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
Applicants’ amendment filed on 8/19/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 11, 14 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 11 being independent.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “current language” on line 2 and “a current language” on line 3. It is unclear whether these two references to “current language” are the same of different. Similarly claim 11 recites “current language” on line 3 and “a current language” on line 5. It is unclear whether these two references to “current language” are the same of different. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend on claims 1 and 11 respectively. Therefore, they have been rejected for the same reason.
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 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 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 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0108018 to Phillips et al. (“Phillips”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,176,934 to Venkatesh Raman et al. (“Venkatesh”).
As to claims 1 and 11, Phillips discloses a method and a system, the method comprising: determining a current location and current language settings of a user device;
based on the current location, identifying a target language [paragraphs 0024 (“language model based on location”), paragraphs 0028, 0050, 0053, 0054-55];
identifying a model language from a plurality of model languages, the model language corresponding to the target language [paragraphs 0050 (“download the language associated with a country upon entry into the country”), paragraphs 0053-0055, 0057 (“automatic location-based updates …];
determining a subset of data in the model language that is not in the current language settings [paragraphs 0038-39, 0050, 0053-0055, 0057];
generating an update based on the subset of data [paragraphs 0050-51, 0053-0055, 0057];
providing a notification with a selectable option to download the update [paragraphs 0051, also see Fig. 7, paragraphs 0056-61];
upon receiving a response selecting the option to download the update, updating the current language settings with the update [paragraph 0051, also see Fig. 7, paragraphs 0052-55, 0056-0057].
Phillips does not expressly disclose wherein the target language and a current language corresponding to the current language settings: (a) each comprise a same root language, and (b) are each associated with a different respective locale.
In the same or similar field of invention, Venkatesh discloses features of wherein the target language and a current language corresponding to the current language settings: (a) each comprise a same root language, and (b) are each associated with a different respective locale [Venkatesh column 15 lines 13-37: “English (Canada), English (India),…, English (Australia/New Zealand), …,English (United Kingdom), Also see Fig. 1: 158].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Phillips to include features of wherein the target language and a current language corresponding to the current language settings: (a) each comprise a same root language, and (b) are each associated with a different respective locale as taught by Venkatesh. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide improved and enhanced systems to switch between languages [Venkatesh column 1 lines 17-18, column 1 line 63 to column 2 line 15].
As to claims 2 and 12, Phillips discloses wherein generating the update further comprises: identifying a portion of the subset of data that meets or exceeds a level of usefulness associated with a user profile [paragraphs 0051-52, 0057 (“user may define various settings associated with location-based subscriptions”- based on settings (meets a level, e.g. location or near certain feet of location)], user is provided with the list of available subscriptions]; and generating the update based on the identified portion [paragraphs 0051-55, 0057, also see paragraphs 0038-39].
As to claims 3 and 13, Phillips discloses wherein the subset of data comprises at least one of language nuances, grammar, language patterns, or language use information associated with the target language [paragraphs 0038, 0052, 0054, 0057].
As to claims 4 and 14, Phillips discloses wherein the model language is identified from a plurality of media content items, wherein at least one of the plurality of media content items incorporates language data related to at least one of the current location, the current language corresponding to the current language settings, or the target language [paragraphs 0052 (“museum may broadcast a signal…”, “triggering events can include a user scanning a 1-D or 2-D barcode (e.g., on a sign, advertisement, or magazine)”), Fig 6: 610, 630 (“update static language model”)].
As to claims 6 and 16, Phillips discloses queuing the update for download [paragraphs 0025, 0027, 0032, 0059-60];
Phillips does not expressly disclose determining that a certain amount of storage is available on the user device; and based on the determining, causing the update to be downloaded.
In the same or similar field of invention, Venkatesh discloses features of determining that a certain amount of storage is available on the user device [Venkatesh column 2 line 60 to column 3 line 6, column 5 lines 15-20]; and based on the determining, causing the update to be downloaded [Venkatesh column 2 line 60 to column 3 line 6, column 4 lines 1-5, column 5 lines 15-20]. As per Venkatesh, a user can request to set the language setting of the speech interface device to a second language (e.g., Deutsch) spoken in a second locale (e.g., Deutschland). Based on this user request to change the language setting, the speech interface device may download from a remote system in response to the user's request (if the language model(s) is/are not already stored in memory of the speech interface device). The time it takes to load, and to download (if necessary), the new language model(s) can vary depending on network latency and/or the amount of processing resources of the speech interface device in use at the time the locale is being updated on the device [column 2 line 60 to column 3 line 6]. Venkatesh discloses also discloses managing memory resources efficiently by swapping out language models. Further, Venkatesh discloses the resources such as memory resources (similar to download update based on storage availability).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Phillips to have features of determining that a certain amount of storage is available on the user device; and based on the determining, causing the update to be downloaded as taught by Venkatesh. The suggestion/motivation would have been to manage memory resources efficiently on a resource-constrained device [Venkatesh column 4 lines 1-3].
As to claims 8 and 18, Phillips discloses queuing the update for download [paragraphs 0025, 0027, 0032, 0059-60]; determining that the current language settings was updated with a second update, wherein at least a portion of the second update includes data associated with the update [paragraphs 0025, 0027, 0032, 0059-60]; and removing the update from the queue [paragraphs 0025, 0027, 0032, 0059-60, once the update is completed, queue should be updated by removing the update].
As to claims 9 and 19, Phillips discloses wherein the model language and the target language share in common at least one of: a root language, a locale, a grammar, or a language pattern [paragraphs 0038, 0052, 0054, 0057].
As to claims 10 and 20, Phillips discloses wherein generating the update is further based on: providing an interactive menu comprising a selectable option to update the current language settings to the target language [Fig. 7, paragraphs 0056-57]; and receiving a response selecting the option from the interactive menu to update the current language settings to the target language [Fig. 7, paragraphs 0056-57].
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0108018 to Phillips et al. (“Phillips”) and U.S. Patent No. 11176934 to Venkatesh Raman et al. (“Venkatesh”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170083829 to Kang et al. (“Kang”).
As to claims 5 and 15, Phillips and Venkatesh disclose the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11 [see rejection of claims 1 and 10].
Phillips and Venkatesh do not expressly disclose determining a loss calculation based on a time associated with generating the update based on the subset of data, wherein the update is generated if the loss calculation does not exceed a threshold.
In the same or similar field of invention, Kang discloses features of determining a loss calculation based on a time associated with generating the update based on the subset of data, wherein the update is generated if the loss calculation does not exceed a threshold [Kang paragraphs 0060, 0062-0063, 0066, 0074-0077].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Phillips and Venkatesh to include features of determining a loss calculation based on a time associated with generating the update based on the subset of data, wherein the update is generated if the loss calculation does not exceed a threshold as taught by Kang. The suggestion/motivation would have been to select the teacher model from the plurality of teacher models based on accuracies of the plurality of teacher models or a correlation between output data of the plurality of teacher models, the output data corresponding to the input data [Kang paragraph 0026].
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0108018 to Phillips et al. (“Phillips”) and U.S. Patent No. 11176934 to Venkatesh Raman et al. (“Venkatesh”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20130332917 to Gaither et al. (“Gaither”).
As to claims 7 and 17, Phillips and Venkatesh disclose the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11 [see rejection of claims 1 and 10]. Phillips also discloses identifying another model language from the plurality of model languages, the another model language corresponding to the target language [paragraphs 0051: “available options based upon both the location of the user, and/or the total list of available subscriptions”)]; It is extremely obvious to present options based on user’s accepting or declining option.
Phillips and Venkatesh do not expressly disclose receiving a response declining the option to download the update.
In the same or similar field of invention, Gaither discloses features of receiving a response declining the option to download the update and based on the response declining the option another prompt may be generated [ Gaither paragraph 0058].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify teaching of Phillips (such as available language model options based upon both the location of the user, and/or the total list of available subscriptions) and Venkatesh to include features of receiving a response declining the option to download the update and based on the response declining the option another prompt may be generated (like another model language….) as taught by Gaither. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide user flexibility to select a particular update at a particular time by accepting/denying updates.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered (with respect to prior art 2014/0108018 to Phillips, pages 7-8 of Remarks filed on 8/19/26) but are moot because of the new ground of rejection applied.
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/19/26 (with respect to prior art to Venkatesh) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of applicant’s remark, the applicant argues the following:
“Kang, Venkatesh, and Gaither were cited for other elements of the claims and fail to remedy the deficiencies of Phillips”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's arguments for the following reasons: Venkatesh discloses features of wherein the target language and a current language corresponding to the current language settings: (a) each comprise a same root language, and (b) are each associated with a different respective locale [Venkatesh column 15 lines 13-37: “English (Canada), English (India),…, English (Australia/New Zealand), …,English (United Kingdom), Also see Fig. 1: 158]. Thus, Phillips in view Venkatesh teach all the limitations of claim 1 and 11 (see prior art rejection for more detail).
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 ANTIM G SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-5214. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANTIM G SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights