Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. It would be of great assistance to the office if all incoming papers pertaining to a filed application carried the following items:
i. Application number (checked for accuracy, including series code and serial no.).
ii. Group art unit number (copied from most recent Office communication).
iii. Filing date.
iv. Name of the examiner who prepared the most recent Office action.
v. Title of invention.
vi. Confirmation number (See MPEP § 503).
3. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action 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, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference 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 disclosed by the Examiner.
4. Claim interpretation: When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations doesn’t have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Double Patenting
5. The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 non-provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
a. Claims 1-20 of instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of application No. 17/227235 (US Pat No. 12131586). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because both the claims of the instant application and the claims of the co-pending application are almost the same in scope. Omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
b. Parent application also includes additional limitations. As a result, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentable distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, “a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentable distinct from, an earlier claim”, In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, “Thus, the generic invention is ‘anticipated’ by the species of the patented invention” and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
c. An omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re KARLSON(CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
d. See the tabulation below for the claims analysis.
Claims are not identical, however, the scope of the invention are the same.
Instant Application (18/902456)
Application (17/227235)
Claim 1:
A system, comprising: one or more computer readable medias configured to store instructions; and one or more processing systems coupled to the one or more computer readable medias, the one or more processing systems configured to execute the instructions to cause or direct the system to perform operations, the operations comprising: obtain a video stream that includes sign language content; and
translate the sign language content into word content using one or more content indicators from the video stream, the one or more content indicators including a size and/or a speed of a motion pattern that is used to make a sign in the video stream that represents a phrase of the word content, an interpretation of the motion pattern as representing the phrase not being affected by the size and/or the speed of the motion pattern.
Claim 1:
A communication system, comprising: a communication device configured to perform at least one of: capture a video stream, display a video stream, receive a text input, display a text output, receive an audio input, and display an audio output;
and a translation engine in operable communication with the communication device, the translation engine configured to generate a translation of sign language content contained in a video stream into word content,
wherein during the generation, the translation engine is configured to determine word content that corresponds to sign language content in at least one sign language content segment of a video stream using contextual data from one or more words previously determined by the translation engine from one or more previous sign language content segments of the video stream
and using one or more content indicators from the at least one sign language content segment, the one or more content indicators including a size and/or speed of a motion pattern that is used to make a sign in the sign language content segment that represents a word, an interpretation of the motion pattern as representing the word not being affected by the size and/or speed of the motion pattern.
e. All other independent, dependent and conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because both the claims of the instant application and the claims of the parent application are almost the same in scope.
Claim Rejection- 35 USC § 101
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1 set forth a “computer readable medias”. However, the specification as originally filed does not explicitly define the computer readable media. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable media (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is absent an explicit definition or is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
Claim Rejection- 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (Pub No. 2019/0171716) and further in view of Maxwell (Pub No. 2019/0130176).
Regarding claim 1, Weber discloses a system, comprising: one or more computer readable medias configured to store instructions; and one or more processing systems coupled to the one or more computer readable medias, the one or more processing systems configured to execute the instructions to cause or direct the system to perform operations, the operations comprising: obtain a video stream that includes sign language content (Fig. 4 & 6 & Para. 30 & 35-37: Sign language capture component-404 & Sign language video conference system-100. Sign language display conference); and translate the sign language content into word content using one or more content indicators from the video stream (Fig. 6: Capture video of the expressed signa language and automatically translate sign language into text message) & (Para. 25: content indicators[Wingdings font/0xE0] hand, body motion and facial expression).
Weber does not explicitly disclose the one or more content indicators including a size and/or a speed of a motion pattern that is used to make a sign in the video stream that represents a phrase of the word content, an interpretation of the motion pattern as representing the phrase not being affected by the size or the speed of the motion pattern.
In a similar field of endeavor, Maxwell discloses the one or more content indicators including a size that is used to make a sign in the video stream that represents a phrase of the word content (Para. 62 & Para. 59: size of the data & Para. 56: Video stream received by the VRS) & (Para. 4), an interpretation of the motion pattern as representing the phrase not being affected by the size (Para. 24: translate the sign language data into the spoken language of the hearing-capable user. The artificial intelligence engine then communicates the translated data –‘voice and text’ to the hearing-capable user during the call) (Note: During translation, any size of sign language data is translated to phrase-voice/ text) & (Para. 25 & 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the sign language translation using artificial intelligence of Maxwell’s disclosure with the sign language processing system, as taught by Weber. Doing so would have resulted in effectively translating sign language from larger video steam while multiple people on a video call using sign language.
Regarding claim 2 & 12, Weber does not explicitly discloses one or more content indicators comprises the size of the motion pattern and the speed of the motion pattern.
Maxwell discloses the one or more content indicators comprises the size of the motion pattern and the speed of the motion pattern (Para. 62 & Para. 59: size of the data & Speed & Para. 56: Video stream received by the VRS) & (Para. 4 & 53 & 47: converting the sign language motions from each video file of the AI translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the motion recognition to translate sign language to text for user convenience.
Regarding claim 3 & 13, Weber discloses the one or more content indicators further include one or more of: a head position, a head motion, a face position, a face motion, a body position, and a body motion (Para. 44 & 25: hand shapes and motions, body motions, and facial expressions) & (Fig. 5-6: video conference).
Regarding claim 4 & 14, Weber discloses the motion pattern is formed by a hand and/or arm of a person performing the sign language content (Para. 25 & Fig. 5-6: video conference).
Regarding claim 5 & 15, Weber discloses the operations further comprise direct the word content to a communication device for presentation by the communication device (Para. 25 & Fig. 6: Capture video of the expressed signa language and translate sign language into text message).
Regarding claim 6 & 16, Weber discloses the video stream is obtained from a second communication device that is participating in a communication session with the communication device (Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 7 & 17, Weber is silent regarding the system is part of a video relay service.
Maxwell discloses the system is part of a video relay service (Para. 62: Video relay).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the video relay to convert the video signal for motion recognition to translate sign language to text for user convenience.
Regarding claim 8 & 18, Weber discloses the phrase includes one or more letters, one or more numbers, or one or more words (Para. 36: words -phrase).
Regarding claim 11, Claim 1 corresponds to claim 1 and is analyzed accordingly.
Regarding claim 20, Claim 1 corresponds to claim 1 and is analyzed accordingly.
Regarding claim 9 & 19, Weber discloses the operations further comprise: obtain second word content; translate the second word content into second sign language content; and direct the second sign language content to a communication device (Fig. 6 & Para. 36-37).
Regarding claim 10, Weber discloses the video stream is obtained from the communication device (Fig. 5-6 & Para. 36-37).
Another Prior Art
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Another prior art Johnson et al (US 2021/0358330) discloses a video stream depicting sign language gestures of an individual may be obtained. A textual translation of the sign language gestures in the video stream be determined. The sign language gestures identified based on an intensity of the sign language gestures. A display characteristics determined based on the emphasis information, and the textual translation of the sign language gestures.
Another prior art DHARMARAJAN (US 20170277684) discloses receiving images of first sign language gestures captured by a camera of a first communication device, converting the first sign language gestures into first text, transmitting the first text to a second communication device, receiving second text from the second communication device, and converting the second text into images of second sign language gestures made by an avatar. The method also include operating the camera to capture the images of the first sign language gestures and presenting the images of the second sign language gestures on a display of the first communication device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD K TALUKDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3222. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur from 10 am to 6 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached on 571-272-7867. 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.
/MD K TALUKDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights