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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/613235 in view of Yao (2020/0075011). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between them are obvious. In particular, claims 1, 10, and 19 of Application ‘235 differs from the claims of ‘097 by specifying that the customer is located remotely from a brick-and-mortar location. Yao teaches a sign language interpretation system via VR headset that operates over networked communications including mobile networks. (The system of Yao functions over wireless communications and can operate anywhere communication signals are available including brick and mortar locations The electronic device 800 can access a wireless network based on a communication standard, such as WiFi, 2G or 3G, or a combination thereof. see par. [0175] of Yao).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to expand the system of ‘235 to include a virtual sign language interpretation system as taught by Yao that can operate from anywhere with a network connection. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of ‘044 in this way in order to appeal to more customers and make agents available to service deaf customers at any location.
Instant claims
‘235 claims that teaches instant claim
1-2
1-2
3
12
4
12 & 14
5-12
5-12
13
10
14-20
14-20
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/659097 (‘0097) in view of Yao (2020/0075011). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between them are obvious. In particular, claims 1, 10, and 19 of Application ‘097 differs from the claims of ‘235 by stating that any language can be translated while the instant claims specify sign language. Yao teaches a sign language interpretation system via VR headset that operates over networked communications including mobile networks. (The system of Yao functions over wireless communications and can operate anywhere communication signals are available including brick and mortar locations The electronic device 800 can access a wireless network based on a communication standard, such as WiFi, 2G or 3G, or a combination thereof. see par. [0175] of Yao).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to expand the system of ‘097 to include a virtual sign language interpretation system as taught by Yao that can operate from anywhere with a network connection. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of ‘097 in this way in order to appeal to more customers and make agents available to service deaf customers at any location.
Instant claims
‘097 claims that teaches instant claim
1-3
1-3 in view of Yao
4
1
5
4
6
5
7
6
8
7
9
1
10
9
11
9 in view of Yao
12
11
13
16
14
12
15
13
16
14
17
15
18
9
19
17
20
12, 18 in view of Yao
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system and methods for providing customer service. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including: “translate a request for assistance from sign language into text, said request is being made by the customer that is using sign language, confirm with the customer …[the] correct understanding of the request; determine a team in the organization that can assist the customer; and transfer the customer to an agent in the team” which as drafted, a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind.
The claim recites additional elements of a virtual reality (VR) headset, an artificial intelligence (AI) virtual assistant integrated with the VR headset using an application programming interface (API) wherein the VR headset is located at a location and transmits information in real time. The functions of the VR headset, AI virtual assistant, and API are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-9 either narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations (i.e., reciting specifically American Sign Language, describing the field of use of the agent or location, intended purpose of the process to improve customer satisfaction, or describing an intended use of the system for people who do not know sign language) or recite further abstract limitations which are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e. VR headset types; or limiting if inputs or outputs are text or audio). Claims 10-20 recite substantially similar limitations as claims 1-9 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riahi (US 2014/0270109) in view of Yao (2020/0075011).
1. A system for improved service to a customer who is hearing impaired, the system comprising:
a virtual reality (“VR”) headset; and an artificial intelligence (“AI”) virtual assistant, said AI virtual assistant is integrated with the VR headset using an application programming interface (“API”); wherein:
the VR headset is configured to:
and transmit the text of the request to the AI virtual assistant;
the AI virtual assistant is configured to:
confirm with the customer that the AI virtual assistant has a correct understanding of the request; (The automated customer greeting module 1110 may serve as a first point of contact between a customer and the contact center. The customer greeting module 1110 may serve several functions, such as identifying the customer, identifying the reason for the interaction, and choosing a first routing of the interaction to a more appropriate component, contact, live agent, etc., depending on factors such as the nature of the interaction. In one embodiment, the automated customer greeting module 1110 may be the iCFD (intelligent Customer Front Door)...iCFD is a call routing application that collects a customer's intent (based on what they say) using speech recognition, determines how to treat the call based on that input and feedback from the back-end systems, customer relations management (CRM) systems, and other data, and determines proactively where the customer should be routed and what service should be provided, whether live agent assisted, self service, or (with appropriate extensions) to an automated agent. see par. [0167-0168] of Riahi)
determine a team in the organization that can assist the customer; and
transfer the customer to an agent in the team (The results of the IVR transaction may be sent back to the CIM module. For instance, the customer may have a question that cannot be addressed by the self-service IVR module, in which case the CIM module may route the customer's call to a live agent. The live agent may then get a prompt from the CIM module about the incoming call (for example, saying that the customer has just used the self-service IVR module and has a question for a live agent). see par. [0171] of Riahi)
APIs (APIs see par. [0174] of Riahi)
Riahi does not teach but Yao does teach the below:
VR headset (The user terminal 1 may specifically be an electronic device having video and voice functions, such as a mobile phone, a computer, a digital broadcast terminal, a messaging device, a game console, a tablet device, a medical device, a fitness device, and a personal digital assistant, or the like, and further may be an AR wearing device such as an AR glasses and an AR helmet. see par. [0093] of Yao)
translate a request for assistance from sign language into text, said request is made by the customer that is using sign language, and said customer is wearing the VR (When the user terminal 1 captures a video of a scenario in front of the user in real time, the user views a sign language video in which a AR sign language animation is displayed in the video through the user terminal 1. The following various sign language information processing methods of the present disclosure may be completed only in the user terminal 1, or may be jointly performed by the user terminal 1 and the server 2. see par. [0094] of Yao) headset at a brick-and-mortar location of an organization; (The system of Yao functions over wireless communications and can operate anywhere communication signals are available including brick and mortar locations The electronic device 800 can access a wireless network based on a communication standard, such as WiFi, 2G or 3G, or a combination thereof. see par. [0175] of Yao)
and the AI virtual assistant and the VR headset, integrated with each other using the API, (In an implementation, the process of sign language information processing may mainly rely on the user terminal 1 for processing. see par. [0095] of Yao) are configured to conduct real-time communication between the agent and the customer to resolve the request. (When the user terminal 1 captures a video of a scenario in front of the user in real time, the user views a sign language video in which a AR sign language animation is displayed in the video through the user terminal 1. The following various sign language information processing methods of the present disclosure may be completed only in the user terminal 1, or may be jointly performed by the user terminal 1 and the server 2. see par. [0094] of Yao)
Riahi teaches a system for connecting customers with customer service teams. Riahi does not disclose virtual sign language interpretation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to expand the system of Riahi to include a virtual sign language interpretation system as taught by Yao. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of Riahi in this way in order to appeal to more customers and make agents available to service deaf customers.
Note that terminology used is interpreted in view of the disclosure and the described functionality. For example, an “AI virtual assistant” is described in par. 0015 as “The AI virtual assistant may contain trained artificial intelligence and/or machine learning algorithms to identify the hand movements as sign language and to translate the sign language into text.” However, these functions are described as optional and not specifically claimed in the instant claim. Therefore an “AI virtual assistant” is being interpreted as a software agent capable of functions specifically recited in the instant claim.
2. The system of claim 1 wherein the sign language is American Sign Language (“ASL”). (The examiner takes official notice that American Sign Language existed at the time of invention and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use American Sign Language in the invention filed with the United States of America Patent Office in order to make the system usable with Americans.)
3. The system of claim 1 wherein the agent is in a financial center, a store, a contact center, or a call center. (For example, a contact center for a bank may tell callers, via the IVR script, to “press 1 if they wish to get an account balance. see par. [0074] of Riahi)
4. The system of claim 1 wherein the brick-and-mortar location is a financial center, and the AI virtual assistant is a virtual financial assistant (“VFA”). (For example, a contact center for a bank may tell callers, via the IVR script, to “press 1 if they wish to get an account balance. see par. [0074] of Riahi)
Note that terminology used is interpreted in view of the disclosure and the described functionality. Therefore a “virtual financial assistant” is being interpreted as a software agent capable of functions specifically recited in the instant claim.
5. The system of claim 1 wherein the VR headset comprises VR, augmented reality (“AR”), extended reality (“XR”), spatial computing, or a combination herein. (superimposing and displaying an augmented reality AR sign language animation corresponding to the voice information on a gesture area corresponding to the speaking object to obtain a sign language video see par. [0010] of Yao)
6. The system of claim 1 wherein the system for improved service to the customer leads to an improved level of customer satisfaction. (This limitation is considered a field of use limitation by the Examiner. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. Please see MPEP 2111.02 II, 2103 (C), and 2114.)
7. The system of claim 1 wherein the real-time communication between the agent and the customer comprises: sign language, from the customer, that is translated by the VR headset worn by the customer into text that is transmitted using the AI virtual assistant to the agent as text or as speech (It can be understood that the gesture action information can be understood as a gesture action image. Recognizing the gesture action information of the user himself in the video information may be to recognize an image of a preset position. For example, gesture action information obtained in a lower edge area of a video frame is taken as the gesture action information of the user himself. see par. [0117] of Yao) ; and typed text, from the agent (a speech synthesis module 1170 for converting
text to speech for delivery to the customer, see par. [0166] of Yao), that is transmitted by the AI virtual assistant to the VR headset, worn by the customer, as sign language or text. (superimposing and displaying an augmented reality AR sign language animation corresponding to the voice information on a gesture area corresponding to the speaking object to obtain a sign language video see par. [0010] of Yao)
8. The system of claim 1 wherein the real-time communication between the agent and the customer comprises: sign language, from the customer, that is translated by the VR headset worn by the customer into text that is transmitted using the AI virtual assistant to the agent as text or as speech, said VR headset being a first VR headset (In an embodiment, user sound attribute information preset by the user may be obtained, and then the user voice information is played with the user sound attribute. The user sound attribute information may be understood as a characteristic configuration of a sound that the user wants to output, which is configured in advance, for example, an old person's voice, a youth's voice, a child's voice, a man's voice, or a woman's voice, thereby realizing a customization of the user's voice. see par. [0123] of Yao); and speech, spoken by the agent, that is translated by a second VR headset worn by the agent into text and transmitted to the customer on the VR headset as sign language or text. (The customer portal module 110 may provide, for example, an avatar for voice and/or Video communication (such as over the web or a Smartphone) as implemented by an avatar module 210.see par. [00095] of Riahi)
In the combination of Riahi in view of Yao, the customer service agent is remote from the customer/deaf user. Riahi teaches that video communication can occur for the customer service system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to allow the agent to use a VR headset as taught by Yao in order to view the video since allowing additional users to use the VR headsets does not change any of the existing functions and using the headset would result in a combination in which each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and the results of the combination would be predictable.
9. The system of claim 1 wherein the agent does not know sign language. (This limitation is considered a field of use limitation by the Examiner. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. Please see MPEP 2111.02 II, 2103 (C), and 2114.)
Claims 10-20 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-9 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The other references listed in the 892 (US 201080198580, US 20180063325, and US 20220343576) provide additions automated systems for sign language interpretation.
This is a CON of applicant's earlier Application No. 18/613235. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KESHA FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)272-8774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 730AM-4PM.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
/KESHA FRISBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights