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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
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. See 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);and, 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-21 of the instant application are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over some claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,662 in view of Faulkner et al., US Pub. No.20220103566.
Regarding claims 1-21, claims 1-21 of, the U.S. Patent No. 12,333,662 contains every element of claims 1-21 of the instant application and as such anticipate claims 1-21 of the instant application. The U.S. Patent No. 12,333,662 does not specifically disclose virtual audience having one or more avatars for the participants. However, Faulkner disclose virtual audience having one or more avatars for the participants (person is engaged with virtual content such as virtual displays, virtual avatar, see [0073] to [0077]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Berliner’s teachings into the computer system of the U.S. Patent No. 12,333,662 to monitor audience members because it would have enabled to identify, process, or understand elements of information regarding what is occurring in an environment (see Berliner’s [0278]).
ART REJECTION
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 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) 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peters et al, US Pub. No.20210076002 in view of Faulkner et al., US Pub. No.20220103566.
As to claim 1, Peters discloses an electronic device comprising:
one or more displays, one or more processors; and memory storing instructions configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the instructions for:
while in an audience member role (40 fig.7) for a multiuser communication session, presenting, using at least the one or more displays, an extended reality environment, wherein the extended reality environment comprises:
a representation of a virtual stage from a perspective in a virtual audience, the virtual audience comprising one or more avatars for one or more participants of the multiuser communication session having the audience member role, wherein a user of the electronic device is permitted to directly communicate with the one or more
participants (12a’s fig.7) and generalized feedback based on other participants of the multiuser communication session having the audience member role (the participation module monitors, measures and analyzes one or more characteristic of an input media stream by way of facial and audio recognition technology from at least one conference participant endpoint of a plurality of conference participants endpoints and providing feedback to a meeting host about the level of interest among participants, so the host can know if she is hosting the meeting in an interesting way, see abstract, fig.7, [0100] to [0102] and [0112]). Peters does not specifically disclose virtual audience having one or more avatars for the participants. However, Faulkner disclose virtual audience having one or more avatars for the participants (changing roles and/or permissions to accommodate the new event type including polls and avatars, see [0073] to [0079]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement Faulkner's teachings into the computer system of Peters to control member users' roles because it would have dynamically controlled granular levels of permissions in a timely manner based on the detection of specific activities and improved the security of user data as well as improve the efficiency of collaborative systems.
As to claim 2, Peters discloses wherein the generalized feedback comprises a generalized visual audience attention indicator based on an attention of the other participants of the multiuser communication session having the audience member role or a generalized visual audience mood indicator based on a mood of the other participants of the multiuser communication session having the audience member role (providing indicators of the current states of the different participants (e.g., emotional state, cognitive state, etc.) at the current point in the call, as well as potentially measures of emotional states for groups within the call or for the entire group of participants as a whole. This can include providing scores, symbols, charts, graphs, and other indicators of one or more emotional attributes, overall mood, and so on, as well as cognitive or behavioral attributes, including engagement, attention, collaboration, see [0128] to [0131]).
.
As to claim 3, Peters discloses the extended reality environment excludes a visual representation of an attention for any individual other participant of the multiuser communication session having the audience member role and excludes a visual
representation of a mood for any individual other participant of the multiuser communication session having the audience member role (visual indicators can be in a consistent relative position to the face of a participant, or at least the video stream or thumbnail they are associated with. Faces may move as the active speaker changes, see [0217] to [0220]).
As to claim 4, Faulkner discloses directly communicating with the one or more participants comprises an audio communication with the one or more participants or presenting continuously updated facial expressions on the one or more avatars (person is engaged with virtual content (such as virtual displays, virtual avatar, see [0278]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Berliner’s teachings into the computer system of Peters to monitor audience members because it would have enabled to identify, process, or understand elements of information regarding what is occurring in an environment (see Berliner’s [0278]).
As to claim 5, Peters discloses selecting the one or more participants out of all participants of the multiuser communication session having the audience member role based on stored contact information or physical proximity information (see [0399] to [0401]).
As to claim 6, Peters discloses obtaining, using the one or more sensors, first user input and based on the first user input, causing a change in the perspective in
the virtual audience from a first point-of-view to a second point-of-view (see [0401] to [0404]) .
As to claim 7, Peters discloses the generalized feedback comprises generalized audio feedback based on audio of the other participants of the multiuser communication session having the audience member role and wherein the generalized audio feedback excludes individual audio for any individual other participant of the multiuser communication session having the audience member role (see [0399]
to [0401] to [0404]).
Claims 8-14 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1-7 respectively.
Claims 15-21 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1-7 respectively.
Conclusion
6. Claims 1-21 are rejected.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Khanh Dinh whose telephone number is (571) 272-3936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.m. to 5:00 P.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Sheema Umar, can be reached on (571) 270-3037. The fax phone number for this group is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for patents
P O Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
/KHANH Q DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights