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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of information disclosure statement filed 13 October 2025.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 - 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 041, 099 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation in the application is found in the patent.
Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 2 of the patent.
Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 3 of the patent.
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 6 of the patent.Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 7 of the patent.
Claims 11 and 13 - 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 041, 099 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation in the application is found in the patent.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 9 of the patent.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 10 of the patent.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 10 of the patent (obvious to try – as only three finite choices greater than and lower than or equal to exist).
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 13 of the patent.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 12 of the patent.
Claims 18 and 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 041, 099 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation in the application is found in the patent.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 17 of the patent (obvious to try – as only three finite choices greater than and lower than or equal to exist).
Claims 1 - 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 922 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation in the application is found in the patent.
Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 2 of the patent.
Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 3 of the patent.
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 6 of the patent.
Regarding claim 5:
Claim 5 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 5 of the patent.
Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 6 of the patent.
Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 7 of the patent.
Claims 11 and 13 – 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 922 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation in the application is found in the patent.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 9 of the patent.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 10 of the patent.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 10 of the patent (obvious to try – as only three finite choices greater than and lower than or equal to exist).
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 8 of the patent.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 12 of the patent.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 922 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each limitation in the application is found in the patent.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 of the application is similarly rejected over claim 17 of the patent.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 – 7, 11 – 13, and 17 - 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eliason et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0076862 A1), hereafter Eliason, in view of Perez et al; (Publication number: US 2013/0293468 A1), hereafter Perez.
Regarding claim 1:
Eliason discloses a method (Eliason Figure 2 200), comprising:
overlaying a first collaboration space and a second collaboration space on a display device (Eliason Figure 2 S220) based on one or more sentiment actions identifying location area information that is to be included in a virtual collaboration space (Eliason [0041][0089], In some embodiments, S230 includes determining relevancy for at least one content element of the collaboration session based on at least one of: visibility of the content element the content element; selection of the content element as a focus of the collaboration session… participant sentiment data associated with the content element; and participant reaction data associated with the content element. In some embodiments, S230 includes determining relative relevancy for at least one content element of the collaboration session based on at least one of collaboration input and participant context information received for the collaboration session.),
wherein the overlaying comprises prioritizing a position of the first collaboration space in the display over a position of the second collaboration space in the display based on the one or more sentiment actions (Eliason [0038 – 0040]).
While Eliason discloses the collaboration space may be a virtual collaboration system, Eliason does not expressly disclose an augmented reality display device for performing the claimed overlaying.
However, Perez discloses a collaboration environment using see through displays. More particularly, Perez discloses implemented an augmented reality system using a mixed virtual and real world collaboration environment for users (Perez [0003][0040 -0041]).
It would have been obvious to modify Eliason such that the collaboration space may be a virtual collaboration system, Eliason does not expressly disclose an augmented reality display device for performing the claimed overlaying, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to manipulate overlays on views of real objects in the same room or physically separate rooms, thereby enhancing a collaborative experience for the user.
Regarding claim 2:
Eliason (in view of Perez) discloses the method of claim 1, comprising identifying the one or more sentiment actions by identifying movement of one or more meeting participants (Eliason [0041] pointing at gesture).
Regarding claim 5:
Eliason (in view of Perez) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more sentiment actions comprise an agreeable sentiment comprising one or more of a spoken term, a head movement, an eye movement, facial expression, tone of voice, body language, and a hand gesture identified from one or more meeting participant (Eliason [0041] pointing gesture), and wherein the agreeable sentiment confirms the prioritizing the position of the first collaboration space in the augmented reality display (Eliason [0038 – 0039]).
Regarding claim 6:
Eliason (in view of Perez) the method of claim 5, wherein the agreeable sentiment comprises a confirmed focus by the one or more meeting participants to the first collaboration space based on the one or more sentiment actions being performed to the first collaboration space for a threshold period of time (Eliason [0041] user attention. User attention requires at least a minimum threshold period).
Regarding claim 7:
Eliason (in view of Perez) discloses the method of claim 6, wherein after the agreeable sentiment has been detected for the threshold period of time, the first collaboration space is assigned a highest priority (Eliason [0039] in some cases pull it directly to top of stack).
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12: Eliason (in view of Perez) disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the prioritization is based on at least one of position, size, highlight, or transparency level (Eliason TABLE 1 “Size”).
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 5.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1 (and additionally Eliason [0189]).
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 12.
Claim(s) 3, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eliason et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0076862 A1), hereafter Eliason, in view of Perez et al; (Publication number: US 2013/0293468 A1), hereafter Perez, in view of Castelli et al; (Publication number: US 2013/0332450 A1), hereafter Castelli.
Regarding claim 3:
Eliason (in view of Perez) does not disclose the method of claim 1, comprising identifying at least one additional context as having a greater relevancy score of another one of the at least one additional context.
However, Castelli discloses a system and method for automatically detecting and interactively displaying information about entities, activities, and events from multi-modality natural language sources. More particularly, Castelli discloses associating a relevancy score with each snippet (Castelli [0074]) and ranking the equivalence classes to prioritize the information displayed to the user (Castelli [0084]).
It would have been obvious to further modify Eliason (in view of Perez) to include identifying at least one additional context as having a greater relevancy score of another one of the at least one additional context, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to extract and organize data to facilitate user interaction with the information (Castelli [0006]).
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in rejected in claim 3.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 3.
Claim(s) 4, 8, 9, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eliason et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0076862 A1), hereafter Eliason, in view of Perez et al; (Publication number: US 2013/0293468 A1), hereafter Perez, in view of Micheal Alwine (Patent number: US 11, 252, 205 B1), hereafter Alwine.
Regarding claim 4:
Eliason (in view of Perez) does not the method of claim 1, comprising applying one or more sentiment actions associated with one or more meeting participants to information associated with at least one additional context associated with one or more of a specific period of time and a trending topic related to an initial context to determine information to be included in the virtual collaboration space.
However, real time information analysis for a teleconference. More particularly, Alwine discloses applying one or more sentiment actions associated with one or more meeting participants to information associated with at least one additional context associated with one or more of a specific period of time and a trending topic related to an initial context to determine information to be included in the virtual collaboration space (Alwine Figure 8 814 ancillary content is provided based on keyword from subset of String Of Characters).
It would have been obvious to further modify Eliason (in view of Perez) comprising applying one or more sentiment actions associated with one or more meeting participants to information associated with at least one additional context associated with one or more of a specific period of time and a trending topic related to an initial context to determine information to be included in the virtual collaboration space, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to provide ancillary content to another participant, thereby enhancing the teleconference.
Regarding claim 8:
Eliason (in view of Perez and Alwine) discloses initiating one or more topics of interest related to the virtual collaboration space based on a verbal prompt (Alwine Figure 8 806 – keyword selected); and launching an initial context of the one or more topics of interest (Alwine Figure 8 813).
Eliason (in view of Perez and Alwine) does not disclose the claimed initiating and launching is performed by an artificial intelligence (AI) model.
However, Alwine’s method 800 is implemented by a processor it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Eliason (in view of Perez and Alwine) such that the claimed initiating and launching is performed by an artificial intelligence (AI) model, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to refine the results of the method overtime.
Regarding claim 9:
Eliason (in view of Perez and Alwine) discloses the method of claim 8, comprising: parsing, by the AI model, the verbal prompt to enable entity extraction and a neural network function (Alwine Figure 8 808; neural network function is part of a AI model); and establishing a relationship among entities that are extracted (inherent function of an AI language model).
Regarding claim 10:
Eliason (in view of Perez and Alwine) discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the initial context appears as one or more entities in the virtual collaboration space (Alwine Figure 6C)
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIHIR K RAYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5pm (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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/MIHIR K RAYAN/ 24 June 2026
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights