DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on June 18, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. As such, claims 1-20 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 18, 2024. These drawings have been accepted and considered by the Examiner.
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 8, 11-12 and 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 8 lines 6-7 reads “a target language segment”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error, and it is intended to read “a new target language segment”.
Claim 11 lines 7-8 reads “a target language sample segment”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error, and it is intended to read “a new target language sample segment”.
Claim 12 depends from claim 11, and therefore inherits this rejection.
Claim 20 lines 7-8 reads “a target language segment”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error, and it is intended to read “a new target language segment”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-8 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
A translation processing method,
performed by a computer device, and comprising:
[claim 13 only] a memory storing a plurality of instructions; and
[claim 13 only] a processor configured to execute the plurality of instructions, and upon execution of the plurality of instructions, is configured to:
obtaining an input sequence comprising a plurality of segments and segment identifiers, the plurality of segments comprising a source language segment and a target language segment with a mask label, the segment identifiers configured to segment the source language segment and the target language segment, the target language segment being a first original translation of the source language segment, and the mask label being located at a to-be-suggested position of the target language segment;
performing embedding on the input sequence by using a post-editing model to obtain a word vector and a position vector corresponding to the input sequence, and performing embedding based on the segment identifiers to obtain a segment vector;
performing vector fusion by using the post-editing model based on the word vector, the position vector, and the segment vector corresponding to the input sequence to obtain an input vector of the input sequence;
performing encoding by using the post-editing model based on the input vector to output an encoding result; and
performing decoding by using the post-editing model based on the encoding result to output a translation processing result corresponding to the to-be-suggested position.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“obtaining an input sequence comprising a plurality of segments and segment identifiers, the plurality of segments comprising a source language segment and a target language segment with a mask label, the segment identifiers configured to segment the source language segment and the target language segment, the target language segment being a first original translation of the source language segment, and the mask label being located at a to-be-suggested position of the target language segment” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually post editing a machine language translation using all the specific elements listed as provided by the machine language translation,
“performing embedding on the input sequence by using a post-editing model to obtain a word vector and a position vector corresponding to the input sequence, and performing embedding based on the segment identifiers to obtain a segment vector” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually creating embeddings of vectors for the specific elements listed,
“performing vector fusion by using the post-editing model based on the word vector, the position vector, and the segment vector corresponding to the input sequence to obtain an input vector of the input sequence” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually merging vectors together using the specific elements listed,
“performing encoding by using the post-editing model based on the input vector to output an encoding result” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually encoding a result,
“performing decoding by using the post-editing model based on the encoding result to output a translation processing result corresponding to the to-be-suggested position” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually decoding a result.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a computer device
a memory
a processor
a post-editing model.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not add limitations that would either integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or could help the Claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea identified for the Independent Claim.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein the post-editing model comprises an input layer, an encoder, and a decoder, and wherein:
the performing embedding on the input sequence by using the post-editing model to obtain the word vector and the position vector corresponding to the input sequence, and the performing embedding based on the segment identifiers to obtain the segment vector comprises:
[claim 14 only] the processor is configured to
obtaining the word vector, the position vector, and the segment vector corresponding to the input sequence by the input layer;
the performing vector fusion by using the post-editing model based on the word vector, the position vector, and the segment vector corresponding to the input sequence to obtain the input vector of the input sequence comprises:
obtaining the input vector of the input sequence by the input layer based on the word vector, the position vector, and the segment vector corresponding to the input sequence;
the performing encoding by using the post-editing model based on the input vector to output the encoding result comprises:
performing encoding by the encoder based on the input vector to output the encoding result; and
the performing decoding by using the post-editing model based on the encoding result to output the translation processing result corresponding to the to-be-suggested position comprises:
performing decoding by the decoder based on the encoding result to output the translation processing result corresponding to the to-be-suggested position.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“obtaining the word vector, the position vector, and the segment vector corresponding to the input sequence by the input layer” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually collecting the data and determining the vectors,
“obtaining the input vector of the input sequence by the input layer based on the word vector, the position vector, and the segment vector corresponding to the input sequence” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually collecting the data and determining the vectors,
“performing encoding by the encoder based on the input vector to output the encoding result” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually encoding a result,
“performing decoding by the decoder based on the encoding result to output the translation processing result corresponding to the to-be-suggested position” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually decoding a result.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
a processor
a post-editing model.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein the translation processing result comprises a plurality of translation candidates of different text lengths.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the translation processing result comprises a plurality of translation candidates of different text lengths” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually ensuring that multiple results are provided of different lengths.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional elements.
Accordingly, these no additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the no additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein the input vector comprises a plurality of feature vectors obtained after the vector fusion, and
the performing encoding by the encoder based on the input vector to output the encoding result comprises:
[claim 16 only] the processor is configured to:
performing processing by the encoder based on the input vector by using an attention mechanism to obtain an attention weight of each feature vector; and
encoding the input vector by the encoder based on the attention weight to output the encoding result.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“wherein the input vector comprises a plurality of feature vectors obtained after the vector fusion” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually ensuring a plurality of feature vectors are used,
“performing processing by the encoder based on the input vector by using an attention mechanism to obtain an attention weight of each feature vector” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually applying an attention mechanism to determine an attention weight of each feature vector,
“encoding the input vector by the encoder based on the attention weight to output the encoding result” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually using the attention weights when encoding the result.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
the processor
the encoder.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein the attention mechanism is a cross-language attention mechanism, and
the performing processing by the encoder based on the input vector by using the attention mechanism to obtain the attention weight of each feature vector comprises:
[claim 17 only] the processor is configured to:
performing, with each feature vector in the input vector used as a first feature vector, attention calculation on the first feature vector and each second feature vector based on the segment vector in the input vector, to obtain an attention weight of the first feature vector,
wherein the second feature vector and the first feature vector belong to different segments.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“performing, with each feature vector in the input vector used as a first feature vector, attention calculation on the first feature vector and each second feature vector based on the segment vector in the input vector, to obtain an attention weight of the first feature vector” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually applying an attention mechanism to determine an attention weight of each feature vector,
“wherein the second feature vector and the first feature vector belong to different segments” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually ensuring the vectors are from different portions.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
the processor
the encoder.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein the attention mechanism is a self-attention mechanism, and
the performing processing by the encoder based on the input vector by using the attention mechanism to obtain the attention weight of each feature vector comprises:
[claim 18 only] the processor is configured to:
performing, with each feature vector in the input vector used as a first feature vector, attention calculation on the first feature vector and each third feature vector based on the segment vector in the input vector, to obtain an attention weight of the first feature vector,
wherein the third feature vector and the first feature vector belong to a same segment.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“performing, with each feature vector in the input vector used as a first feature vector, attention calculation on the first feature vector and each third feature vector based on the segment vector in the input vector, to obtain an attention weight of the first feature vector” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually applying an attention mechanism to determine an attention weight of each feature vector,
“wherein the third feature vector and the first feature vector belong to a same segment” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually ensuring the vectors are from the same portion.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
the processor
the encoder.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
further comprising:
aligning the source language segment with the target language segment according to the input vector to obtain word alignment information between the source language segment and the target language segment,
wherein the performing decoding by using the post-editing model based on the encoding result to output the translation processing result corresponding to the to-be-suggested position comprises:
[claim 19 only] the processor is configured to:
performing decoding by using the post-editing model based on the word alignment information and the encoding result, to output the translation processing result.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“aligning the source language segment with the target language segment according to the input vector to obtain word alignment information between the source language segment and the target language segment” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually determining the word alignment information,
“performing decoding by using the post-editing model based on the word alignment information and the encoding result, to output the translation processing result” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually decoding the result.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
the processor
the post-editing model.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
wherein the aligning the source language segment with the target language segment according to the input vector to obtain word alignment information between the source language segment and the target language segment comprises:
[claim 20 only] the processor is configured to:
predicting a second original translation at the to-be-suggested position by using the post-editing model based on the input vector;
replacing the mask label with the second original translation, to obtain a target language segment after the replacement; and
aligning the source language segment with the target language segment after the replacement to obtain the word alignment information.
The additional limitations of the claim do not preclude the method from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
“predicting a second original translation at the to-be-suggested position by using the post-editing model based on the input vector” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually determining the second translation,
“replacing the mask label with the second original translation, to obtain a target language segment after the replacement” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually inserting the second translation,
“aligning the source language segment with the target language segment after the replacement to obtain the word alignment information” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually aligning the second translation.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements. These additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
the processor
the post-editing model.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are generic computer components and the hardware is generic computer components that are merely being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea that do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 is allowed because the prior art, either alone or in reasonable combination, does not teach the combination of claim elements as recited in the current claim.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9, and therefore, by virtue of this dependency, is also allowed.
Claims 11 and 12 depend from claim 9 either directly or indirectly, and therefore, by virtue of this dependency, would also be allowable, upon resolution of the rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheng et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20200364412 A1), hereinafter Cheng, teaches a translation model training method for a computer device includes obtaining a training sample set, the training sample set including a plurality of training samples. Each training sample is a training sample pair having a training input sample in a first language and a training output sample in a second language. The method also includes determining a disturbance sample set corresponding to each training sample in the training sample set, the disturbance sample set comprising at least one disturbance sample, and a semantic similarity between the disturbance sample and the corresponding training sample being greater than a first preset value; and training an initial translation model by using the plurality of training samples and the disturbance sample set corresponding to each training sample to obtain a target translation model, such that the training output sample remains same for the disturbance sample and the corresponding training sample,
Hieber et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20150106076 A1), hereinafter Hieber, teaches systems and methods for efficient online domain adaptation are provided herein. Methods may include receiving a post-edited machine translated sentence pair, updating a machine translation model by adjusting translation weights for a translation memory and a language model while generating test machine translations of the machine translated sentence pair until one of the test machine translations approximately matches the post-edits for the machine translated sentence pair, and retranslating the remaining machine translation sentence pairs that have yet to be post-edited using the updated machine translation model,
Mei et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20210365644 A1), hereinafter Mei, teaches a user input in a source language is received. A set of contextual data is received. The user input is encoded into a user input feature vector. The set of contextual data is encoded into a context feature vector. The user input feature vector and the context feature vector are used to generate a fusion vector. An adaptive neural network is trained to identify a second context feature vector, based on the fusion vector. A second user input in the source language is received for translation into a target language. The adaptive neural network is used to determine, based on the second context feature vector, a second user input feature vector. The second user input feature vector is decoded, based on the source language and the target language, into a target language output. A user is notified of the target language output,
Wu et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20230267285 A1), hereinafter Wu, teaches in [0119] at least one embodiment, text string 1002 is a sentence or set of words in a particular language. In at least one embodiment, transformer encoder-decoder layers 1004 are layers of an encoder and decoder of a transformer such as those described herein. In at least one embodiment, said autoregressive model with post-ordering module utilizes transformer encoder-decoder layers 1004 to process at least text string 1002 to generate translated text string 1006. In at least one embodiment, translated text string 1006 is text string 1002 that has been translated by said autoregressive model with post-ordering module but not been processed by any post-ordering operations. In at least one embodiment, post-ordering module 1008 is a system that re-orders words of a sentence after translation, also referred to as post-ordering; further information regarding post-ordering modules can be found in description of FIG. 8.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J. MUELLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1875. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm (Eastern).
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, Daniel C. Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
PAUL MUELLER
Examiner
Art Unit 2657
/PAUL J. MUELLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2657