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
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: while the reference numbers in a claim limitation is permitted, the reference characters should be enclosed within parentheses (see MPEP 608.01(m)). Appropriate correction is required.
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: first module configured to receive gesture data on a press of a switch; second module configured to process gesture data using machine learning algorithm; a third module configured to stream sounds and processing to obtain equivalent gestures; and a fourth module for displaying gestre data and a fifth module for assessing user input on gesture data in claim 1.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-7 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 1 includes limitation directed to the first module configured to receive gesture data on a press of a switch; second module configured to process gesture data using machine learning algorithm; a third module configured to stream sounds and processing to obtain equivalent gestures; and a fourth module for displaying gesture data and a fifth module for assessing user input on gesture data. These modules have been interpreted under 36 U.S.C 112(f) as such the specification must disclose the corresponding means to perform the recited function (see MPEP 2181 II A&B). However, a review of the specification does not provide the corresponding structures or the computer algorithm that can be used to perform the function of first module. Instead, the specification only repeats the assertion of the claim limitation (see specification page 12 line 9-16). The same rationale can also be applied to the second – fifth modules (see specification page 12 line 17-23 for the 2nd module, page 13 line 5-13 for the 3rd module, page 14 line 1 line 8 for the 4th module, and page 14 line 9-15 for the fifth module). Therefore, claim 1 is rejected since the specification fails to provide the corresponding structures or computer algorithm that corresponds to the means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 includes limitation directed to the first module configured to receive gesture data on a press of a switch; second module configured to process gesture data using machine learning algorithm; a third module configured to stream sounds and processing to obtain equivalent gestures; and a fourth module for displaying gesture data and a fifth module for assessing user input on gesture data. These modules have been interpreted under 36 U.S.C 112(f) as such the specification must disclose the corresponding means to perform the recited function (see MPEP 2181). When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under section 112(a) (see MPEP 2181 IV and 2161.01). A review of the specification does not provide the the computer algorithm that can be used to perform the function of first module. Instead, the specification only repeats the assertion of the claim limitation (see specification page 12 line 9-16). The same rationale can also be applied to the second – fifth modules (see specification page 12 line 17-23 for the 2nd module, page 13 line 5-13 for the 3rd module, page 14 line 1 line 8 for the 4th module, and page 14 line 9-15 for the fifth module).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 include limitation for the “…handheld 115” on line 20. This limitation lacks antecedent basis
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, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qadir WO 2004/114107, in view of Tussy US 20150016035 and further in view of Retek 11,847,426
Claim 1: The Qadir reference provides a teaching of a portable assistive device for challenged individuals 1006 (see abstract) a display unit 315 for displaying data (see page 7 line 23-25 display 110 and 114), a memory 335 for storing data (see page 14 line 20-25 both gloves 101 and 102 includes … a memory, memory storage), a microphone 345 for capturing sound, a speaker 340 for emitting sound (see page 7 line 25 speaker 116 built within the processing device), characterized in that said device 100 comprising:
A first wearable device 120 connecting with a plurality of sensors 135 through a plurality of strands 205 (see FIG. 2 item 120 strands for each fingers); the first wearable device 120 including: a microcontroller 320 for processing data received from the plurality of sensors 135 (see page 9 line 30-35 microprocessor 179), a multiplexer 330 configuring the microcontroller 320 to receive data from the plurality of sensors 135 (see page 9 line 30-35 MUX); a motor vibrator 325 configured to alert the user vibrating the first wearable device 120 (see page 10 line 10-15);
a communication module 310 connecting the first wearable device 120 with a second wearable device 125 the second wearable device 125 connecting with a plurality of sensors 140 through a plurality of strands 205 (see paragraph ; the second wearable device 125 including: a microcontroller 350 for processing data received from the plurality of sensors 140 (see page 9 line 30-35 microprocessor 179 for the other hand),, a multiplexer 330 configuring the microcontroller 356 to receive data from the plurality of sensors 140 (see page 9 line 30-35 MUX for the other hand);
the first wearable device 120, the second wearable device 125 and the third wearable device 130 wirelessly connecting with a handheld device 115; the handheld device 115 including: a first module 360 configured to receive gesture data on press of a switch 210 (see page 10 line 4-10 receiving gesture and pressing key switch 171 to trigger the gesture), a second module 370 configured to process gesture data using machine learning algorithm and artificial intelligence algorithm (see page 6 line 1-5 gesture to text conversion engine), a third module 374 configured to stream real time background sounds and processing sounds to obtain equivalent gestures (see page 8 line 30- page 9 line 6 removal of unwanted noise and echo), a fourth module 380 display gesture data (see page 11 line 30-35 displaying gestures data at the display) and a fifth module 385 for assessing user input on gesture data (see page 19:5-10);
The Qadir reference is silent on the teaching of a plurality of ports. However, the Tussy reference provides a teaching of a plurality of ports on a wearable computer (see paragraph 49 and 54 power port, charging port).
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 Qadir reference with the feature of a plurality of ports, as taught by the Tussy reference, in order to provide a convenient charging mechanism and extend the wearable computer battery life (see paragraph 58).
While the Qadir device provide a teaching of a device 130 communicating (see page 10 line 5-10 CPU 178) with the first wearable device 120, the second wearable device 124 and the handheld device 115 through the communication module 310(see page 10 line 25-30 bluetooth transceiver for communicating between the gloves and the CPU)), the third device 130 including sensors 390 capturing sensors data (see page 11 line 20-25), a microcontroller 388 processing said sensor data and a memory for storing sensor data (see page 19 line 5-10). It is silent whether the third device is a wearable device. However, Retek shows that the third device is a wearable device (see col. 11:15-20). 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 third device being a wearable device, as taught by the Retek reference, in order to provide a convenient mobile computing device.
While Qadir the server 110 processing gesture data using machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms (see page 19 line 5-10); it is silent on the teaching of a server 110 communicating with the handheld device 115 through internet 305.
However, the Retek reference provides a teaching of a server 110 communicating with the handheld device 115 through internet 305 (see col. 10:60-11:5 server network via the internet).
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 Qadir reference with the feature of a server 110 communicating with the handheld device 115 through internet 305, as taught by the Retek reference, in order to allow the user to utilize the sign language service in various location that is reachable by the Internet.
Claim 4: The Qadir reference provides a teaching of wherein the ports 225 receive strands 203 for communicating with the plurality of sensors 135, 140 respectively (see page 8 line 1-10 ports that receives strands of flexible sensors)
Claim 6: The Qadir reference provides a teaching of wherein the gesture data is converted into relevant text or speech through machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms on the server 110 (see page 12 line 15-20).
Claim 7: The Qadir reference wherein the third module 375 processing sound using machine learning algorithms (page 12 line 25-35).
The examiner takes the position that the limitation of displaying gesture, image, GIFs on the display unit 345 as an intended use limitation. Without being modified can perform the function of displaying gesture, image, GIFs on the display.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qadir WO 2004/114107, in view of Tussy US 20150016035, in view of Retek 11,847,426 and further in view of Nitta US 5757360
Claim 2: The Qadir reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the microcontroller 350 starts recording gesture data on pressing the switch 210.
However, the Nitta reference provides a teaching of wherein the microcontroller 350 starts recording gesture data on pressing the switch 210 (see col. 4:60-5:5 using a button to indicate the start and end of a new gesture).
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 Qadir reference with the feature of wherein the microcontroller 350 starts recording gesture data on pressing the switch 210, as taught by the Nitta reference, in order to help eliminate the accidental activation by the user (see col. 4:65-66).
Claim 3: The Qadir reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the microcontroller 350stops recording gesture data on subsequent press of the switch 210.
However, the Nitta reference provides a teaching of wherein the microcontroller 350stops recording gesture data on subsequent press of the switch 210 (see col. 4:60-5:5 using a button to indicate the start and end of a new gesture).
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 Qadir reference with the feature of wherein the microcontroller 350stops recording gesture data on subsequent press of the switch 210, as taught by the Nitta reference, in order to help eliminate the accidental activation by the user (see col. 4:65-66).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qadir WO 2004/114107, in view of Tussy US 20150016035, in view of Retek 11,847,426 and further in view of Mohandes US 20160232403
Claim 5: The Qadir reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the first module 365 receiving the gesture data including gesture name, method of performing gesture, word phrase to train the machine learning algorithm.
However, the Mohandes reference provides a teaching of wherein the first module 365 receiving the gesture data including gesture name, method of performing gesture, word phrase to train the machine learning algorithm (see paragraph 35).
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 Qadir reference with the feature of wherein the first module 365 receiving the gesture data including gesture name, method of performing gesture, word phrase to train the machine learning algorithm, as taught by the Mohandes, in order to provide some degree of flexibility with development of new gestures (see paragraph 63).
Conclusion
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