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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 4 the phrase “… the sign language symbols” lacks antecedent basis. The examiner interprets that the applicant is referring to the “the one or more sign language symbols” on line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s traversal of the election restriction requirement mailed on 12/01/2025 have been received and considered. The restriction/election requirement has been withdrawn. Claims 1-20 have been considered on the merit.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, and 13 recite(s):
A method comprising:
receiving a first request for a sign language animation associated with a video object, wherein the video object is associated with metadata;
determining, based on the metadata associated with the video object, an audio object;
transcribing the audio object to a text object;
determining, based on the text object, one or more sign language symbols associated with the text object; and
sending, based on the determined sign language symbols, the video object with a sign language animation.
Claim 9 recites:
A method comprising:
receiving a first request for a sign language translation associated with a first video object, wherein the first video object comprises metadata;
determining, based on the metadata associated with the first video object, one or more first sign language symbols;
determining, based on the one or more first sign language symbols, a first text object;
converting the determined first text object to a first audio object; and
sending the first video object with the first audio object.
Claim 13 recites:
A method comprising:
receiving a first request for a sign language animation associated with an audio object, wherein the audio object is associated with metadata;
determining, based on the metadata associated with the audio object, the audio object;
transcribing the audio object to a text object;
determining, based on the text object, one or more sign language symbols associated with the text object; and
sending, based on the determined one or more sign language symbols, the audio object with the sign language animation.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “audio object” or “text object” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses an interpreter receiving a request for a sign language for a video, reviewing the video data for audio, transcribing the audio into text, determining sign language sign that is associated with the text and sending the sign language animation (or vice versa).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “audio object”, “video object” or “text object”.
The “audio object”, “video object” or “text object” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does 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 processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 33 showing generic laptop, smart phones and tablets).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-8, 10-12, and 14-20 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. For example, claims 2-8, 10-12, and 14-20 are directed to the use of system with generic computing elements or the type of data that are used in conjunction with the system (a field of use or technological environment). The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
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, 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain US 11,935,170 and in view of Bruner US 20140046661
Claim 1: The Jain reference provide a teaching of
receiving a first request for a sign language animation associated with a video object (col. 3:30-45 receiving a video object to be translated);
transcribing the audio object to a text object (see col. 8:60-65 audio processing module to convert audio to text“);
determining, based on the text object, one or more sign language symbols associated with the text object (see col. 6:30-40 determining motion data associated the first gesture and the first word); and
sending, based on the determined sign language symbols, the video object with a sign language animation (see col. 7:65-8:5 generating the avatar as an overlaid during the playback of the first segment of the video content)
The Jain reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the video object is associated with metadata and determining, based on the metadata associated with the video object, an audio object.
However, the Bruner reference provide a teaching of wherein the video object is associated with metadata (see paragraph 155 video metadata) and determining, based on the metadata associated with the video object, an audio object (see paragraph 158 metadata specifying parameters for customizing the translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Jain reference with the feature of wherein the video object is associated with metadata and determining, based on the metadata associated with the video object, an audio object, as taught by the Bruner reference, in order to provide an efficient database that can allow for different avatars that correspond to audio content (see paragraph 157).
Claim 4: The Jain reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the metadata comprises at least one of: a length of the video object; a storage location of the video object; or a public key associated with the video object.
However, the Bruner reference provides a teaching of wherein the metadata comprises at least one of: a storage location of the video object (see paragraph 49 and FIG. 3d 3105, 3110 showing file location for the different avatar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Jain reference with the feature of wherein the metadata comprises at least one of: a storage location of the video object, as taught by the Bruner reference, in order to provide an efficient database that can allow for different avatars that correspond to audio content (see paragraph 157).
Claim 5: The Jain reference provides a teaching of querying a database to determine the one or more sign language symbols associated with the text object by sending, based on the text object and to the database, a second request for the sign language symbols (see col. 6:10-20).
Claim 6: The Jain reference provides a teaching of generating, based on the determined sign language symbols, sign language animation; and embedding the generated sign language animation with the video object (see paragraph 7:60-8:5 sign language avatar is generated and overlaid along side the video object).
Claims 7: The Jain reference provides a teaching where the video object comprises at least one of a pre-recorded video (see col. 16:5-10 receiving a pre-recorded video).
Claim 8: The Jain reference provides a teaching of generating based on the determined sign language symbols (see col. 8:1-10 generating avatar as a overlay to the video).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain US 11,935,170, in view of Bruner US 20140046661 and further in view of Thomson US 20250078574
Claim 2: The Jain reference is silent on the teaching of wherein receiving the first request includes: receiving, by a sign language process engine and based on a response from a user, the first request from a voicemail system or a conference service system.
However, the Thomson reference provides a teaching of wherein receiving the first request includes: receiving, by a sign language process engine and based on a response from a user, the first request from a voicemail system (see paragraph 485 voicemail.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Jain reference with the feature of receiving the first request includes: receiving, by a sign language process engine and based on a response from a user, the first request from a voicemail system or a conference service system, as taught by the Thomson reference, in order to accommodate deaf user in their day to day activities (see paragraph 5).
Claim 3: The Jain reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the response from the user comprises an identifier of a user device.
However, the Thomson reference provides a teaching of wherein the response from the user comprises an identifier of a user device (see paragraph 472, 493 communication device identifier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Jain reference with the feature of wherein receiving the first request includes: receiving, by a sign language process engine and based on a response from a user, the first request from a voicemail system, as taught by the Thomson reference, in order to accommodate deaf user in their day to day activities (see paragraph 5).
Claims 9-11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahmani US 20230085161 and in view of the Kim 20060174315
Claim 9: The Rahmani reference provides a teaching wherein the
receiving a first request for a sign language translation associated with a first video object (see paragraph 75 request from the user), wherein the first video object comprises metadata (see paragraph 69-70 metadata associated with the video object);
determining, based on the metadata associated with the first video object, one or more first sign language symbols (see paragraph 94 identifying sing language and paragraph 126 identification based on the metadata);
determining, based on the one or more first sign language symbols, a first text object (see paragraph 94 convert the sign symbols to text);
converting the determined first text object to a first audio object (see paragraph 94 transforming text to speech via TTS); and
The Rahmani reference is silent on the teaching of sending the first video object with the first audio object. However, the Kim reference provides a teaching of sending the first video object with the first audio object (see paragraph 52 step 611 multiplexing the audio data with the sign language).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the with the feature of sending the first video object with the first audio object, as taught by the Kim reference, in order to add additional translated information to assist communication for people with hearing disabilities (see paragraph 5).
Claim 10: The Rahmani reference provides a teaching of
receiving, by a service device, a second request for a sign language animation associated with a second video object, wherein the second video object is associated with a second metadata (see paragraph 29 additional sign language);
determining, based on the second metadata associated with the second video object, a second audio object (see paragraph 45);
transcribing the second audio object to a second text object (see paragraph 93 converting audio object to text object);
determining, based on the second text object, one or more second sign language symbols associated with the second text object (see paragraph 93 coverts text to avatar gestures); and
The Rahmani reference is silent on the teaching of sending, based on the determined second sign language symbols, the second video object with the sign language animation
However, the Kim reference provides a teaching of sending, based on the determined second sign language symbols, the second video object with the sign language animation. (see paragraph 49 step 611 multiplexing the audio data with the sign language).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the with the feature of sending, based on the determined second sign language symbols, the second video object with the sign language animation, as taught by the Kim reference, in order to add additional translated information to assist communication for people with hearing disabilities (see paragraph 5).
Claim 11: The Rahmani reference provides a teaching of wherein the first video object comprises at least one of a live video (see paragraph 52 live video data).
Claim 13: The Rahmani reference provides a teaching of
receiving a first request for a sign language animation associated with an audio object (see paragraph 75 request from the user), wherein the audio object is associated with metadata (see paragraph 46 metadata for the audio);
determining, based on the metadata associated with the audio object, the audio object (see paragraph 70 using metadata of the audio object);
transcribing the audio object to a text object (see paragraph 93 item 603 converting audio data into text);
determining, based on the text object, one or more sign language symbols associated with the text object (see paragraph 93 item 606 coverts text into avatar gesture of signs).
The Rahmani reference is silent on the teaching of sending, based on the determined sign language symbols, the audio object with the sign language animation.
However, the Kim reference provides a teaching of sending, based on the determined sign language symbols, the audio object with the sign language animation. (see paragraph 49 step 611 multiplexing the audio data with the sign language).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the with the feature of sending, based on the determined second sign language symbols, the second video object with the sign language animation, as taught by the Kim reference, in order to add additional translated information to assist communication for people with hearing disabilities (see paragraph 5).
Claim 14: The Rahmani reference provides a teaching wherein, the audio object comprises at least one of live audio (see paragraph 52 live audio data).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahmani US 20230085161 and in view of the Kim 20060174315 and further in view of Mars US 11783824
Claim 12: The Rahmani refrence is silent on the teaching of receiving of the first request is based on an automatic detection of sign language in the first video object.
However, the Rahmani reference provides a teaching of receiving of the first request is based on an automatic detection of sign language in the first video object (see col. 9:53-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Rahmani reference with the feature of receiving of the first request is based on an automatic detection of sign language in the first video object, as taught by the Mars reference, in order to account for user with disability.
Claims 15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahmani US 20230085161, in view of the Kim 20060174315 and further in view of Weber US 20190171716
Claim 15: The Rahmani reference provides a teaching of wherein the first request comprises an identifier of a user device (see paragraph 75).
The Rahmani reference is silent on the teaching of providing, based on the identifier of the user device, a graphical user interface (GUI) with at least one or more feature parameters, wherein a user selects the at least one or more feature parameters; processing, based on the one or more feature parameters, the sign language animation; and sending the audio object with the processed sign language animation.
However, the Weber reference provides a teaching of: providing, based on the identifier of the user device, a graphical user interface (GUI) with at least one or more feature parameters, wherein a user selects the at least one or more feature parameters (see paragraph 31 and 38);
processing, based on the one or more feature parameters, the sign language animation (see paragraph 26 accent, speed of the sign language animation); and
sending the audio object with the processed sign language animation (see paragraph 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Rahmani reference with the feature of providing, based on the identifier of the user device, a graphical user interface (GUI) with at least one or more feature parameters, wherein a user selects the at least one or more feature parameters; processing, based on the one or more feature parameters, the sign language animation; and sending the audio object with the processed sign language animation, as taught by the Weber reference, in order to allow the user to ensure the quality of the sign language translation (see paragraph 4).
Claim 18: The Rahmani reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the GUI provides, based on the one or more feature parameters, a preview of the sign language animation.
However, the Weber reference provides a teaching of wherein the GUI provides, based on the one or more feature parameters, a preview of the sign language animation (see paragraph 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Rahmani reference with the feature of wherein the GUI provides, based on the one or more feature parameters, a preview of the sign language animation, as taught by the Weber reference, in order to allow the user to ensure the quality of the sign language translation (see paragraph 4).
Claim 19: The Rahmani reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the one or more feature parameters, via the GUI and by the user, are saved in a template.
However, the Weber reference provides a teaching of wherein the one or more feature parameters, via the GUI and by the user, are saved in a template (see paragraph 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the with the feature of wherein the one or more feature parameters, via the GUI and by the user, are saved in a template, as taught by the Weber reference, in order to allow the user to ensure the quality of the sign language translation (see paragraph 4).
Claim 20: The Rahmani reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the GUI provides a preview of the audio object at a pre-determined speed, and a preview of the sign language animation at a different speed than the pre-determined speed.
However, the Weber reference provide a teaching of wherein the GUI provides a preview of the audio object at a pre-determined speed, and a preview of the sign language animation at a different speed than the pre-determined speed (see paragraph 36 and 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the with the feature of wherein the GUI provides a preview of the audio object at a pre-determined speed, and a preview of the sign language animation at a different speed than the pre-determined speed, as taught by the Weber reference, in order to allow the user to ensure the quality of the sign language translation (see paragraph 4).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahmani US 20230085161, in view of the Kim 20060174315 and further in view of Kasaba US 20220150448
Claim 16: The Rahmani reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the one or more processing parameters comprises at least one of: an identifier of a template; an identifier of an avatar; a type of sign language; an overlay percentage; or a closed-caption option.
However, the Kasaba reference provides a teaching of wherein the one or more processing parameters comprises at least one of: an identifier of an avatar (see paragraph 54 avatars of first, second and third subject).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Rahmani reference with the feature of wherein the one or more processing parameters comprises at least one of: an identifier of an avatar, as taught by the Kasaba reference, in order to provide a teaching of wherein the one or more processing parameters comprises at least one of: an identifier of an avatar, as taught by the Kasaba reference, in order to provide different option for the user to communicate (see paragraph 3).
Claim 17: The Rahmani reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the avatar is associated with the sign language animation, and the avatar comprises at least one of type of fee, celebrity or popularity.
However, the Kasaba reference provides a teaching of wherein the avatar is associated with the sign language animation, and the avatar comprises at least one of type of fee (see paragraph 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Rahmani reference with the feature of wherein the avatar is associated with the sign language animation, and the avatar comprises at least one of type of fee, as taught by the Kasaba reference, in order to provide different option for the user to communicate (see paragraph 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Carlock US 20220327309
Mehmeri US 20250028579
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights