CTNF 18/952,946 CTNF 99867 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/01/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 1. Claims 4 and 15 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 4 recites the limitation "read the parameter upon execution for the next sliding window ; and skip processing of the one or more characters in the sliding window that has been processed ". There is insufficient antecedent basis provided in independent claim 1 for this limitation in the claim. Antecedent basis is provided in claim 3 for these terms. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting claim 4 to depend on claim 3, which would provide proper antecedent basis. Claim 15 recites the limitation "reading the parameter upon execution for the next sliding window ; and skipping processing of the one or more characters in the sliding window that has been processed ". There is insufficient antecedent basis provided in independent claim 12 for this limitation in the claim. Antecedent basis is provided in claim 14 for these terms. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting claim 15 to depend on claim 14, which would provide proper antecedent basis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. 2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claims 1, 12, and 18, “A system”, “A method”, and “A non-transitory computer readable medium” are recited, which are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (machine, process, article of manufacture; Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes which fall into the category of abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1: YES). The following limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes: access an input sequence having a plurality of characters in a source language to be transliterated into a target language: a person reads an input string of characters …takes as input the input sequence, a window size parameter that defines a number of characters to be included in a window, and an identification of a reducing function; generate…a plurality of sliding windows based on the input sequence and the window size parameter, wherein each sliding window comprises a number of characters from the input sequence that is based on the window size to capture context for one or more characters in the sliding window to be transliterated: a person uses a window size parameter and the characters to create sliding windows to analyze (e.g. size=3 for string ‘abcd’, create sliding windows ‘abc’ and ‘bcd’) for each of at least some of the sliding windows from among the plurality of sliding windows: execute…the reducing function to transliterate one or more characters in the sliding window based on the captured context from the sliding window; transliterate, by the reducing function, one or more characters in the sliding window based on the captured context from the sliding window; update, by the reducing function, an accumulator map comprising a vector of characters based on the transliteration and a number of characters to skip in a next iteration; and generate a sequence of characters in the target language based on the vector of characters: a person uses reducing functions (sets of rules) to transliterate each sliding window (a particular piece of Romanized Japanese is converted to a particular Japanese character), and writes down these transliterations as a vector of characters, and also determines a number of characters to skip in a next iteration (e.g., skipping over already transliterated phrases); they repeat this operation until the transliteration is finished (e.g. all latin characters converted to Japanese characters) Claims 1, 12, and 18 do not contain any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: NO). The only additional limitations are “A system, comprising: a processor programmed to…” (claim 1), “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, programs the processor to” (claim 18), and executing and generating by “a higher-order function” (claims 1, 12, and 18). These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination with the claims as a whole, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1, 12, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea. Claims 1, 12, and 18 do not contain any additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed above, the additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination with the claims as a whole, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1, 12, and 18 are not patent eligible. Regarding claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20, “The system”, “The method”, and “The non-transitory computer readable medium” are recited, which are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (machine, process, article of manufacture; Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite further mental processes which fall into the category of abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1: YES). The following limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite further mental processes: Claim 2 and 13: provide, as input to the reducing function, the accumulator map from a prior execution of the reducing function on a prior sliding window: a person uses a prior result of transliteration (e.g. conversion from latin characters to Japanese characters), and uses this output as input for a new iteration Claims 3 and 14: determine, by the reducing function, that one or more characters in the sliding window has been processed; set, by the reducing function, a parameter that indicates that the one or more characters has been processed; and pass, by the reducing function, the parameter for input back to the reducing function in a next iteration for a next sliding window: a person processes characters, writing down a result and an indication that the characters have been processed; the person then uses this indication and carries out another iteration for a new sliding window Claims 4 and 15: read the parameter upon execution for the next sliding window; and skip processing of the one or more characters in the sliding window that has been processed: a person reads the parameter indicating that certain characters have been processed, and in response, skips over these character to process new characters Claims 5: execute a transposition of one or more characters in the input sequence to transpose the one or more characters to a position later in the input sequence based on one or more transposition rules for the source language: a person transposes characters to a position later, according to rules, in the input sequence, writing down the result using pen and paper (e.g. moves a character ‘a’ in ‘abc’ to the back to get ‘bca’) Claim 6: execute a deletion of one or more characters in the input sequence based on the one or more deletion rules for the source language: a person deletes a character according to rules, writing down the result using pen and paper (e.g. delete ‘a’ from ‘abc’ to get ‘bc’) Claim 7: execute an insertion of one or more characters in the input sequence based on one or more insertion rules for the source language: a person inserts a character according to rules, writing down the result using pen and paper (e.g. insert ‘d’ after ‘a’ in ‘abc’ to get ‘adbc’) Claim 8: execute a transcription of one or more characters in the input sequence based on one or more conversion tables for the source language: a person converts characters using conversion tables (e.g. changes a latin character(s) to a Japanese character) Claims 9, 16, and 20: in sequential order, execute:(i) a transposition of one or more characters in the input sequence to transpose the one or more characters to a position later in the input sequence based on one or more transposition rules for the source language;(ii) a deletion of one or more characters in the input sequence based on one or more deletion rules for the source language;(iii) an insertion of one or more characters in the input sequence based on one or more insertion rules for the source language; and(iv) a transcription of one or more characters in the input sequence based on one or more conversion tables for the source language: in sequential order, a person transposes, deletes, inserts, and transcribes characters in a similar manner as described previously regarding claims 5-8, using pen and paper Claims 10 and 17: pre-process the input sequence to remove one or more characters that are not to be transliterated: a person removes certain characters that should not/cannot be transliterated, writing down a new string of characters using pen and paper Claim 11: wherein the source language is Thai and the target language is Latin: a person can convert Thai characters into latinized characters Claim 19: determine, by the reducing function, that one or more characters in the sliding window has been processed;set, by the reducing function, a parameter that indicates that the one or more characters has been processed;pass, by the reducing function, the parameter for input back to the reducing function in a next iteration for a next sliding window;read the parameter upon execution for the next sliding window; andskip processing of the one or more characters in the sliding window that has been processed: a person determines characters have been processed, sets a parameter, passes the parameter back to function in next iteration, reads the parameter, and skips processing, in a manner similar as described regarding claims 3 and 4 Claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 do not contain any additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: NO). As discussed above, the only additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination with the claims as a whole, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 do not contain any additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed above, the additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination with the claims as a whole, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19-20 are not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-20-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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 3. Claim s 1-4, 6, 8, 12-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 5,640,587) in view of NPL Transliterate API Reference , hereinafter NPL1 . Regarding claim 1 , Davis discloses A system (Fig. 1) , comprising: a processor (Fig. 1, ‘CPU’ 10) programmed to: access an input sequence having a plurality of characters in a source language to be transliterated into a target language (Col. 9 Line 46 and Col. 10 Lines 1-5 “ At label 610, a sentence is typed in with transliteration disabled. Label 680 shows the sentence appearing at label 610 after it has been selected and fully transliterated. Labels 620 to 670 show what the user sees as she types in successive characters from label 610 with input transliteration enabled. ”)… execute a… function that takes as input the input sequence, a window size parameter that defines a number of characters to be included in a window, and an identification of a reducing function (function identified based on whether or not type-in transliteration is enabled (Col. 9 Line 46- Col. 10 Lines 1-5 “ At label 610, a sentence is typed in with transliteration disabled. Label 680 shows the sentence appearing at label 610 after it has been selected and fully transliterated. Labels 620 to 670 show what the user sees as she types in successive characters from label 610 with input transliteration enabled. ”; function reads in input text (Col. 6 Lines 62-65 “ Processing commences at function block 200 where index i is initialized to point to the start of the text that is to be transliterated. ”); function uses window size parameter to determine sliding window sizes (e.g., len(pc) determining how far back to include characters in sliding window, see Col. 6 Lines 25-30)) ; generate, by the …function, a plurality of sliding windows based on the input sequence and the window size parameter (Fig. 2, iterator ‘i’ starts at offset ‘start’ and ends at offset ‘finish’, this iterator points to a character at a particular position (e.g. 0-10, see Col. 6 Line 30 diagram); at each iterator, preceding and succeeding context is used to determine if rule is matched (see Col. 6 Lines 16-29); thus, as iterator ‘i’ increments, sliding windows are generated, each centered at a particular character at position ‘i’; a window size parameter also determines how sliding windows are generated (e.g. len(pc) determining how far back to include characters in sliding window, see Col. 6 Lines 25-30)) , wherein each sliding window comprises a number of characters from the input sequence that is based on the window size to capture context for one or more characters in the sliding window to be transliterated (sliding windows comprise character at iterator ‘i’ current position, as well as preceding and succeeding context used for rule mapping (see above mapping); these sliding windows are used to determine if matches to rule exist (see Col. 6 Lines 16-29); these rules are to transliterate the character(s): (see, for example, table in Col. 5 Line 55, which converts Latin alphabet characters to Indic language characters)) , for each of the at least some of the sliding windows from among the plurality of sliding windows (for each character at ‘i’ + preceding + succeeding context, from i=start to i=finish) : execute, by the …function, the reducing function to transliterate one or more characters in the sliding window based on the captured context from the sliding window (Fig. 2, iterator ‘j’ iterates through rules for transliteration, a current best rule is determined for a particular window (character at position ‘i’ + preceding + succeeding context) in steps 230, 240, 242, 244, 246, 250; rule is used to replace characters (440); Col. 7 Lines 9-11 “ If so, then at function block 270, characters are replaced as indicated and indexes are reset before passing control to decision block 240. ”); transliterate, by the reducing function, one or more characters in the sliding window based on the captured context from the sliding window (transliteration performed: Col. 7 Lines 9-11 “ If so, then at function block 270, characters are replaced as indicated and indexes are reset before passing control to decision block 240. ”) ; update, by the reducing function, an accumulator map comprising a vector of characters based on the transliteration and a number of characters to skip in a next iteration (transliteration result added to text, iteration is offset by length of resulting transliteration: Col. 7 Lines 50-59 “ Once a matching rule is identified, a replacement is performed. The source is replaced from the matching rule by the result fields (result+rechecked results). This may change the length of the text, since it may be different in length than the source. Resume iterating, starting at the offset i+length(result)… ”) ; and generate a sequence of characters in the target language based on the vector of characters (Fig. 2, transliteration performed for each iterator ‘i’ until i=finish; transliterated result obtained (see, for example, Fig. 6, result 680 for input text 610)). Davis discloses applying a reducing function to perform transliteration using an input sequence and a window size parameter (see above claim mapping). However, Davis does not specifically disclose [execute] a higher-order function [that takes as input the input sequence, a window size parameter that defines a number of characters to be included in a window, and an identification of a reducing function…] and [execute, by the higher-order function, [ the reducing function…]. NPL1 teaches to [execute] a higher-order function (pg. 1, a function “google.language.transliterate(wordsArray, srcLang, destLang, callback)” takes as input another function (callback function ‘callback’); thus, NPL1 teaches a higher-order function). NPL1 additionally teaches that this higher-order function can take as input a input sequence (pg. 1, “ wordsArray provides the text to be translitered as an array ”) and parameters (pg. 1, “ srcLang provides the source language as a language code…destLang provides the destination language as a language code ”), also including a function as an input parameter (pg. 1, “ callback is the callback function that receives the result… ”). NPL1 also teaches to [execute, by the higher-order function, [ the reducing function…] (pg. 1 “ The API returns the result asynchronously to the given callback function as the result object… ”). Davis and NPL1 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they both are in the same field of natural language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davis to incorporate the teachings of NPL1 in order to specifically execute a higher order function. Doing so would be beneficial, as higher-order functions are a useful type of function which allow for more powerful functions to be defined and to cut down on repetitive programming and logic (NPL Higher-Order Functions: The Basics , pg. 1, 1 st para.). Regarding claim 2 , Davis in view of NPL1 discloses provide, as input to the reducing function, the accumulator map from a prior execution of the reducing function on a prior sliding window (Davis, prior results (result of transliteration replacement) is used in successive iterations: Col. 7 Lines 50-59 “ Once a matching rule is identified, a replacement is performed. The source is replaced from the matching rule by the result fields (result+rechecked results). This may change the length of the text, since it may be different in length than the source. Resume iterating, starting at the offset i+length(result)… ”). Regarding claim 3, Davis in view of NPL1 discloses determine, by the reducing function, that one or more characters in the sliding window has been processed (Davis, result is determined: Col. 7 Lines 50-59 “ Once a matching rule is identified, a replacement is performed. The source is replaced from the matching rule by the result fields (result+rechecked results). This may change the length of the text , since it may be different in length than the source. Resume iterating, starting at the offset i+length(result)… ”) ; set, by the reducing function, a parameter that indicates that the one or more characters has been processed (Davis, iterator ‘i’ set to offset due to one or more characters being processed: Col. 7 Lines 50-59 “ Once a matching rule is identified, a replacement is performed. The source is replaced from the matching rule by the result fields (result+rechecked results). This may change the length of the text, since it may be different in length than the source. Resume iterating, starting at the offset i+length(result)… ”) ; and pass, by the reducing function, the parameter for input back to the reducing function in a next iteration for a next sliding window (Davis, offset iterator used for next iteration of function with a new sliding window (e.g. a new ‘i’ pointing to a new character, with new preceding and succeeding contexts)) . Regarding claim 4 , Davis in view of NPL1 discloses read the parameter upon execution for the next sliding window (Davis, new iterator is read by function: Col. 7 Lines 50-59 “ Once a matching rule is identified, a replacement is performed. The source is replaced from the matching rule by the result fields (result+rechecked results). This may change the length of the text, since it may be different in length than the source. Resume iterating, starting at the offset i+length(result)…; Col. 6 Lines 65-66 “ A test is performed at decision block 210 to determine if the index i has surpassed the finish of the text. ”) ; and skip processing of the one or more characters in the sliding window that has been processed (Davis, by offsetting iterator by the length of the resulting transliteration, characters that are a part of the result (e.g. characters which are at indices less than i+length(result) are skipped)) . Regarding claim 6 , Davis in view of NPL1 discloses execute a deletion of one or more characters in the input sequence based on one or more deletion rules for the source language (Davis, see, for example, Fig. 5, third transliteration rule, where source character “,a” replaced with empty result (deletion)). Regarding claim 8 , Davis in view of NPL1 discloses execute a transcription of one or more characters in the input sequence based on one or more conversion tables for the source language (Davis, see, for example, Fig. 5, transliteration table entries; e.g. first entry converts source language input ‘k’ to result with character in a different alphabet). Regarding claim 12 , claim 12 is a method claim with limitations similar to system claim 1, and thus is rejected under similar rationale. Regarding claim 13 , claim 13 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 2. Regarding claim 14 , claim 14 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 3. Regarding claim 15 , claim 15 is rejection for analogous reasons to claim 4. Regarding claim 18 , claim 18 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim with limitations similar to those recited in claim 1, and thus is rejected under similar rationale. Additionally, Davis discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, programs the processor to (Davis, see claim 31 “ A computer program product operable on a computer system having a memory…the product comprising a computer usable medium having computer readable program code thereon … ”; see Fig. 1, “CPU 10”, “ROM 16”, “RAM 14”). Regarding claim 19 , claim 19 is rejected for analogous reasons to claims 3 and 4 . 07-21-aia AIA 4. Claims 5, 7, 9, 11, 16, and 20 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D avis in view of NPL1, and further in view of NPL ISO 11940-2 Information and documentation — Transliteration of Thai characters into Latin characters Part 2: Simplified transcription of Thai language , hereinafter NPL2 . Regarding claim 5, Davis in view of NPL1 does not specifically disclose execute a transposition of one or more characters in the input sequence to transpose the one or more characters to a position later in the input sequence based on one or more transposition rules for the source language. NPL2 teaches execute a transposition of one or more characters in the input sequence to transpose the one or more characters to a position later in the input sequence based on one or more transposition rules for the source language (e.g. pg. 8, section 5.3 “ The preposed vowels…are transposed after the syllable initial or the initial cluster before a converstion… ”) . Davis, NPL1, and NPL2 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are all in the same field of natural language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davis in view of NPL1 to incorporate the teachings of NPL2 in order to execute a transposition to transpose the one or more characters to a position later in the input sequence based on transposition rules for the source language. Doing so would be beneficial, as certain languages such as Thai write vowels before the consonant which they follow in speech; thus, the text needs to be processed to have the vowel succeed the consonant so that conversion can take place to a Latin script (NPL2, pg. 5, Introduction). Regarding claim 7 , Davis in view of NPL1 does not specifically disclose execute an insertion of one or more characters in the input sequence based on one or more insertion rules for the source language. NPL2 teaches execute an insertion of one or more characters in the input sequence based on one or more insertion rules for the source language (e.g. see pg. 9, section 5.3.6 “ If the transposed preposed vowel is preceded by …and the next character is… an /a/ is inserted before a vowel and it is further transposed after the next consonant. ”) . Davis, NPL1, and NPL2 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are all in the same field of natural language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davis in view of NPL1 to incorporate the teachings of NPL2 in order to execute an insertion of one or more characters in the input sequence based on insertion rules for the source language. Doing so would be beneficial, as certain languages such as Thai need to be processed first so that conversion can take place to a Latin script (NPL2, pg. 5, Introduction). Regarding claim 9 , Davis in view of NPL1 discloses …execute: …(ii) a deletion of one or more characters in the input sequence based on one or more deletion rules for the source language (Davis, see, for example, Fig. 5, third transliteration rule, where source character “,a” replaced with empty result (deletion)) …(iv) a transcription of one or more characters in the input sequence based on one or more conversion tables for the source language (Davis, see, for example, Fig. 5, transliteration table entries; e.g. first entry converts source language input ‘k’ to result with character in a different alphabet). Davis in view of NPL1 does not specifically disclose: …execute: (i) a transposition of one or more characters in the input sequence to transpose the one or more characters to a position later in the input sequence based on one or more transposition rules for the source language…(iii) an insertion of one or more characters in the input sequence based on one or more insertion rules for the source language. NPL2 teaches …execute: (i) a transposition of one or more characters in the input sequence to transpose the one or more characters to a position later in the input sequence based on one or more transposition rules for the source language… (e.g. pg. 8, section 5.3 “ The preposed vowels…are transposed after the syllable initial or the initial cluster before a converstion… ”)… (iii) an insertion of one or more characters in the input sequence based on one or more insertion rules for the source language (e.g. see pg. 9, section 5.3.6 “ If the transposed preposed vowel is preceded by …and the next character is… an /a/ is inserted before a vowel and it is further transposed after the next consonant. ”). Davis, NPL1, and NPL2 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are all in the same field of natural language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davis in view of NPL1 to incorporate the teachings of NPL2 in order to execute a transposition and insertion based on transposition and insertion rules respectively. Doing so would be beneficial, as certain languages such as Thai need to be processed first so that conversion can take place to a Latin script (NPL2, pg. 5, Introduction). Furthermore, the combination of Davis and NPL2 would have rendered obvious the claimed invention recited in claim 9, which arranges those elements taught in Davis and NPL1 “ in sequential order” , as it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Regarding claim 11, Davis in view of NPL1 does not specifically disclose wherein the source language is Thai and the target language is Latin. wherein the source language is Thai and the target language is Latin (pg. 5, Introduction “ This part of ISO 11940 provides a specification for the conversion of Thai characters (or the transliteration of Thai obtained from ISO 11940:1998, written here <between angle brackets>) into a broad phonetic transcription. The results of the application of the rules of this part of ISO 11940 are written here [in italics between square brackets…] ”, see, for example, section 5.3, Thai (left) is converted to Latin characters (right, in square brackets)) . Davis, NPL1, and NPL2 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are all in the same field of natural language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davis in view of NPL1 to incorporate the teachings of NPL2 in order to have the source language be Thai and the target language be Latin. Doing so would be beneficial, as this would extend the capabilities of the system disclosed in Davis, supporting Thai language functionality. Regarding claim 16 , claim 16 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 9. Regarding claim 20 , claim 20 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 9 . 07-21-aia AIA 5. Claim s 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of NPL1, and further in view of Chalabi et al. (US 2011/0137635 A1, hereinafter Chalabi) . Regarding claim 10 , Davis in view of NPL1 does not specifically disclose pre-process the input sequence to remove one or more characters that are not to be transliterated. Chalabi teaches pre-process the input sequence to remove one or more characters that are not to be transliterated (para. 0028 “ Input module 110 may perform pre-processing, to remove emphasis text and other text likely to introduce error in selecting candidate transliteration rules. Example emphasis text includes common interjective tokens such as "smileys", redundant emphatic punctuation such as repeated exclamation points ("!!!!!") and elongation characters like kashidas ("_"). ”) . Davis, NPL1, and Chalabi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of natural language processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Davis in view of NPL1 to incorporate the teachings of Chalabi in order to pre-process the input sequence to remove one or more character that are not to be transliterated. Doing so would be beneficial, as certain interjective text and punctuation are common in internet chat applications but can prevent correct transliteration from being performed if not removed; thus by pre-processing, the accuracy of the transliteration can be improved (Chalabi, para. 0028). Regarding claim 17 , claim 17 is rejected for analogous reasons to claim 10 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Jho & Shin (US 2023/0245647 A1): transliteration models for generating transliterations of input text (Fig. 7a-d) Prasad & Prasad (US 2023/0116268 A1): phonetically mapping characters in input text to a second script and validating permutations of mapping to perform transliteration (Fig. 8) Datta et al. (US 2021/0233510 A1): transliteration model 400 with several transliteration transducers, which each convert a type of language script to a target script, such as Bengali-Latin (Fig. 4, para. 0038) Zhang & Yang (US 2020/0394356 A1): performing sliding window operation across first string set according to a step length and window size (para. 0009; para. 0046) Jagan & Nanjappa (US 2018/0336192 A1): transliteration module emplying several predefined multi-lingual transliteration frameworks, including pre-defined mapping conversion tables (para. 0022) Bellegarda et al. (US 2018/0322112 A1): transliteration utilizing previous character contexts (Process 800) Zelenkov (US 10,073,832 B2): transliteration, split input string in first alphabet into signal vowel or single consonant segments, and transliterate the segments into a second alphabet (Fig. 3) Zamora (US 5,113,342): rule-based transliteration, checking right and left context for current character to perform transliteration (Fig. 2) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY DOUGLAS HUTCHESON whose telephone number is (703)756-1601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM EST. 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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at (571)-272-7799. 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. /CODY DOUGLAS HUTCHESON/Examiner, Art Unit 2659 /PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 2 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 3 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 4 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 5 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 6 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 7 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 8 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 9 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 10 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 11 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 12 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 13 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 14 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 15 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 16 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 17 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 18 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 19 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 20 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 21 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 22 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 23 Art Unit: 2659 Application/Control Number: 18/952,946 Page 24 Art Unit: 2659
Prosecution Insights