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 .
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 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.
This office action is in response to the communication filed on 8/25/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “determination unit”, “control unit” in claims 1-18, 20, “terminal information acquisition unit” in claims 3, 4, 9-14, 16, 17, “connection state information acquisition unit” in claims 5, 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “determination unit”, “control unit” in claims 1-18, 20, “terminal information acquisition unit” in claims 3, 4, 9-14, 16, 17, “connection state information acquisition unit” in claims 5, 18 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The functions implemented by the “units” are best understood as software per se. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 14, 15, 18-20 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Erdy et al. (US 2021/0195325, “Erdy”).
As to claim 1, Erdy discloses a remote conference management system comprising:
a determination unit (fig. 2, device proximity determination module) which determines whether or not a first terminal that is used by a first user to participate in a remote conference and a second terminal that is used by a second user to participate in the remote conference, are present in a predetermined range (fig. 2, [0038], [0052], [0055], determining whether 2 devices in a meeting are in range of each other, such as by using a signal from one device to the other); and
a control unit (fig. 2, other modules) which, when the determination unit determines that the first terminal and the second terminal are present in the predetermined range, performs a control to cause, through one terminal of the first terminal or the second terminal, a user of another terminal to participate in the remote conference (fig. 8, [0040], [0056], [0057], sending a control message causing the device 440 to participate in the meeting via the device 330 when the two terminals are in range).
Claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale in claim 1. Erdy discloses a remote conference management method comprising same functional steps in claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale in claim 1. Erdy discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a program for causing a computer to function as: same functional steps in claim 1.
As to claim 2, Erdy discloses the control unit selects, with a higher priority, a terminal that has a better communication status between the first terminal and the second terminal, as the one terminal for causing the user of the another terminal to participate in the remote conference (a device already in the conference is read as device with better “communication status”. The device is selected to send out the signal for causing the other device to join via the device).
As to claim 5, Erdy discloses a connection state information acquisition unit which acquires third information indicating a connection state of a wireless communication between the first terminal and the second terminal, wherein the determination unit determines whether or not the first terminal and the second terminal are present in the predetermined range, based on the third information ([0055], two devices have connections to a same subnet).
As to claim 6, Erdy discloses when the determination unit determines that the first terminal and the second terminal are present in the predetermined range, the control unit recommends at least one of the first user or the second user that, through the one terminal of the first terminal or the second terminal, the user of the another terminal participates in the remote conference (fig. 8, [0040], [0056], [0057], [0076], CPU sending a control message causing the terminal 440 to participate in the meeting via the terminal 330 when the two terminals are in range).
As to claim 14, Erdy discloses a connection state information acquisition unit which acquires third information indicating a connection state of a wireless communication between the first terminal and the second terminal, wherein the determination unit determines whether or not the first terminal and the second terminal are present in the predetermined range, based on the third information (Erdy, [0052], wireless connection between device 330 and 440 for indicating in range status).
As to claim 15, Erdy discloses when the determination unit determines that the first terminal and the second terminal are present in the predetermined range, the control unit recommends at least one of the first user or the second user that, through the one terminal of the first terminal or the second terminal, the user of the another terminal participates in the remote conference (Erdy, fig. 8, [0040], [0056], [0057], sending a control message causing the terminal 440 to participate in the meeting via the terminal 330 when the two terminals are in range).
As to claim 18, Erdy discloses when the determination unit determines that the first terminal and the second terminal are present in the predetermined range, the control unit recommends at least one of the first user or the second user that, through the one terminal of the first terminal or the second terminal, the user of the another terminal participates in the remote conference (Erdy, fig. 8, [0040], [0056], [0057], sending a control message causing the terminal 440 to participate in the meeting via the terminal 330 when the two terminals are in range).
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) 3, 4, 7-13, 16, 17 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erdy in view of Fang et al. (US 2022/0345948, “Fang”).
As to claim 3, Erdy does not disclose a terminal information acquisition unit which acquires first information indicating positions of the first terminal and the second terminal, wherein the determination unit determines whether or not the first terminal and the second terminal are present in the predetermined range, based on the first information.
Fang discloses a terminal information acquisition unit which acquires first information indicating positions of the first terminal and the second terminal, wherein the determination unit determines whether or not the first terminal and the second terminal are present in the predetermined range, based on the first information (Fang, fig. 6, [0082], [0087], [0090], GPS data is used to determine that the two devices are in range to initiate session handover from a mobile device to a vehicle infotainment device).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Fang’s teachings of handover techniques to Erdy’s teachings in order to implement different conditions for determining devices’ proximity for session handover.
As to claim 4, Erdy-Fang discloses the terminal information acquisition unit further acquires second information indicating at least one of moving directions or accelerations of the first terminal and the second terminal, and the determination unit determines whether or not the first terminal and the second terminal are present in the predetermined range, based on the first information and the second information (Fang, [0090], device acceleration in range with vehicle’s).
As to claim 7, Erdy does not disclose when the first terminal is a terminal installed in a moving object, the control unit selects the first terminal as the one terminal for causing the user of the second terminal to participate in the remote conference.
Fang discloses when the first terminal is a terminal installed in a moving object, the control unit selects the first terminal as the one terminal for causing the user of the second terminal to participate in the remote conference (Fang, fig. 6, [0082], [0087], sending a switching message to a mobile phone for switching a conference session from the mobile phone to an infotainment device in a vehicle when the two devices are in range).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Fang’s teachings of vehicle infotainment system handover to Erdy’s teachings in order to simply utilize the infotainment system for conducting the conference when mobile devices are in range since the infotainment system is a more powerful and/or convenient device for conferencing.
As to claim 8, Erdy-Fang discloses wherein the moving object is a vehicle (Fang, fig. 6, [0082]).
As to claim 9, Erdy does not disclose: a terminal information acquisition unit which acquires first information indicating positions of the first terminal and the second terminal, wherein the determination unit determines whether or not the first terminal and the second terminal are present in the predetermined range, based on the first information.
Fang discloses a terminal information acquisition unit which acquires first information indicating positions of the first terminal and the second terminal, wherein the determination unit determines whether or not the first terminal and the second terminal are present in the predetermined range, based on the first information.
(Fang, fig. 6, [0082], [0087], [0090], GPS data is used to determine that the two devices are in range to initiate session handover from a mobile device to a vehicle infotainment device).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Fang’s teachings of handover techniques to Erdy’s teachings in order to implement different conditions for determining devices’ proximity for session handover.
As to claim 10, Erdy-Fang discloses the terminal information acquisition unit further acquires second information indicating at least one of moving directions or accelerations of the first terminal and the second terminal, and the determination unit determines whether or not the first terminal and the second terminal are present in the predetermined range, based on the first information and the second information (Fang, [0090], device acceleration in range with vehicle’s).
As to claim 11, Erdy-Fang discloses the terminal information acquisition unit further acquires second information indicating moving directions of the first terminal and the second terminal, and the determination unit determines whether or not the first terminal and the second terminal are present in the predetermined range, based on the first information and the second information (Fang, [0090], motions are in range).
As to claim 12, Erdy-Fang discloses the terminal information acquisition unit further acquires second information indicating accelerations of the first terminal and the second terminal, and the determination unit determines whether or not the first terminal and the second terminal are present in the predetermined range, based on the first information and the second information (Fang, [0090], GPS and motion and acceleration in range).
As to claim 13, Erdy-Fang discloses the terminal information acquisition unit further acquires second information indicating moving directions and accelerations of the first terminal and the second terminal, and the determination unit determines whether or not the first terminal and the second terminal are present in the predetermined range, based on the first information and the second information (Fang, [0090], GPS and motion and acceleration in range).
As to claim 16, Erdy-Fang discloses when the determination unit determines that the first terminal and the second terminal are present in the predetermined range, the control unit recommends at least one of the first user or the second user that, through the one terminal of the first terminal or the second terminal, the user of the another terminal participates in the remote conference (Erdy, fig. 8, [0040], [0056], [0057], sending a control message causing the terminal 440 to participate in the meeting via the terminal 330 when the two terminals are in range).
As to claim 17, Erdy-Fang discloses when the determination unit determines that the first terminal and the second terminal are present in the predetermined range, the control unit recommends at least one of the first user or the second user that, through the one terminal of the first terminal or the second terminal, the user of the another terminal participates in the remote conference (Erdy, fig. 8, [0040], [0056], [0057], sending a control message causing the terminal 440 to participate in the meeting via the terminal 330 when the two terminals are in range).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is included in form PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEU T HOANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1253. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 AM -5 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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/HIEU T HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
