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 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 1-5, 7, 9-22 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;
extracting, based on the metadata, an audio object from the video object by separating an audio track from the video 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;;
generating a sign language animation based on the determined one or more sign language symbols;
adding the sign language animation to the video object; and
sending 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;
extracting, based on metadata, sign language image from the first video object;
determining based on the sign language image 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;
adding the first audio object to the first video object; and
sending the first video object with the added 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;
generating a sign language animation based on the determined one or more sing language symbols;
adding the sign language animation to the audio object; and
sending, 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, generating the sign language animation and adding the sign language animation to the video object (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” or “mental process” 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 14-22 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); claim 21 is the use of a computer to decrypt a video object using a public key in the metadata (field of use or technological environment or insignificant extra-solution activity); and claim 22 limitation directed to the content of sign language animation (abstract idea). 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that the amendment directed to the limitation "generating a sign language animation based on the determined one or more sign language symbols," and "adding the sign language animation to the video object” no longer recites an abstract idea. Since the applicant argued a human interpreter does not have the ability to “extract an audio object from a video object by separating an audio track based on the metadata. The applicant argued that the current limitation is analogous of example 38 of USPTO examples. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP is quite clear that the claims can still recite a mental process (an abstract idea) even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. In this particular case, the generation of the sign language animation or adding the sign language animation to the video object can be performed manually by human with the use of a generic computing device. With respect to applicant’s argument that current claim limitation should be interpreted similarly to USPTO example 38. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the example 38, the limitation is directed to a specific implementation on how one can simulate the operation of an analog mixer. In the current independent claims, the limitation is directed to the end result which can include the use of an abstract idea in conjunction with a generic computer. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 on claims 1-5, 7, 9-22 shall be maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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