CTFR 18/701,638 CTFR 80129 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Non-final Office Action from 12/22/2025, Applicant has filed an amendment on 2/26/2026. In this reply, the markup of the amended claims indicates the amendment of a number of words beginning limitations by replacing those words with the same word. In other words, although an amendment is indicated these "amendments" do not amount to a change in the claim language. In addition, independent claims 1, 9, and 10 were further amended to further recite that a context symbol is "information indicating a contextual usage of a word." Applicant has also argued that the prior art of record fails to teach the amended claim language (Remarks, Pages 8-9) . These arguments have been fully considered, however, are not found to be persuasive for the reasons noted in the below Response to Arguments section. Applicant submits that the title of the invention has been amended in accordance with the suggestion in the Non-final Office Action (Remarks, Page 7). In response to the more specific title of the invention in the instant amendment, the objection directed towards a non-descriptive title has been withdrawn. Applicant argues that the amendments to claims 4, 6, and 7 resolve the indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (Remarks, Pages 7-8) . In response to the correction of the antecedent basis issues in these claims, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is now moot and has been withdrawn. Response to Arguments With respect to independent claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art of record, Liu, et al. (U.S. Patent: 11,682,400) fails to teach the narrowed limitation of a context symbol being "information indicating a contextual usage of a word." In particular, Applicant generally alleges that Liu's labeling of audio data with entity types, entity values, and intents are not context symbols indicating a contextual usage of a word (Remarks, Page 9) . In response, it is first pointed out that the Applicant's remarks do not explain why it is believed that the labeling of intent along with entity types and values do not constitute "information indicating a contextual usage of a word." Despite not using the exact language recited in claim 1, Liu teaches an audio data training set comprising spoken words. These words are annotated with specific types of contextual usage of words in the form of intent/meaning of a statement. For example, a particular word/phrase meaning of being used as a song in the audio data or a particular word/phrase being used as the name of an artist. The domain labels also convey meaning that audio training data is used in a music application or used to control smart home devices. Such discussions can be found in Col. 17, Lines 45-67 and Col. 18, Lines 45-67 of Liu. Thus, the inserted annotation symbols (e.g., <song>, <Music>, <device>, etc.) constitute contextual information explaining how the words are being used in context such as "The Beatles" referring to a musical artist rather than a collection of insects. For these reasons Applicant arguments are not found to be persuasive. The art rejections of the remaining independent and dependent claims have been traversed for reasons similar to Claim 1 (Remarks, Page 9) . In regards to such arguments, see the response directed towards claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 4, 6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu, et al. (U.S. Patent: 11,682,400) . With respect to Claim 1 , Liu discloses: An information processing system comprising: at least one memory that is configured to store instructions (memory storing processor executable instructions, Col. 24, Lines 1-20) ; and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to (one or more processors, Col. 24, Lines 1-20) : acquire first text data (obtaining "text inputs" to be input into text-to-speech (TTS) component to produce synthetic audio training inputs, Col. 17, Lines 35-44; Col. 21, Line 56- Col. 22, Line 2) ; generate first speech data corresponding to the first text data (text-to-speech component produces synthetic audio/speech training inputs, Col. 17, Lines 6-44; Col. 21, Line 56- Col. 22, Line 2) ; acquire a context symbol corresponding to a word included in the first text data, which is information indicating a contextual usage of a word (acquiring context-based tags/labels associated with the textual word "token data" including entity type or value and/or intent words pertaining to contextual usage of the words , Col. 17, Lines 45- Col. 18, Line 67; Col. 21, Lines 23-41) ; generate second text data by inserting the context symbol into the first text data (textual word "token data" is annotated with entity type or value and/or intent labels for training purposes to generate annotated training text, Col. 17, Lines 45- Col. 18, Line 67; Col. 21, Lines 23-41) ; and perform learning of a speech recognition unit that generates, from speech data, text data corresponding to the speech data, by using the first speech data and the second text data as inputs (synthetic speech audio input and the annotated text is used to train a speech understanding/recognition model that generates a transcription from input speech, Col. 16, Lines 16-45; Col. 17, Lines 6- Col. 18, Line 12; Col. 19, Lines 1-54) . With respect to Claim 2 , Liu further discloses: The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: store the word and the context symbol in association with each other (data comprising audio data associated with token data wherein the token data is associated with the entity/intent labels, Col. 5, Line 53- Col. 6, Line 41; Col. 9, Lines 5-22; Col. 18, Lines 45-67; Col. 24, Lines 1-20 (discussing data storage devices)) ; and acquire the context symbol corresponding to the word included in the first text data (acquiring context-based tags/labels associated with the textual word "token data" including entity type or value and/or intent, Col. 17, Lines 45- Col. 18, Line 67; Col. 21, Lines 23-41) . With respect to Claim 4 , Liu further discloses: The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire third text data (acquiring text data inputs for new domains, intents, and or entities that would constitute the claimed third text data, Col. 21, Line 42- Col. 22, Line 2) ; and store the word included in the third text data (registration of the new domain word token in to a database for future recognition, Col. 2, Lines 54-61; Col. 9, Lines 5-22; Col. 10, Lines 7-22; Col. 17, Lines 35-44; Col. 24, Lines 1-20 (discussing data storage devices)) . With respect to Claim 6 , Liu further discloses: The information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: store a context example corresponding to the word included in the first text data and the context symbol, in addition to the word included in the first text data and the context symbol (training data includes stored examples including the label/symbols corresponding to words, Col. 17, Line 45- Col. 18, Line 67) ; store a word included in a first context that is included in the third text data, as being associated with the context symbol corresponding to a similar context example where the first context is similar to the context example stored (new/third training examples that can be added can include or relate to different values for various labels in similar context where they would be associated with different context symbols- e.g., different value for the artist label or the song label (for example- Play song A by X or Play song B by Y where the context examples are similar, the tags for artist/song are similar, but the actual text (A vs. B, X vs. Y) differs, Col. 17, Line 45- Col. 18, Line 67) . Claim 9 is directed towards the method carried out by and recited in the functionality of system claim 1, and thus is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 10 is directed to an embodiment of the invention regarding a non-transitory recording medium storing a computer program for performing the functionality of system claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Liu teaches method implementation as a computer program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Col. 25, Line 61- Col. 26, Line 8) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, et al. in view of Aharoni, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2022/0255885 A1) . With respect to Claim 3 , Liu teaches the speech model training system utilizing text data annotated with labels and artificially generated speech using a TTS component, as applied to Claim 2. Liu does not teach that training words and its context symbol are presented to a user and at least one of the word and the context symbol are updated in response to an operation by the user that receives the presentation. Aharoni, however, discloses a GUI that display transcribed text corresponding to a speech sample and a corresponding contextual symbol/label that can be relabeled/updated based upon input from a developer/user (Paragraphs 0007, 0062, 0090, 0092, 0097, and 0101-0103; Fig. 3D) . Liu and Aharoni are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in speech understanding training systems. Thus, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the GUI for label presentation taught by Aharoni to the training system taught by Liu to provide a predictable result of allowing a developer an interface by which mislabled training data can be corrected (Aharoni, Paragraph 0097) . With respect to Claim 5 , Liu teaches the speech model training system utilizing text data annotated with labels and artificially generated speech using a TTS component in which words (i.e., third words) directed towards a new domain, intent, etc. are obtained and extracted for training, as applied to Claim 3. Similar to the rejection of claim 3, Liu fails to teach the presentation of training data to a user as set forth in claim 1, however, Aharoni discloses: extract the word included in the third text data; present the word extracted to a user (extracting training text and presenting said text on a GUI to a developer/user, Paragraph 0007, 0027-0028, 0062, 0076, 0090, 0092, 0097, and 0101-0103; Fig. 3D) ; and store the word extracted, in response to an operation by the user who receives presentation (the training instances including the third words are stored/updated/relabeled/corrected based upon developer/user GUI inputs, Paragraphs 0007, 0027-0028,0062, 0090, 0092, 0097, and 0101-0103; Fig. 3D) . Note that the teachings of Liu and Aharoni are combined for the reasons noted with respect to claim 3 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, et al. in view of Beaufays, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2022/0115000 A1) . With respect to Claim 7 , Liu teaches the speech model training system utilizing text data annotated with labels and artificially generated speech using a TTS component, as applied to Claim 2. Liu also teaches that: store an unregistered word, which is the word that is not stored and the context symbol corresponding to the unregistered word, in a case where the context symbol corresponding to the unregistered word is acquired (registration of the new domain word token in to a database for future recognition along with its label/annotation, Col. 2, Lines 54-61; Col. 9, Lines 5-22; Col. 10, Lines 7-22; Col. 17, Lines 35-44; Col. 24, Lines 1-20 (discussing data storage devices)) . Liu does not clearly/necessarily teach that a context symbol can be acquired from a different path, however, Beaufays discloses that a context symbol/label can be obtained from a user-entered annotation (e.g., an existent semantic label) or software (i.e., different processing paths) (Paragraphs 0047, 0059 and 0075-0076) . Liu and Beufays are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in speech understanding training systems. Thus, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add different labeling options taught by Beufays to the training system utilizing labels/annotations as taught by Liu to provide the predictable result of different options for obtaining annotations in either a manual or automated fashion . Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Tomar, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2019/0108832 A1)- teaches speech recognition training that includes pronunciation mapping to a semantic representation (Paragraph 0040). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S WOZNIAK whose telephone number is (571)272-7632. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3, off alternate Fridays. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may 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, Andrew Flanders can be reached at (571)272-7516. 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. JAMES S. WOZNIAK Primary Examiner Art Unit 2655 /JAMES S WOZNIAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/701,638 Page 2 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/701,638 Page 4 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/701,638 Page 5 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/701,638 Page 6 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/701,638 Page 7 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/701,638 Page 8 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/701,638 Page 9 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/701,638 Page 10 Art Unit: 2655 Application/Control Number: 18/701,638 Page 11 Art Unit: 2655
Prosecution Insights