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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is in claim language/legalese form, without specifying the improvement in the art. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waibel (20110307241).
As per claim 1, Waibel (20110307241) teaches an electronic device comprising:
memory storing a first translation model configured to perform translation using a first translation method and a second translation model configured to perform translation using a second translation method (as using a first translation model and a second translation model – see para 0014; see para 0048 using a device with a screen and input/output – the device by definition, contains a memory/processor executing the steps);
and at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, individually and/or collectively, configured to (see para 0048 using a device with a screen and input/output – the device by definition, contains a memory/processor executing the steps): based on an original text and a translation intention being input (as receiving text input as a translation – para 0016);
identify whether a word corresponding to the translation intention exists in training data, and based on a word corresponding to the translation intention existing in the training data, generate a first translated text for the original text based on the first translation model and the translation intention (as, if the word exists/already present, performing an ASR – para 0074 “if the word is present….step 50b”) ,
and based on a word corresponding to the translation intention not existing in the training data, generate a second translated text for the original text based on the second translation model and the translation intention when the word/phrase is absent (e.g., a new word is entered – para 0108), then processing the translation with a different lexicon based ASR – see para 0074, “if the word is not present in the background recognition lexicon….each entry contains pronunciation and word-class information…both languages”).
As per claim 2, Waibel (20110307241) teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first translation method includes a target lemma annotation method (as using targeted annotation/labeling – para 0136).
As per claim 3, Waibel (20110307241) teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the second translation method includes a placeholder method (as using placeholder/labeling, when performing the translation, especially the pairing – para 0129-0131).
As per claim 4, Waibel (20110307241) teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to:
identify whether a word corresponding to the translation intention exists in the generated first translated text (as, identifying words to be potentially matched – para 0014),
and based on a word corresponding to the translation intention not existing in the generated first translated text, generate a third translated text for the original text based on a third translation method and the translation intention (when, a word is already present, performing an ASR – para 0074 “if the word is present….step 50b”, and when the word/phrase is absent (e.g., a new word is entered – para 0108), then processing the translation with a different lexicon based ASR – see para 0074, “if the word is not present in the background recognition lexicon….each entry contains pronunciation and word-class information…both languages”).
As per claim 5, Waibel (20110307241) teaches the electronic device of claim 4, wherein the third translation method includes a constrained decoding method (as, selecting from a plurality of, MT models for the decoding – para 0121).
Claims 6-10 are method claims that perform steps found in device claims 1-5 above and as such claims 6-10 are similar in scope and content to claims 1-5 above; therefore, claims 6-10 are rejected under similar rationale as presented against claims 1-15 above.
Claims 11-15 are non-transitory computer readable medium claims that perform steps found in device claims 1-5 above and as such, claims 11-15 are similar in scope and content to claims 1-5 above; therefore, claims 11-15 are rejected under similar rationale as presented against claims 1-15 above. Furthermore, to the storage/memory and processor in claims 11-15, see the mapping to memory/processor found in claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see related art listed on the PTO-892 form. Furthermore, the following references were found to have elements common to applicants spec/claims:
Tu et al (20170293611) teaches using a constrained network and translating a user’s input for target object information.
Blassin et al (20160162478) teaches generation of annotated intentions derived from user’s input (para 0238) with multiple models (para 0393-0395).
Casal et al (20180143975) teaches multiple cognizable task units to perform recognition (para 0087) and para 0015-0018 comparing semantic similarity of each CTU’s.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Opsasnick, telephone number (571)272-7623, who is available Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Richemond Dorvil, can be reached at (571)272-7602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Michael N Opsasnick/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658 08/01/2026
Prosecution Insights