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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the office action from 9/10/2025, the applicant has submitted an amendment, amending claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 15, and 17, while arguing to traverse the prior art, 112(a) and 101 rejections. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and determined persuasive with respect to the 112(a) and prior art rejections but not with respect to the 101 rejections for the reasons explained in the response to the arguments and also the new office action.
Response to Arguments
Following a broad overview of the latest amendments, the previous 112(a) rejections are discussed (page 7 paragraphs 1-2).
Due to the latest amendments the said rejections are overcome.
From the middle of page 7 to the end of the first paragraph on page 9, the previous 101 rejection is discussed. The first argument appearing on page 8 the second paragraph last sentence: “claim 1 recites non-generic and specific components and steps in an environment that is not recited at a high level of generality, such as” “coordinate axis information mapping hand sign speed and size parameters to different voice models.”
Something “not recited at a high level of generality” could still be done by a human without any need for any particular machine. What is claimed could still be done by a human because humans are fully capable of translating a sign language to speech. The latest amendments amount to no more than an expert in sign language providing specific recipes on specific sign language movements which at least qualitatively will include speed and size parameters in e.g. a manual and provide their meanings. The “control codes” which were recited in the claims before the latest amendments, provided information about an origin of context of the participants in the “video conference” without which the claim simply lacks any details of how the said context is determined.
On page 8, the last paragraph in two bullets arguments are provided for the claims 4 and 22 respectively that since they involve in one case a “camera” and in another case “deep neural network”, therefore they “cannot be practically and entirely performed by a human and do not fall within the “mental processes” grouping …”
As regards to the claim 4, the claim basically depends not on functionality of the “camera” but by the “camera” providing “video” “imag[es]” which are subsequently used. This falls under category of “observation” activity which is one of the mental activity categories subject to 101 rejection.
As regards to claim 22, the main question is whether or not “deep neural network” is needed for carrying out the limitations of that claim, which is not indeed the case. In that case they amount to nothing more than extra solution activity.
On page 9 beginning the 2nd paragraph to the end of page 10 the previous 103 rejections is discussed.
Due to the latest amendments the said rejections are overcome and withdrawn.
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 1-22 stand rejected:
Claims 1, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite how to “generate” “voice output corresponding to hand signs” in a “video session” (i.e., basically to translate a sign language into an audible language). It does possess numerous “voice models” on how to further provide this “voice output” by taking into account “context information” (e.g., spec. ¶ 0035 page 5 lines 1+: “For example, if the general mood of others” “is” “happy” “that contextual information” “may suggest” “happy voice model” “to annunciate signs made by Signer”).
Therefore, these claims limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of a generic computer component (“computing device” (claim 1)). That is, other than reciting “by a computing device”, nothing in the claim limitations precludes their steps from practically being performed in the mind; i.e., a human who is not himself hearing impaired and also possesses vocal ability and is also trained in understanding “sign language”, could translate “sign language” associated with a hearing impaired person to other people either people proximate to him, or participants within a “video conference”. Furthermore, the “human” (the participant) with the knowledge of the “sign language” can also use inputs from any of the one or more other participants or members of the audience that is he translating the “sign language” for, to provide inputs to aid in the translations in multiple ways, e.g., grammatical and/or pronunciation error corrections and/or even sign language translation errors if the other participant is also familiar with the sign language (i.e. provide context information to the “sign language” conversion to spoken language (voice model)). The latest amendments amount to no more than an expert in sign language providing specific recipes on specific sign language movements which at least qualitatively will include speed and size parameters in e.g. a manual and provide their meanings.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “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 only recite one additional element, i.e., a “computing device” (in claim 1) to carry out all the claim limitations. The said “computing device” though is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing all the claim limitations) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; i.e., see Sp. ¶ 0020 lines 8+: “The computing device 200 may comprise one or more processors 201, which may execute instructions of a computer program to perform any of the functions described herein” . Accordingly, 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. The claims are thus 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 “computing device” to perform the claim 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 thus not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, “selecting the voice model based on facial expression” is an operation based on observation which is one of the 101 ineligible categories.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, “selecting the voice model based on voices of the one or more other participants” would merely require the human to direct his sign language to voice translation towards any one other than someone initially he was engaged with.
Regarding claim 4, the method basically depends on analyzing “image” which amounts to an observation process which is identified as patent ineligible.
Regrading claim 6, “selecting voice model” based on “mood level” does not require any particular machine and the human can e.g., increase and/or decrease his tone while translating hand signs according to the mood of the person making the hand signs.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, each word does indeed correspond to a specific hand sign and/or hand signs and indeed the human translator will use a sequence of hand signs to translate into voice.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, they depend on analysis of “participant” “facial expression[s]” which is an observation process and thus patent ineligible.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, it is quite possible for the human translator to present for the same hand gestures voice with different tones in voice so as to best convey the mood of the person making the hand gestures.
Regarding claim 10, it is depends on analysis of “detected hand sign in” “video” which is an observation process and thus patent ineligible.
Regarding claim 11, it is quite possible for the human translator to present voice associated with the hand signs he observes to reflect the way the hand sign was presented.
Regarding claim 13, the human translator could also convey an ambient event while translating hand signs.
Regarding claim 14 and 19, the human translator could also convey environmental conditions of the signer while translating his or her hand signs.
Regarding claim 20, the human translator could elect to translate the hand signs of the signer into textual format. This does not require anything beyond a pen and a paper.
Regarding claim 22, the human (presenter) could make his presentations based on a collective response (mood information) he gets from the participants, e.g. speeding up and/or slowing down in presentations depending on how he perceives the audience is grasping it. The inclusion of “deep neural network” is at such generality that it does not set any meaningful limitations on the claim and therefore serve as insignificant extra solution activity, as it is also a well known technique.
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 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
February 28th 2026.