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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on November 8, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 15-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (US 2025/0095633).
As per claim 1, Yu discloses, a speech translation method, comprising:
generating a speech representation corresponding to a source-language audio based on the audio (Paragraph 0045, “pick up a first speech in a first language”);
obtaining prompt content related to a target language (Paragraph 0047, “according to translation prompt”); and
generating a target-language text corresponding to the audio based on the speech representation and the prompt content (Paragraph 0047, “obtain a second text”).
As per claim 2, Yu discloses, wherein obtaining the prompt content related to the target language comprises: obtaining first prompt content, wherein the first prompt content is related to a transcription task; and obtaining second prompt content, wherein the second prompt content is related to a translation task and the target language (Paragraphs 0050-0053).
As per claim 3, Yu discloses, wherein generating the target-language text corresponding to the audio comprises: generating the target-language text based on the speech representation, the first prompt content, and the second prompt content (Paragraphs 0047-0053).
As per claim 15-17 and 20, they are analyzed and thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 1-3, because the corresponding claims have similar limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2025/0095633) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Chochowski et al. (US 2017/0286407).
As per claims 4 and 18, Yu does not explicitly disclose, but Chochowski discloses, wherein generating the target-language text corresponding to the audio comprises: determining an audio length of the source-language audio; in response to the audio length of the audio being greater than a predetermined length, extracting, from a head of the audio, a first audio segment having the predetermined length; and generating a first target-language text segment corresponding to the first audio segment based on the first audio segment (Paragraphs 0048, 0051-0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yu by including segmenting the audio having being greater than a predetermined length as taught by Chochowski for the advantage of easy to translate form source language to a target language.
Claim(s) 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2025/0095633) as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Du et al. (CN 111382580A).
As per claim 8, Yu does not explicitly disclose, but Du discloses, wherein the target-language text is generated via a speech translation model, and the speech translation model is pre-trained by using a document-level multilingual document and adjusted by using a multitask (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yu by including a speech translation model is pre-trained by using a document-level multilingual document and adjusted by using a multitask as taught by Du so as to improve the translation quality of the model (Summary of the invention).
As per claim 9, Yu discloses, wherein adjusting the speech translation model by using the multitask comprises: obtaining a source-language audio and a corresponding target-language text; obtaining corresponding prompt content based on a speech translation task; and adjusting the speech translation model based on the corresponding prompt content, the source-language audio, and the corresponding target-language text (Paragraphs 0069, 0081-0086).
As per claim 10, discloses, wherein the corresponding prompt content comprises transcription prompt content and translation prompt content, and adjusting the speech translation model comprises: adjusting the speech translation model based on the transcription prompt content, the translation prompt content, the source-language audio, and the corresponding target-language text (Paragraphs 0069-0086).
As per claim 11, Yu discloses, wherein adjusting the speech translation model by using the multitask comprises: obtaining a source-language audio and a corresponding punctuated source-language text; obtaining corresponding prompt content based on a punctuated speech transcription task; and adjusting the speech translation model based on the corresponding prompt content, the source-language audio, and the corresponding punctuated source-language text (Paragraphs 0069-0086).
As per claim 12, Yu discloses, wherein adjusting the speech translation model by using the multitask comprises: adjusting the speech translation model by using a source-language text, a target-language text, and an explanation for the target-language text (Paragraphs 0069-0086).
As per claim 13, Yu discloses, wherein adjusting the speech translation model by using the multitask comprises: obtaining a source-language text and a corresponding source-language text with reverse regularization; obtaining corresponding prompt content based on a reverse regularization task; and adjusting the speech translation model based on the corresponding prompt content, the source-language text, and the corresponding source-language text with reverse regularization (Paragraphs 0069-0086).
As per claim 14, Yu in view of Du do not explicitly disclose, wherein adjusting the speech translation model by using the multitask comprises: adjusting the speech translation model by using an English audio, an English text, an international phonetic alphabet, Chinese pinyin, and a Chinese text.
applicant has not disclosed that adjusting the speech translation model by using an English audio, an English text, an international phonetic alphabet, Chinese pinyin, and a Chinese text is preferable according to a design criterion or solves any stated problem, so that the use of adjusting the speech translation model by using an English audio, an English text, an international phonetic alphabet, Chinese pinyin, and a Chinese text, would be an arbitrary design choice, since it appears that they all would perform equally well.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McCarley et al. (US 8,554,558) discloses, visualizing automatic speech recognition and machine translation output.
Huang (US 2020/0211417) discloses, tow-language free dialogue system and method for language learning.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abul K. Azad whose telephone number is (571) 272-7599. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta, can be reached at (571) 272-7453.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to: (571) 273-8300.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA-22314 (Customer Service Window).
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).
June 5, 2026
/ABUL K AZAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights