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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 2/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 2 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “A computer or mobile assisted language learning method … integrating a finite state transducer, implemented by a computer that analyzes words in terms of morpheme and performs synthesis of the words analyzed in terms of morpheme, wherein morpheme rules of a morphologically rich language (MRL) are coded in the finite state transducer computer architecture such that the words are constructed by parts from a machine readable representation comprising a stem, a parts-of-speech tag and a label for a suffix attached to the stem to perform said synthesis of the words … the finite state transducer computer architecture”. There is no explicitly recitation in the original specification that the claimed method is being implemented by a computer or a computer architecture. The only recitation of “Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)” is the section of “BACKGROUND OF INVENTION”; wherein the specification is not clear on the implementation of a computer architecture to a FST. Furthermore, there is no structure of a computer in the original disclosure.
The original specification fails to provide support for “such that the words are constructed by parts from a machine readable representation comprising a stem, a parts-of-speech tag and a label for a suffix attached to the stem to perform said synthesis of the words …. generating multiple choice or short answer input type exercises automatically by using the word list and the finite state transducer computer architecture that includes said synthesized words in said exercises”. No paragraph in applicant’s specification states that multiple choice or short answer includes synthesize words.
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 – 2 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the finite state transducer computer architecture" in page. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase believed to be "the finite state transducer".
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 – 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention a statutory category of invention?
Claim 1 is directed to a method in morphology learning (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea?
The limitation of steps: compiling morphological structures used in language learning, and sorting and leveling the compiled morphological structures in accordance with language teaching, the sorting and leveling comprising: creating a word list containing word-stems and classes to be used in the exercises for a target language level, determining main words and clue words to be used in an interaction interface, integrating a finite state transducer, implemented by a computer, that analyzes words in terms of morpheme and performs synthesis of the words analyzed in terms of morpheme, wherein morpheme rules of a morphologically rich language (MRL) are coded in the finite state transducer computer architecture such that the words are constructed by parts from a machine readable representation comprising a stem, a parts-of-speech tag and a label for a suffix attached to the stem to perform said synthesis of the words, generating multiple choice or short answer input type exercises automatically by using the word list and the finite state transducer computer architecture that includes said synthesized words in said exercises, in which morphological structures will be presented to a learner gradually, by grouping them under different levels, first in single and then in different combinations, wherein said synthesized words include words that violate a rule of the MRL, and checking answers given by the learner automatically and giving feedback on the correctness of the answers as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. This type of mental process can be practically performed in the human mind, and is in fact performed in the human mind, for instance by a method may be readily performed by a human instructor. This akin to abstract idea of performing mental observations, evaluations, and judgements. Thus, the claim recites a mental process (Step 2A, Prong 1: yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Per the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, if a claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception, a claim is not "directed to" a judicial exception. Alternatively, a claim that does not integrate a recited judicial exception into a practical application is directed to the exception. Evaluating whether a claim integrates an abstract idea into a practical application is performed by a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea, and b) evaluating those additional elements individual and in combination to determine whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. Exemplary considerations indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have or has not been integrated into a practical application are set forth in the 2019 PEG.
With respect to the instant claims, claims 1 and 2 do not explicitly disclose any statutory product (STEP 2A, Prong 2: NO). There is no explicitly recitation in the original specification that the claimed method is being implemented by a computer or a computer architecture.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1 and 2 do not explicitly disclose or tied to any statutory product set forth above for Step 2A, Prong 2. There is no explicitly recitation in the original specification that the claimed method is being implemented by a computer or a computer architecture. The only recitation of “Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)” is the section of “BACKGROUND OF INVENTION”; wherein the specification is not clear on the implementation of a computer architecture to a FST. Furthermore, there is no structure of a computer in the original disclosure.
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.
Claims 1 – 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinkler et al. (US 2013/0149681 A1) in view of Jenkins et al. (US 2007/0298383 A1) and Karttunen et al. (US 20020091512 A1).
Re claim 1:
1. Tinkler teaches [A] computer or mobile assisted language learning method in which a morphology learning of morphologically rich languages is performed via gamification (Tinkler, Abstract; [0046], “a suffix”, “a prefix”; [0077] – [0078]; [0206]), comprising:
compiling morphological structures used in language learning (Tinkler, Abstract; [0002], “an adaptive learning system”; [0077] – [0078]), and
sorting and leveling the compiled morphological structures in accordance with language teaching (Tinkler, fig. 2; [0034], “the words may be ranked by difficulty, and, for a selected difficulty level, the system may automatically select”), the sorting and leveling comprising:
creating a word list containing word-stems and classes to be used in the exercises for a target language level (Tinkler, [0128], “The Active Learning List may indicate whether the user correctly answered a question about the designated word, and is making progress on learning the word”; [0129], “a question is incorrectly answered by a user, it is placed on the user's Active Learning List”; [0138]; [0188]),
determining main words and clue words to be used in an interaction interface (Tinkler, [0077]; [0046], “For example, the base word may be obtained merely by removing the suffix or by removing the suffix and adding a letter”; base word – main word, prefix/suffix – clue words),
generating multiple choice or short answer input type exercises (Tinkler, fig. 2, “multiple choice answers for generated question”; [0067]) automatically by using the word list and the finite state transducer computer architecture that includes said synthesized words in said exercises (Tinkler, [0220], “local processing is performed using locally stored word lists and word families, the client terminal 702 may be periodically updated with information from a central server to include the most recent version of such information. Such information may stored locally in, for example, in a finite state transducer data structure”), in which morphological structures will be presented to a learner gradually, by grouping them under different levels (Tinkler, [0077], “a correct word that has been modified from a version in the electronic dictionary by inclusion of a suffix (and/or prefix)”; [0034], “the words may be ranked by difficulty, and, for a selected difficulty level”; [0114], “presented sentences (for fill-in sentences, synonym hint sentences, and definition hint sentences) or designated words may be ranked by difficulty and by ability to discriminate between different skill levels of test takers”), wherein said synthesized words include words that violate a rule of the MRL (Tinkler, [0087], “the system and method may determine direct antonyms to the designated word and provide these antonyms as wrong answer choices in step 263. The system and method may use a lexical database(s) to query a corpus of words to determine word/sense pairs that are antonyms of the designated word, and may provide one or more of these antonyms as wrong answer choices”; [0097], “The system and method may exclude all of the remaining results of the query indicated to be an antonym of the designated word or being an antonym of a word having a very close meaning to that of the designated word/sense pair from the set of wrong answer choice”), and
checking answers given by the learner automatically and giving feedback on the correctness of the answers (Tinkler, [0067], “the correct answer … number of wrong answers”; [0210], “The system may determine that a user is considered to have trouble with a word if the user incorrectly answers a question regarding the word (e.g., and prior to the system later determining the user has mastered the word)”; [0163], “Any incorrectly answered progress, assessment, or mastery review questions may be designated as review questions in step 322”).
Tinkler does not explicitly disclose integrating a finite state transducer, implemented by a computer, that analyzes words in terms of morpheme and performs synthesis of the words analyzed in terms of morpheme, wherein morpheme rules of a morphologically rich language (MRL) are coded in the finite state transducer computer architecture such that the words are constructed by parts from a machine readable representation comprising a stem, a parts-of-speech tag and a label for a suffix attached to the stem to perform said synthesis of the words.
Karttunen et al. (US 20020091512 A1) teaches an invention relates generally to finite-state language processing, and more particularly, to a method and apparatus for constructing finite-state networks (Karttunen, Abstract). Karttunen teaches a integrating a finite state transducer, implemented by a computer architecture that analyzes words in terms of morpheme and performs synthesis of the words analyzed in terms of morpheme, wherein morpheme rules of a morphologically rich language (MRL) are coded in the finite state transducer computer architecture such that the words are constructed by parts from a machine readable representation comprising a stem, a parts-of-speech tag and a label for a suffix attached to the stem to perform said synthesis of the words (Karttunen, Abstract, “finite-state network”; [0002]; [0030] – [0031], “morphotactic processes with techniques involving finite-state networks”; [0056], “Examples of conventional lexicon FSN application routines include a morphological analyzer that maps from the surface form to the lexical form and a morphological generator that maps from the lexical form to the surface form”; [0017], “A word constructed in this way can typically be analyzed as a basic stem, possibly preceded by one or more prefixes and followed by one or more suffixes. The English word "nonconfrontationally", for example, can be analyzed as the stem "confront" preceded by the prefix "non" and followed by the suffixes "ation", "al", and "ly". Prefixes, stems and suffixes are morphemes. A morpheme is the minimal meaning-bearing component of a word”; [0027]). In view of Karttunen, 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 method described in Tinkler, by providing morpheme rule and FST as taught by Karttunen, since a word constructed in this way can typically be analyzed as a basic stem, possibly preceded by one or more prefixes and followed by one or more suffixes (Karttunen, [0017]). An FSN that can be used for recognizing word forms. In contrast, a finite-state transducer is an FSN that can be used for the generation or analysis of word forms (Karttunen, [0007]).
Tinkler does not explicitly disclose which morphological structures will be presented to a learner gradually, by grouping them under different levels, first in single and then in different combinations,
Jenkins et al. (US 2007/0298383 A1) teaches system and method for developing cognitive skills in a student, utilizing a computing device to present stimuli and to record responses (Jenkins, Abstract). Jenkins teaches which morphological structures will be presented to a learner gradually, by grouping them under different levels, first in single and then in different combinations (Jenkins, [0094], “As students progress, they move from more familiar terms (e.g., 4th and 5th grade level words of one to two syllables) to more challenging”). Therefore, in view of Jenkins, 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 method described in Tinkler, by providing word structures as taught by Jenkins, since it was known in the art to increase difficulty of the instructions (increase number of syllables) as the learner progresses.
Re claim 2:
2. The method according to claim 1 in which the morphology learning of morphologically rich languages is performed via gamification, wherein the exercises and feedback are presented in a gamified environment in which the learner follows progress (Tinkler, [0077], “a correct word that has been modified from a version in the electronic dictionary by inclusion of a suffix (and/or prefix)”; [0034], “the words may be ranked by difficulty, and, for a selected difficulty level”; [0114], “presented sentences (for fill-in sentences, synonym hint sentences, and definition hint sentences) or designated words may be ranked by difficulty and by ability to discriminate between different skill levels of test takers”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that
For convenient reference, citations to the Specification herein are made with respect to the publication of the present application, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0420586 (hereinafter "Specification"). Support for the amendments to claim I can be found in the Specification at least at, for example, paras. 0035-0039.
The amendments to claim 1 includes limitations: “wherein said synthesized words include words that violate a rule of the MRL”. However, the Office is unable to locate descriptions on synthesized words include words that violate a rule of the MRL in paras. 0035-0039. Further explanation and clarifications for limitation “violate a rule of the MRL” are required.
Applicant argues that
For convenient reference, citations to the Specification herein are made with respect to the publication of the present application, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0420586 (hereinafter "Specification"). Support for the amendments to claim I can be found in the Specification at least at, for example, paras. 0035-0039.
The amendments to claim 1 includes limitations: “wherein said synthesized words include words that violate a rule of the MRL”. However, the Office is unable to locate descriptions on synthesized words include words that violate a rule of the MRL in paras. 0035-0039. Further explanation and clarifications are required.
Applicant argues that
As discussed in the Applicant's Amendment filed on May 9, 2025, "the fundamental factual inquiry [for determining compliance with the written description requirement] is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed." MPEP §2163.02 (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-1564 (Fed. Cir. 1991)) (emphasis added). Here, the background section provides that it "is necessary to determine different strategies in the teaching of MRLs and Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) and Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) applications developed for MRLs." Specification, para. 0008 (as noted above, references herein are made with respect to the publication of the present application, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0420586). The Specification also discusses problems with current applications, the automatic generation of exercises, discloses the display of words in an application interface and use of a program interface in embodiments of the invention, employs a machine readable representation of a word, clearly indicating that the inventor was aware that the claimed method could be implemented with a computer. See Specification, paras. 0009-0010, 0034, 0036 and 0040. Contrary to the assertions posed in the Office Action, the automatic generation of exercises, the display of words in an application interface and use of a machine readable representation and codes are clearly directed to a computer. Thus, the Applicant respectfully submits that the Specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the inventor knew that a computer could be employed as claimed.
Whether a specification complies with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is a question of fact. Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). The fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, an applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563-64.
The purpose of the written description requirement is to convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The possession test alone, however, is not always sufficient to meet the written description requirement. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Rather, “the written description requirement is satisfied by the patentee’s disclosure of ‘such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.’” Id. (quoting Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Applicant points to various portions of the Specification as providing support for the subject recitations in claims 1 - 2. Specifically, para. [0008] – [0010] are description of some related prior arts which cannot be constituted as support to the new matter recited in the claims. There is no indication in applicant’s specification on applying these prior arts to the claimed inventions. The original specification does not include Para. [0034], [0036] and [0040], since there is total 27 paragraphs in the specification.
In para. [0018], applicant states “This analysis is a kind of machine readable representation of the word's stem … These codes are not displayed in the program interface, they are only used during implementation at background”. “Machine readable representation” is not a support for a computer structure through inherency. For example, a picture is a “machine readable representation”; however, it is not inherent that a camera is required to take said picture. Furthermore, “program interface” is not a structural element, it’s an algorithm, a concept or a piece of paper; there is not explanation in applicant’s specification as to the “program interface”. A “program interface” is a display interface (i.e., an output device) at best, there is nothing that requires “a computer or mobile” and “integrating a finite state transducer, implemented by a computer architecture” to be implemented by a computer structure / program. The Specification does not convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that Applicant was in possession of the invention as set forth in claims 1 - 2, including a computer or mobile. The mere fact that similar vague language (“program interface”, “MRLs and Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) and Mobile Assisted Language Leaming (MALL) applications developed for MRLs”) appears in the Specification is not sufficient. “Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.” Enzo, 323 F.3d at 968.
Applicant argues:
In particular, for the reasons discussed above, the Specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the inventor knew that a computer could be employed as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the Specification's description of computer assisted language learning together with automatic generation of exercises, the display of words in an application interface and use of a machine readable representation as meaning that the inventors were using pen and paper to perform the method and did not know of the existence of a computer or that it could be employed to implement the claimed method. The Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner apply the correct standard and withdraw the rejection.
Claim 1 requires “A computer or mobile assisted language learning method in which a morphology learning of morphologically rich languages is performed via gamification, comprising…” which require every claimed step to be implemented by said computer. Applicant’s specification has not met the standard set forth in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph such that subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant argues:
In particular, for the reasons discussed above, the Specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the inventor knew that a computer could be employed as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the Specification's description of computer assisted language learning together with automatic generation of exercises, the display of words in an application interface and use of a machine readable representation as meaning that the inventors were using pen and paper to perform the method and did not know of the existence of a computer or that it could be employed to implement the claimed method. The Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner apply the correct standard and withdraw the rejection.
Claim 1 requires “A computer or mobile assisted language learning method in which a morphology learning of morphologically rich languages is performed via gamification, comprising…” which require every claimed step to be implemented by said computer. Applicant’s specification has not met the standard set forth in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph such that subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant argues:
As noted in paragraphs 0035-0039, the finite state transducer synthesizes words in terms of morpheme, automatically generates exercises including multiple choice answers that are automatically created (i.e., synthesized)
The examiner submits that 1) there is no explicitly support for the limitation: finite state transducer computer architecture (See 112 (a) above) and the implementation of a computer architecture of a FST is not clearly described. A “Finite state transducer” (FST) or “finite state machine” is a well-known mathematical concept. A finite-state machine (FSM) is an abstract machine that can be in exactly one of a finite number of states at any given time. The FSM can change from one state to another in response to some inputs; the change from one state to another is called a transition. An FSM is defined by a list of its states, its initial state, and the inputs that trigger each transition.
Applicant argues:
the Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, but merely involve an abstract idea. In particular, claim I is directed to a computer or mobile assisted language learning method employing a finite state transducer computer architecture. While the Applicant acknowledges that a claim cannot preempt an abstract idea (see, e.g. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 86-87 (2012)), the claim does not constitute a preemption that monopolizes all applications of applying the claimed concepts. Rather, claim I is specifically limited and uniquely configured for a computer or mobile assisted language learning method employing a finite state transducer computer architecture.
This argument is not persuasive because preemption is not a standalone test for determining eligibility ... rather questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework of the Alice/Mayo test Steps 2A and 2B (See MPEP 2106.04, I. Judicial Exception). The instant claims, when analyzed in light of the framework of the Alice/Mayo test, were found to be directed to an abstract idea without any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Furthermore, the claims recite use of a mental process of compiling morphological structures, sorting and leveling the compiled morphological structures and integrating a finite state transducer without being implemented by any computer structures, the claims would preempt any and all the mental process applying these steps.
Applicant argues:
The Specification discusses the automatic generation of exercises and discloses the display of words in an application interface in embodiments of the application. The display of words in an application interface or use of a program interface cannot be done mentally. Thus, claim 1 is not directed to a mental process.
The examiner questions the alleged improvement to the function of a computer; wherein a computer is not even clearly described in the specifications and there is no indication that MRL is computer-implemented method. At best, MRL (or FST) is a method of decoding and parsing vocabulary into basic structures (stem, suffix … etc.) based on some morpheme rule.
Furthermore, “program interface” is not a structural element, it’s an algorithm, a concept or a piece of paper; there is no explanation in applicant’s specification as to the “program interface”. At best, a “program interface” is a display interface (i.e., an output device). Even with generous interpretation of “program interface” being a computer interface, the program interface merely constitutes extra-solution activity and add only generic computing elements for displaying/not display some codec. The claimed structures are recited at a high level of generality and do not place any meaningful limitations on the abstract idea, and thus, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There is nothing that requires “language learning method” to be implemented by a computer structure / program.
Applicant argues:
the Office Action asserts that the claimed operations can be performed by an English teacher and that the claim is effectively directed to a mental process because the use of a computer is not supported by the Specification. See Office Action, p. 13, para. I top. 14, para. 3. The Applicant respectfully submits that the method of claim 1 is not the way an English teacher compiles exercises, but is specifically directed to the use of machine-readable code.
The examiner submits at machine readable code can be read by any competent human such as a math teacher. For example, the machine code in Applicant’s para. [0036]: "When the input word "okullanmLz" ("our schools") is given to such a morphological analyzer, the analysis "okul(school)+Noun+A3pl+Plpl+Nom" can be read by a human being.
Applicant argues:
As specifically set forth in the MPEP, "[a] claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field." MPEP §2106.04(d)(l) (emphasis added).
Since there is no explicit support for a computer, a mobile and a finite state transducer, implemented by a computer architecture, hence, there is no improvement to the non-existing and/or non-supported computer technology / field. Claim 1 recites mental processes, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea are no more than generic computer components used as tools (even if such computer structure supported) to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues:
example 48 of the USPTO the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (hereinafter 'SMEE') is directed to eligible subject matter because it constituted an improvement to existing speech separation methods, where it solved the problem of separating speech from different speech sources belonging to the same class by converting clusters into separate speech waveforms and generating a mixed speech signal from the separate speech waveforms. See SMEE, p. 24, para. 4. Further, the conversion of clusters into separate speech waveforms and generating the mixed speech signal were not insignificant extra-solution activity because they reflect the improvement. Similarly, the present application solves the problem of exiting computer assisted language learning platforms failing to adequately convey and incorporate morphological characteristics of morphologically rich languages (MRLs)1 because they have originally been developed for English and do not capture the complexity oflanguage structures of MRLs.
The claim in example 48 reflects the improvement discussed in the disclosure by reciting details of how the DNN aids in the cluster assignments to correspond to the sources identified in the mixed speech signal, which are then synthesized into separate speech waveforms in the time domain and converted into a mixed speech signal, excluding audio from the undesired source. See MPEP 2106.05(a). While on their own steps (b)-(e) recite judicial exceptions, steps (f) and (g) are directed to creating a new speech signal that no longer contains extraneous speech signals from unwanted sources. The claimed invention reflects this technical improvement by including these features. Further, converting clusters into separate speech waveforms and generating a mixed speech signal from the separate speech waveforms are not insignificant extra-solution activity, mere instructions to apply the exception, or mere field of use limitations. Rather, these steps reflect the improvement described in the disclosure. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an improvement to existing computer technology or to the technology of speech separation, and the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the claim of the instant application doesn’t identify a technical problem; nor require / supported by any computer structures. This problem is not inherently technical, nor require a lot of computational resources. A human teacher has been known to compiling morphological structures used in language learning, using FSM to analyze words and generating multiple choice or short answer input type exercises. The problem identified by the Applicant, i.e., " computer assisted language learning" is not technological problem or a problem rooted in technology arising out of computer, but rather a problem that existed prior to the computers. Moreover, and as discussed above, the solution identified by Applicant pertains to an improvement to a process that is the abstract idea itself, which cannot supply the inventive concept. See BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1286; see also id. at 1290 ("It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention's use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention 'significantly more' than that ineligible concept.").
Applicant argues:
the Specification does support computer implementation of teaching an MRL and is directed to problems associated with using computers to teach MRLs. Furthermore, when English teachers formulate words, they do so from memory. They do not construct distractor words by referencing parts comprising a stem, a parts-of-speech tag and a label for a suffix attached to the stem or using a machine readable representation comprising a stem, a parts-of-speech tag and a label for a suffix attached to the stem.
These arguments contradict with applicant’s own specification in para. [0008] – [0009] stating that: “Because of all these features, it is necessary to determine different strategies in the teaching of MRLs and Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) and Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) applications developed for MRLs … It has been observed that some of these applications used in the art only contain exercises for word or sentence repetition (memorization, remembering), while some of them offer their users grammar exercises (not having enough variety) that were previously prepared manually by human. It is seen that the exercise types provided in these applications cannot go beyond the exercise types developed for English.”
Applicant argues:
the MPEP also explicitly states that a combination of additional elements can constitute an integration into a practical application if they are an improvement in a technical field. MPEP §2106.04(d)(I). Here, the combination of the computer and the novel method that synthesizes, based on morpheme rules of an MRL, distractor words by parts comprising a stem, a parts-of-speech tag and a label for a suffix attached to the stem is an improvement in the technical field because it better conveys morphological characteristics of MRLs in exercises of computer-assisted language learning platforms … The particular method of using machine readable code to construct distractor words by parts comprising a stem, a parts-of-speech tag and a label for a suffix attached to the stem in the manner claimed is specifically directed to the way computer assisted language learning platforms construct exercises. Moreover, as discussed above, the claimed method provides an improvement in the technical field because it better conveys and teaches morphological characteristics of MRLs in exercises of computer-assisted language learning platforms … See MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). In particular, the MPEP notes that, to determine whether a claim is patent-eligible under step 2B, "examiners should consider whether the claim 'purport(s) to improve' .... "any other technology or technical field."'
Even assume that the computer and statutory machine is explicitly recited in the claim(s) and properly supported in Applicant’s specifications (this is not the case, see argument above). Generating synthesized words using a stem, a parts-of-speech tag and a label for a suffix in the analog by teachers and instructors for decades. The difference here, is that the Applicant is merely applying an abstract idea to a modern convenience consisting of a routine and conventional computing device, while providing no advancement in computer technology.
Second, applicant admitted in Applicant’s own specification, para. [0008] – [0009] stating that: “Because of all these features, it is necessary to determine different strategies in the teaching of MRLs and Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) and Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) applications developed for MRLs … It has been observed that some of these applications used in the art only contain exercises for word or sentence repetition (memorization, remembering), while some of them offer their users grammar exercises (not having enough variety) that were previously prepared manually by human. It is seen that the exercise types provided in these applications cannot go beyond the exercise types developed for English.”
Applicant argues:
However, while Karttunen employs a finite state network (see, e.g., Karttunen, para. 0031), the reference does not disclose or render obvious a finite state transducer and the use of parts comprising a stem, a parts-of-speech tag and a label for a suffix to synthesize words that violate a rule of the MRL, i.e. distractor words. Furthermore, the Applicant respectfully submits that Jenkins fails to cure the deficiencies of Tinkler and Karttunen.
The examiner submits that the phrase is “wherein said synthesized words include words that violate a rule of the MRL” is not clearly supported by the cited paragraphs in applicant’s specification. The Office will apply broadest reasonable interpretation of the “violate a rule of the MRL” to be generating a synthesized words that is wrong choices in a multiple-choice question. Tinkler teaches the limitations: wherein said synthesized words include words that violate a rule of the MRL (Tinkler, [0087], “the system and method may determine direct antonyms to the designated word and provide these antonyms as wrong answer choices in step 263. The system and method may use a lexical database(s) to query a corpus of words to determine word/sense pairs that are antonyms of the designated word, and may provide one or more of these antonyms as wrong answer choices”; [0097], “The system and method may exclude all of the remaining results of the query indicated to be an antonym of the designated word or being an antonym of a word having a very close meaning to that of the designated word/sense pair from the set of wrong answer choice”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK YIP whose telephone number is (571)270-5048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/JACK YIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights