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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The language of the claim raises a question as to whether the claim is directed merely to an abstract idea that is not tied to a technological art, environment or machine which would result in a practical application producing a concrete, useful, and tangible result to form the basis of statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18 recites computer-readable storage media comprising instructions stored in the memory that when executed by a processor cause a computing device to perform acts. Claim language does not comply with the requirements of MPEP 2106.01.I. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to computer-readable storage media covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer-readable storage media. Transitory signal does not fall within a statutory category since it is clearly not a series of steps or acts to constitute a process, not a mechanical device or combination of mechanical devices to constitute a machine, not a tangible physical article or object which is some form of matter to be a product and constitute a manufacture, and not a composition of two or more substances to constitute a composition of matter.
Note that a claim drawn to such a computer-readable storage media that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "A non-transitory" to the claim.
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 1-10, 12, 13 and 15-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the previous steps” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear whether the limitation refers to each previous step or not since the steps are not defined. Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Since claims 2-10, 19 and 20 are dependent claims, these claims are also rejected.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the revised prompt” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the differences” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 13.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claims 12 and 13.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the difference” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 2016/0005393 A1) in view of LEE et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN1951098B) further in view of Dai et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN117349674A).
Regarding claim 11, with respect to Figures 1-6, Patil teaches a system for improving modality translation by a model comprising:
one or more processors (abstract; fig.1; paragraph 0003);
memory coupled to the one or more processors (abstract; fig.1; paragraph 0003);
a server [i.e., forward generator] configured to convert [i.e., translate] a text prompt [i.e., prompt] in a text [i.e., first modality] to a synthesized speech data/voice prompt [i.e., an output] in a voice [i.e., second modality] (fig.2; paragraphs 0003, 0026, 0027); and
a wireless device 102 in fig.1 [i.e., backward generator] configured to transmit the text prompt in the text [i.e., first modality] (fig.1, step 140; paragraph 0019). and
However, Patil does not specifically teach a backward generator configured to translate the output to a translated prompt in the first modality. LEE teaches a PDA [i.e., backward generator] configured to translate the voice reminding [i.e., output] to a text prompt [i.e., translated prompt] in the text [i.e., first modality] (paragraph 0061). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patil to incorporate the feature of a backward generator configured to translate the output to a translated prompt in the first modality in PATIL ’s invention as taught by LEE. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide voice reminding in text format conveniently.
Furthermore, Patil teaches that the wireless device 102 outputs a voice prompt of the phrase “connected to device,” as compared to a voice prompt of the phrase “connected to John's phone.” (see paragraph 0025). Therefore, there is a difference between the two voice prompts. However, Patil in view of LEE does not specifically teach a discriminator. Dai teaches a prompt rule discriminator [i.e., discriminator] (fourth paragraph of step 602 in page 12 and second paragraph of step 603 in page 13). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patil in view of LEE to incorporate a discriminator in PATIL ’s invention in view of LEE’s invention as taught by Dai. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to conveniently perform traversal matching between the to-be-converted prompt text and the alternative prompt template as well as obtain the matching confidence between the conversion prompt text and each prompt template.
Regarding claim 14, Patil teaches wherein the text prompt [i.e., prompt] in the text [i.e., first modality] comprises text input [i.e., input data] (paragraph 0021).
However, Patil does not specifically teach the prompt in the first modality comprises a task specification. LEE teaches that the IVR system [i.e., prompt in the first modality] comprises a task [i.e., task specification] (paragraph 0032). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patil to incorporate the feature of the prompt in the first modality comprises a task specification in PATIL ’s invention as taught by LEE. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide alert option more effectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 12, 13 and 15-17 will be allowed after overcoming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 18-20 will be allowed after overcoming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAN TSANG can be reached on 571-272-7547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
January 13, 2026