DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s RCE submission filed on 4/22/2026. Claims 1, 6, 11, 14 were amended, while claims 2 and 7 had been canceled in the previous Office Action. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-19 are pending in the application of which Claims 1, and 11 are independent and have been examined.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the RCE submission on 9/4/2025 (herein “Amendment”) with respect to the claim objection on the various claims raised in the previous office action are acknowledged. The previous claim objections are withdrawn in view of amendment.
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Amendment with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Consequently, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in the Amendment with respect to the 35 USC §101 rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-19 raised in the previous office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. Consequently, 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Amendment with respect to the 35 USC §103 rejection raised in the previous office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. Consequently, 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Listed claims are objected to for the informalities shown and may be addressed with suggested amendments:
Claims 1, 6, and 11 have recitation of “frame”. It is recommended to reword each incident of “frame” to recite “sliding window”.
Claim 11 recites:” … determining which of the arrangements of the lexical elements in the …”. It is recommended to change it to … determining which arrangements of the lexical elements in the …
Applicant is advised to review all claims for any potential claim objection issues.
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 1, 6, 11, 14, 17, 18 and 19 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.
Claims 1, and 11 recites:” … wherein the grammar patterns of the natural language are true/false …”, which appears to be indefinite since it is not clear which grammar patterns of the natural language it is referring to.
Claim 6 recites: “… to identify the frame-by-frame determined correct...”, which appears to be indefinite since it is not clear which frame-by-frame it is referring to.
Claim 14 recites:” … as character strings - including the identified, remaining …”, which appears to be indefinite since it is not clear which identified it is referring to.
Claim 17 recites:” … automatically inserting commas in the case of blank characters of the character string until the modified character string is recognized as correct.”, which appears to be indefinite since it is not clear which case of blank or modified character string it is referring to.
Claim 18 recites:” … respect to its input and the resulting actions in which these …”, which appears to be indefinite since it is not clear which resulting actions it is referring to.
Claim 19 recites:” … wherein on the basis of formal specifications for texts, such as comprehensibility of the sentence structure (subject, predicate, object sequence) or formal logical coherence, but not exclusively, evaluations of the formal structure with respect to length ...”, which appears to be indefinite since it is not clear which basis of formal specifications or formal structure it is referring to.
Applicant is advised to review all claims for any potential antecedent basis issues.
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:
Claim 1:
reading module, dictionary module, syntax module, verification module, correction and completion module.
Claim 6:
verification module
Claim 8:
verification module
Claim 9:
dictionary module
Claim 10:
correction module
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Appleby (US20020059056A1) teaches in Par. 0079:” … a rule database 210 comprising a plurality of rules 210a, 210b . . . 210n each specifying a rule of syntax structure of the target language and associated with a particular syntactic category. For example, the rule for a noun phrase will specify that it must comprise a noun and the associated article, whereas that for a verb phrase specifies that it must include a verb and its associated complement(s), and may include a subject, with which the form of the verb must agree, and which may (together with the object of the verb) be one of several different syntactic categories (e.g. a noun, a noun phrase, a pronoun and so on).”
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in 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 disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIOUSH AGAHI whose telephone number is (408)918-7689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. 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.
DARIOUSH AGAHI, P.E.
Primary Examiner
/DARIOUSH AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights