3Notice 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 6, 10, 12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant’s current amendments to the independent claims and certain dependent claims have incorporated limitations that were previously unique to subsequent dependent claims. Because the dependent claims were not cancelled, they now merely reiterate limitations already present in their respective base claims, failing to specify a further limitation as required by the statute.
For example, Claim 6 depends from Claim 1 and recites: “presenting the view to the live audio interpreter only to the at least one of the different parties of the conference while obscuring the view to the live audio interpreter with respect to remaining ones of the different parties of the conference.” This limitation was added in the current amendment to base Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 6 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 1.
Claim 4 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 2.
Claim 10 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 8.
Claim 12 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 7.
Claim 16 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 14.
Claim 18 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 13.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoker et al. (US 2020/0321007 A1, hereinafter “Stoker”) in view of Ghulman (US 2012/0078628 A1), Legatski (US 2023/0353819 A1), and Utley et al. (US 10,127,833 B1, hereinafter “Utley”).
A brief summary of the applied prior art references:
• Stoker teaches the core conferencing system: capturing audio, transforming it into an alternative form (text), and concurrently delivering the audio and text to non-hard-of-hearing parties. Stoker also teaches invoking a live audio interpreter (ASL) to supplement the text (Stoker ¶[0085]).
• Ghulman teaches the audio suppression limitation: delivering the alternative form (text) and the view to the live interpreter to the hard-of-hearing party in place of the captured audio (i.e., the audio is NOT played to the hearing-impaired user so they rely purely on the visual feed) (Ghulman ¶[0024]). It provides speech-to-text and provides the option for “only text”.
• Legatski teaches the participant-specific UI limitation: presenting the view to the live audio interpreter only to the hard-of-hearing party while obscuring the view with respect to remaining parties of the conference (Legatski ¶¶[0022], [0047], [0060]).
• Utley teaches the on-demand selection limitation: wherein the live audio interpreter is selected from a selection of available live audio interpreters known to be available at a time of the invocation of the companion window (Utley Col. 8, lines 4–15: routing server queries a database of currently logged-in and idle workstations to find an available interpreter at the time of the request).
Regarding claim 1, Stoker discloses a method for the supplementation of an alternative form of audio in a communicative conference for the benefit of the hard of hearing (Abstract; ¶[0085], teaching a live American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter for “supplementing the transcription capabilities of the system”).
The method taught by Stoker comprises:
capturing audio in a communicative conference between different parties to the conference; (Abstract; ¶[0016], real-time audio transcription);
transforming the captured audio into an alternative form; (¶[0067], (¶[0071-0073], “transcribed audio messages 107”; Figs 6 and 7, transcription bar 210);
invoking a companion window to the communicative conference with a view to a live audio interpreter for viewing by a hard of hearing one of the different parties to the conference; (¶[0085], “distribution and streaming of a live American Sign Language (“ASL”) interpreter to one or more users”; FIGS. 6-8 showing a user interface with multiple panes/windows);
merging the view to the live audio interpreter with the communicative conference and the alternative form, and transmitting the captured audio to the live audio interpreter while concurrently delivering the captured audio and the alternative form to one or more of the different parties of the conference who are not hard of hearing; (Stoker teaches that transcribed text is transmitted to a user interface for viewing by hearing-impaired persons, and it further contemplates delivery of the transcription along with audio/video playback to multiple users/devices participating in the same event. See ¶[0053], “multiple users can log in to an event and receive transcribed text from a single microphone”; FIG. 8 showing audio playback 348 and video playback 358).
While Stoker teaches the base conferencing system, transcription, and the use of a live ASL interpreter, Stoker does not explicitly detail the specific user-interface routing and interpreter-selection mechanics claimed. Specifically, Stoker does not explicitly teach: 1) delivering the alternative form and interpreter view to the hard-of-hearing party in place of the captured audio; 2) presenting the interpreter view only to the hard-of-hearing party while obscuring it from remaining parties; and 3) selecting the interpreter from a selection of available interpreters known to be available at a time of the invocation.
Regarding the audio routing limitation, Ghulman discloses a text and sign-language display for the hearing impaired wherein audio is converted to text/video and the audio itself is NOT played to the user. Ghulman teaches that “The user may selectively display only text, only the graphical display, or both simultaneously” (Ghulman, ¶[0024]). Therefore, Ghulman teaches delivering the alternative form (text) and the visual sign language to the hearing-impaired user in place of the captured audio. Furthermore, it is extremely obvious that the hearing-impaired person (e.g., deaf) does not require audio. On the contrary, providing audio to a hearing-impaired user may be an inefficient and unproductive use of bandwidth, and a source of annoyance to others since the hearing-impaired user may blast the volume of the audio (e.g., in an office environment).
Regarding the obscuring limitation, Legatski discloses a conferencing system that presents a Sign Language Interpreter (SLI) view to a participant who requests it, while hiding it from others. Legatski teaches that “other individuals who do not require interpretation may view a different generated recording where the Sign Language Interpreter (SLI) is not visible” (Legatski, ¶[0060]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the fact that individuals who are not hearing impaired (“others”) do not need to see the sign language interpreter. Actually, providing a view of the sign language interpreter to “others” may be considered by some as a distraction. Including this obscuring feature, which is taught by Lagatski, is needed and extremely beneficial.
Therefore, Legatski teaches presenting the view to the live audio interpreter only to the hard of hearing party while obscuring the view with respect to remaining parties of the conference.
Regarding the interpreter selection limitation, Utley discloses a Video Relay Service (VRS) that provides real-time, on-demand routing of live sign language interpreters into active communication sessions. Utley teaches that when an interpreter is needed during a live session, “the routing server 110 queries a database of workstations currently logged into the system to identify the status and availability for a video interpreter” and “maintains a continuous list of the idle workstations” (Utley, Col. 8, lines 4-15). Therefore, Utley teaches the live audio interpreter is selected from a selection of available live audio interpreters known to be available at a time of the invocation of the companion window. Furthermore, it is extremely obvious that when a sign language interpreter is needed during a live conferencing event, one needs to have a list of currently available interpreters from which to select. A static list of interpreters who may or may not be currently available is not helpful at all during a live event.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conferencing system of Stoker to suppress the audio feed for the hard-of-hearing user, delivering the text and video in place of the audio, as taught by Ghulman, because transmitting audio to a deaf user consumes unnecessary bandwidth and may cause annoying audio feedback if the user turns up their device volume (Ghulman ¶[0024]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to modify the system to present the live interpreter view only to the hard-of-hearing participant while obscuring it from others, as taught by Legatski, in order to conserve screen real estate and network bandwidth for hearing participants who do not require the interpretation service and to prevent distraction (Legatski ¶[0060]).
Finally, it would have been obvious to source the live interpreter by querying a database of currently logged-in and idle interpreters at the time the companion window is invoked, as taught by Utley, rather than relying on pre-scheduled interpreters. Utley demonstrates that dynamically polling a pool of currently available interpreters minimizes delay and ensures a live ASL interpreter is immediately available the moment a hard-of-hearing participant requires assistance during an active, live conference (Utley Col. 8, lines 4-32).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Note that Stoker discloses the use of processors, memory, and executable instructions to carry out the conferencing and transcription steps (Stoker, FIG. 1, processors 12, storage 14, instructions 16).
Redundant claims 6, 12 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, 7 and 13.
Claims 2, 8, and 14 recite polling the selection of available live audio interpreters to join the communicative conference and selecting from amongst responding ones of the polled selection a first responding one.
The combination of Stoker, Ghulman, and Legatski does not explicitly detail this polling mechanism.
However, Utley explicitly teaches polling multiple available interpreters and selecting the first one to respond. Utley discloses transmitting the request “to more than one available interpreter to increase the response time for teaming assistance by connecting the video interpreter who accepts the teaming message first” (Utley, Col. 8, lines 23-27).
Redundant Claims 4, 10, and 16 are rejected for the same reasons as Claims 2, 8, and 14, respectively).
Claims 3, 9, and 15 recite filtering the selection according to criteria specified by the one of the different parties and pertaining to one or more demographic characteristics of the available live audio interpreters, wherein the one or more demographic characteristics include a geographic location.
Utley explicitly teaches filtering the available pool of interpreters based on their physical geographic location. Utley discloses tracking interpreters across “call centers 220A-220H at multiple different physical locations” (Utley, Col. 7, lines 20-30) and applying routing rules that perform a query “limited to the local video interpreters located within the same call center, and then a second query that is open to all remote video interpreters” (Utley, Col. 8, lines 34-40).
Claims 5, 11, and 17 recite polling the selection of available live audio interpreters to join the communicative conference and selecting from amongst responding ones of the polled selection a responding one of the selection of available live audio interpreters with a highest recorded rating amongst the selection of available live audio interpreters.
Utley explicitly teaches selecting a video interpreter based on quality ratings. Utley discloses using “quality rankings based on performance reviews, customer feedback, feedback from other video interpreters… to determine a quality metric for a video interpreter” (Utley, Col. 8, lines 55-67).
Response to Arguments
Most of Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/14/2026 are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s amendment added these limitations to the independent claims:
(A) “the live audio interpreter is selected from a selection of available live audio interpreters known to be available at a time of the invocation of the companion window”
(B) “presenting the view … only to the hard of hearing one … while obscuring the view … with respect to remaining ones”.
Then applicant argued that “the cited combination of Stoker and Ghulman does not teach or suggest these limitations.” The combination consisting of only Stoker and Ghulman was never applied to reject the above limitations. Anyway, the argument is moot in view of the new rejection.
Applicant’s arguments regarding inherency are also moot since the above rejection does not rely on inherency for any portion of the claimed limitations.
Applicant argues that “Ghulman does not disclose a communicative conference, does not disclose a live audio interpreter joining or being invoked into a conference through a companion window, does not disclose selection of a live interpreter from available live interpreters at the time of invocation of a companion window, and does not disclose differential routing of conference audio, transcription, and live interpreter video among hard of hearing and non-hard of hearing conference participants.”. In response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant is advised that some of the claimed limitations are extremely obvious. For example, not sending audio to the hearing-impaired (e.g., deaf) user and not sending the view of the sign language interpreter to “others” who are not hearing impaired. It is an obvious issue of need vs do not need. For example, “others” do not need to see/view the sign language interpreter as it may only unnecessarily distract them and the hearing-impaired person who is receiving text and sign language interpretation does not need the audio which may annoy others who are in the same area such as office space.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMAD F. MATAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7488. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5:30.
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.
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.
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693
