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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7 and 15 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.
The term “in real time” in claims 7 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in real time” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, while the term is commonly interpreted as “very quickly” or “near instantaneous”, there is no defined or agreed upon upper bound on the processing time required for a process to be considered as “in real time”. Without such an upper bound, it is impossible to know when a process transitions from “in real time” to “”not in real time”, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites the limitation "confirming via a graphic user interface of a visual display" In line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear what, exactly, is being confirmed. This ambiguity would be corrected if claim 18 were dependent on claim 17, much like claim 11 is dependent on claim 10 in the method claim tree.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite receiving an order in sign language, rendering it in text for display, confirming the order then fulfilling the order, all of which is a mental process that could be done by a person with pencil and paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because all of the additional elements in the claims are generic computing components performing generic computing functions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all of the additional elements in the claims are generic computing components performing generic computing functions.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the following limitations:
A - receiving an order, by one or more sensors, in a sign language format from a client;
B - translating the received order into a text based format, by a plurality of processes and a first decision;
C - displaying, on a visual display, the text based format to the client;
D - confirming the order by the client; and
E - responsive to confirming, fulfilling the order of the client.
Limitations A-E are directed to a mental process that could be performed by a person with pencil and paper.
The subject matter eligibility analysis is as follows:
Step 1 - Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
Step 2A, Prong 1 - Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? YES
Step 2A, Prong 2 - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception? NO
Therefore the claim is not drawn to eligible subject matter.
As per claims 2, 3 and 4, the claims disclose the following additional limitations:
F - the translating is performed by a translation device.
G - the translation device is a sign language engine.
H - the visual display is configured for use with a drive through environment.
Limitations F & G are directed to generic computer components performing generic computing functions (i.e. analogous to “performed by a computer” or “apply it”), and limitation H is an additional constraint on the mental process (a location for the person hearing the order and writing it on a piece of paper for display). Therefore, the subject matter eligibility analysis remains unchanged.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 13-20 cover both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) and embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claims 13-20, a “computer-readable medium” may be interpreted as a transitory signal, which is non-statutory subject matter, if not modified by a limitation rendering it non-transitory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jager et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0242541)
As per claim 1, Jager discloses:
A method of translation of sign language for customer use with a business comprising:
receiving an order, by one or more sensors, in a sign language format from a client (Figures 8F & 12 and Paragraphs [0078-0079] – a command is spelled out, which can be a command to generate audio);
translating the received order into a text based format, by a plurality of processes and a first decision (Figures 8F & 12 & 13, item 1304, and Paragraphs [0078-0079] & [0132-0134] – the gestures are converted to text);
displaying, on a visual display, the text based format to the client (Figures 8F & 12 & 13, item 1304, and Paragraphs [0078-0079] & [0132-0134] – the gestures are converted to text and displayed as the letters are spelled out);
confirming the order by the client (Figures 8F & 12 & 13, item 1306, and Paragraphs [0078-0079] & [0132-0134] – the auto-completion is confirmed by the user); and
responsive to confirming, fulfilling the order of the client (Figures 8F & 12 & 13, item 1310, and Paragraphs [0078-0079] & [0132-0134] – the confirmed command is initiated).
As per claim 2, Jager et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Jager et al. further discloses:
the translating is performed by a translation device (Figure 9, items 932 & 958 and Paragraphs [0078-0079] – the Eyewear device is a translation device).
As per claim 3, Jager et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Jager et al. further discloses:
the translation device is a sign language engine (Figure 9, items 932 & 958 and Paragraphs [0078-0079] – the Eyewear device is a translation device with a sign language to text engine).
As per claim 4, Jager et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Jager et al. further discloses:
the visual display is configured for use with a drive through environment (Figures 2B & 9 and paragraphs [0052-0053] & [0082-0085] – the display is a pair of eyeglass lens, so is reasonably configured for use in a drive through environment ).
Claims 5, 7, 13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Finklestein et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0232645).
As per claims 5 and 13, Finklestein et al. discloses:
A computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer (Figure 23, item 762 and paragraphs [0327-0328]) to carry out the steps of:
transcribing sign language gestures, using a sign language engine, to create a transcription (Paragraph [0083] – sign language signs are received by the voice listener via sensor and transcribed);
extracting a sentence from the transcription (Figure 4 and paragraph [0067]);
performing full-sentence natural language understanding on the sentence to identify that the sentence can be understood and generate an interpretation data structure (Paragraphs [0067-0070] & [0083] – The parser chooses and passes an intent template);
choosing the interpretation data structure (Paragraphs [0067-0070] & [0083] – The parser chooses and passes an intent template (i.e. interpretation data structure)); and
invoking a domain handler with the interpretation data structure (Figure 5 and Paragraphs [0085] & [0129] – the intent template (i.e. interpretation data structure) is passed to the intent handler (i.e. Domain Handler)).
Claim 5 is directed to the method of utilizing the computer readable medium of claim 13, so is rejected for similar reasons.
As per claims 7 and 15, Finklestein et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 5 and 13 above. Finklestein et al. further discloses:
the domain handler causes a user interface to change on a visual display in real-time (Paragraph [0163]).
As per claim 20, Finklestein et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Finklestein et al. further discloses:
updating, using the domain handler, a portion of a semantic state (Paragraphs [0190-0191] – the curfew time is a portion of the semantic state)
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 6, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finklestein et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0232645) in view of Rubin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0064132)
As per claims 6 and 14, Finklestein et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 5 and 13 above. Finklestein et al. further fails to disclose but Rubin et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches:
outputting, by the domain handler, a semantic state and displaying context-relevant information suggesting at least one gesture to sign, the suggestion depending on the semantic state (Figure 5 and Paragraph [0067] – the suggested options are generated from the context (i.e. Semantic state) and the various options are each associated with a specific gesture).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method and computer readable medium of Finklestein et al. with the content based, gesture linked suggestions of Rubin et al. because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As per claim 9, Finklestein et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 above. Finklestein et al. further fails to disclose but Rubin et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches:
updating, using the domain handler, a portion of a semantic state (Figure 5 and Paragraph [0067] – the suggested options are generated from the context (i.e. Semantic state) and the various options are each associated with a specific gesture. Since the context is based on what has been selected before, it is updated with each selection).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method and computer readable medium of Finklestein et al. with the content based, gesture linked suggestions of Rubin et al. because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 8, 10-12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finklestein et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0232645) in view of Jager et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0242541).
As per claims 8 and 16, Finklestein et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 7 and 15 above. Finklestein et al. further fails to disclose but Jager et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches:
the visual display is configured for use with a drive through environment (Figures 2B & 9 and paragraphs [0052-0053] & [0082-0085] – the display is a pair of eyeglass lens, so is reasonably configured for use in a drive through environment ).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method and computer readable medium of Finklestein et al. with the eyeglass configuration of Jager et al. because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As per claims 10 and 17, Finklestein et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 5 and 13 above. Finklestein et al. further fails to disclose but Jager et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches:
confirming an order by the client (Figures 8F & 12 & 13, item 1306, and Paragraphs [0078-0079] & [0132-0134] – the auto-completion is confirmed by the user);
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method and computer readable medium of Finklestein et al. with the order confirmation capabilities of Jager et al. because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As per claims 11 and 18, Finklestein et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 10 and 13 above. Finklestein et al. further fails to disclose but Jager et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches:
confirming via a graphic user interface of a visual display (Figures 8F & 12 & 13, item 1306, and Paragraphs [0078-0079] & [0132-0134] – the auto-completion is confirmed by the user);
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method and computer readable medium of Finklestein et al. with the order confirmation capabilities of Jager et al. because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As per claims 12 and 19, the combination of Finklestein et al. and Jager et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 11 and 18 above. Jager et al. in the combination further discloses:
responsive to confirming, fulfilling the order of the client (Figures 8F & 12 & 13, item 1310, and Paragraphs [0078-0079] & [0132-0134] – the confirmed command is initiated).
Examiner Notes
The Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully considers the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant and require written authorization. Should the Applicant wish to communicate via e-mail, including the following paragraph in their response will allow the Examiner to do so:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Should e-mail communication be desired, the Examiner can be reached at Edwin.Leland@USPTO.gov
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN S LELAND III whose telephone number is (571)270-5678. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at 571-272-6338. 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.
/EDWIN S LELAND III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654