, by the software, the single audio stream to a device at a remote location (see Morris 0091, output the mixed audio to headset or speakers).
Morris is silent in regard to the concept of the software virtual camera.
Slotznick teaches the concept of a virtual camera (see Slotznick col.22, lines 58-67, the virtual mixer mixes the received audio; col.24, lines 23-26, the virtual camera incorporate the function of virtual mixer, also see col.22, lines 64-67, virtual camera is the browser extension or plug-in).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Slotznick to Morris because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Morris with Slotznick’s teaching for the purpose of enhancing the production of media streams (see Slotznick col.24, lines 23-26).
The combination of Morris-Slotznick is silent in regard to the concept of a physical image capture device.
Zhang teaches the concept of a physical image capture device (see Zhang 0024,0027, mixed audio is output to frontend device 310).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Zhang to Morris-Slotznick because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Morris-Slotznick with Zhang’s teaching for the purpose providing flexibility to the system by allowing the mixed audio to output to the different devices.
As regarding claim 3, Morris-Slotznick-Zhang discloses receiving, by the at least one processor, a request to establish a communication session between the physical image capture device and at least one remote device of the plurality of remote devices (see Zhang 0038-0040, client sends request for creating a meeting, monitoring server creates a meeting room, monitoring server mix audio streams (Zhang 0027)), wherein initiating operation of the virtual camera and the SFU comprises initiating operation of the virtual camera (see Morris 0084-0085, conference establish between client devices, and SFU select audio streams to provide to clients and clients mix the received audio (0091)). The same motivation was utilized in claims 1, apply equally well to claim 3.
As regarding claim 5, Morris-Slotznick-Zhang discloses receiving, by the virtual camera, an audiovisual stream from the physical image capture device (see Morris 0091, browser application received audio and video streams from SFU which is from other client devices).
As regarding claim 6, Morris-Slotznick-Zhang discloses communicating, by the virtual camera, an audiovisual stream to the SFU (Morris 0080, browser sends audio and video streams to the server which execute the SFU, see Slotznick citation above for virtual camera); receiving, by the SFU, the audiovisual stream from the virtual camera and communicating, by the SFU, the audiovisual stream to the plurality of remote devices (see Morris 0083-0085, server with SFU receives audio and video streams and provide to other client devices). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 6.
As regarding claim 8, Morris-Slotznick-Zhang discloses establishing, by the SFU, a virtual room and joining, by the virtual camera, the virtual room on behalf of the physical image capture device (see Morris 0080,0083-0085, establish conference in virtual environment between SFU and plurality of clients).
As regarding claim 9, Morris-Slotznick-Zhang discloses acquiring, by the physical image capture device, the audiovisual stream (see Zhang 0028, all devices including IP camera, digital recorder can transmit and receive video streams, it’s obvious that the device acquired the content before transmitting it); transmitting, by the physical image capture device, the audiovisual stream to the virtual camera (see Zhang 0028, all devices including IP camera, digital recorder can transmit and receive video streams); receiving, by the physical image capture device, the single audio stream and rendering, by the physical image capture device, the single audio stream as audio (see Zhang 0027-0028, the mix audio send to front end equipment with camera). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 9.
As regarding claims 13,15-16,18-19,21, the limitations of claims 13,15-16,18-19,21 are similar to limitations of rejected claims 1,3,5-6,8-9, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 4,22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris-Slotznick-Zhang as applied to claims 1,13 above and further in view of Crawley et al (us 2014/0142951) (hereinafter Crawley).
As regarding claim 4, Morris-Slotznick-Zhang discloses the invention as claims in claim 1 above, Morris-Slotznick-Zhang further discloses the plurality of audio streams comprises a plurality of audio tracks (see 0091, audio streams received by browser).
Morris-Slotznick-Zhang is silent in regard to the concept of generating a muted audio track, communicating the muted audio track to the mixer and communicating the plurality of audio tracks to the mixer subsequent to communication of the muted audio track to the mixer.
Crawley teaches the concept of generating a muted audio track, communicating the muted audio track to the mixer and communicating the plurality of audio tracks to the mixer subsequent to communication of the muted audio track to the mixer (see Crawley 0052-0053, mcu receives the muted communication and the participant unmuted to speak in the conference).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Crawley to Morris-Slotznick-Zhang because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Morris-Slotznick-Zhang with Crawley’s teaching for the purpose of efficiently providing flexibility to the users.
As regarding claim 22, the limitations of claim 22 are similar to limitations of rejected claim 4 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 7,10-12,17,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris-Slotznick-Zhang as applied to claims 6,9,15,18 above and further in view of Garudadri et al (us 2005/0259694) (hereinafter Garu).
As regarding claim 7, Morris-Slotznick-Zhang discloses the invention as claims in claim 6 above, Morris-Slotznick-Zhang is silent in regard to the concept of receiving the plurality of audio streams comprises receiving a first plurality of real-time protocol (RTP) packets; communicating the single audio stream comprises communicating a second plurality of RTP packets and receiving the audiovisual stream comprises receiving a third plurality of RTP packets.
Garu teaches the concept of receiving the plurality of audio streams comprises receiving a first plurality of real-time protocol (RTP) packets (see Garu 0010-0011, audio and video transmit in RTP packet); communicating the single audio stream comprises communicating a second plurality of RTP packets and receiving the audiovisual stream comprises receiving a third plurality of RTP packets (see Garu 0010-0011, audio and video transmit in RTP packet).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Garu to Morris-Slotznick-Zhang because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Morris-Slotznick-Zhang with Garu’s teaching for the purpose of efficiently providing flexibility to the users.
As regarding claim 17, the limitations of claim 17 are similar to limitations of rejected claim 7 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
As regarding claim 10, Morris-Slotznick-Zhang discloses joining, by at least one remote device of the plurality of remote devices, the virtual room (see Morris 0084-0085, conferencing in virtual environment between client devices); acquiring, by the at least one remote device of the plurality of remote devices, at least one audio stream from the plurality of audio streams (see Morris 0083-0085, 0080, client device transmit and receive audio/video stream to and from server); transmitting, by the at least one remote device of the plurality of remote devices, the at least one audio stream to the virtual room (see Morris 0083-0085, 0080, client devices transmit and receive audio/video stream to and from server, the client devices participating in virtual conference); receiving, by the at least one remote device of the plurality of remote devices, at least one other audio stream from the plurality of audio streams (see Morris 0083-0085, 0080, client devices transmit and receive audio/video stream to and from server, the client devices participating in virtual conference); receiving, by the at least one remote device of the plurality of remote devices, the audiovisual stream (see Morris 0083-0085, 0080, client devices transmit and receive audio/video stream to and from server, the client devices participating in virtual conference).
Morris-Slotznick-Zhang is silent in regard to the concept of mixing, by the at least one remote device of the plurality of remote devices, audio tracks encapsulated within the at least one other audio stream and the audiovisual stream to generate a mixed track and rendering, by the at least one remote device of the plurality of remote devices, the mixed track in lip synchrony with video encapsulated within the audiovisual stream.
Garu teaches the concept of mixing, by the at least one remote device of the plurality of remote devices, audio tracks encapsulated within the at least one other audio stream and the audiovisual stream to generate a mixed track and rendering, by the at least one remote device of the plurality of remote devices, the mixed track in lip synchrony with video encapsulated within the audiovisual stream (see Garu 0076, receiver receives audio and video streams and combine to generate a synch audio video).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Garu to Morris-Slotznick-Zhang because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Morris-Slotznick-Zhang with Garu’s teaching for the purpose of providing better viewing experience for the users.
As regarding claim 11, Morris-Slotznick-Zhang-Garu discloses hosting, by one or more computing devices of the plurality of remote devices, one or more of a customer interface or a monitor interface (see Morris 0078-0080, client device is laptop, smartphone which must has interface display).
As regarding claim 12, Morris-Slotznick-Zhang-Garu discloses communicating the single audio stream comprises communicating the single audio stream to a security camera (see Zhang 0024,0027, mixed audio is output to frontend device 310 which include a camera)).
As regarding claim 20, the limitations of claim 20 are similar to limitations of rejected claim 10 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DUYEN MY DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4226. The examiner can normally be reached (571)272-4226.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571)272-4170. 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.
/DUYEN M DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459