DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Action of 09/16/2025, Applicant, on 01/15/2026, amended independent Claims 1 and 7. Claims 2-6 and 8-12 are as originally or previously presented.
Claims 1-12 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
4. Prior Claim Objections withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments
5. The prior 35 USC §101 rejection maintained despite Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to a statutory category of method (process) or medium (manufacture), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
8. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 1 recites A method .. for localizing .. a plurality of elements, comprising the steps of: with respect to at least one of the plurality of elements, determining one of one or more categories into which the at least one element is classified, selecting an initial localization source from a plurality of localization sources to localize the at least one element based on a known metric characterizing the category, wherein the plurality of localization sources include no translation, human translation, .. for localizing at least one element with respective localization qualities and costs, wherein the known metric quantifies impact of localizing content of the at least one element in terms of a return on investment on the cost of localizing using the initial localization source, and replacing the at least one element .. using corresponding at least one initial localized element generated by localizing the at least one element using the initial localization source; monitoring the activities of visitors to .. each of the at least one initial localized element; updating the metric indicative of an estimated return on investment using a different translation source based on the .. activities associated with the at least one element; and with respect to each of the at least one element, .. determining, .. based on the updated metric indicating the estimated return on investment for localizing using a different one of the plurality of localization sources, whether to change from the initial localization source to a different localization source to translate the element, if it is determined to change to the different localization source, .. routing .. the at least one element to the .. determined different one of the plurality of localization sources for translation, and replacing the initial localized element with an updated initialized element generated by localizing the element using the different localization source, which is an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), because monitoring the activities of visitors and estimating a return on investment using a different translation source are business processes involving fundamental economic practices (mitigating risk) and commercial interactions (marketing or sales activities or behaviors) under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation; it is also an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because determining a classification for an element and determining whether to change from the initial localization source to a different localization source for translation is a process that, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves evaluation, judgement or observation. Claim 7 recites a similar abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis for independent Claims 1 and 7, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the Claims, including additional elements such as implemented on a computer having at least one processor, storage, and communication platform, automatically, a webpage, machine translation, machine translation with human review, across a network, dynamic, by a server, Machine readable and non-transitory medium having information recorded thereon for automatically localizing a webpage, when read by the machine, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B of the analysis for independent Claims 1 and 7, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers (as evidenced by paragraphs 153-161 of the Specification and Figures 1, 23 of the Drawings in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 2-6 and 8-12 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract ideas noted in independent Claims 1 and 7 from which they depend, and may further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims. These dependent Claims therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent Claims, and are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 4 and 10 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because these Claims, including additional elements such as those listed above for the independent Claims and crowd translation, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). These dependent Claims are therefore also directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 do not include any additional elements beyond those listed above with respect to the independent Claims. These dependent Claims therefore do not provide an inventive concept ("significantly more") for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for the independent Claims.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 4 and 10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above for the independent Claims and crowd translation, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers (as evidenced by paragraphs 153-161 of the Specification and Figures 1, 23 of the Drawings in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant Claims, is also not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered, but are found not persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
10. Applicant argues (at pp. 7-9) that the amended claims “cannot be performed in the human mind .. because the human mind cannot monitor dynamic activities of visitors to webpages across a network” and “these claim features extend far beyond fundamental economic principles or practices”, and therefore do not fall into the abstract idea categories of Mental Processes or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and thus are patent eligible at Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite abstract ideas in the categories of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (monitoring the activities of visitors, estimating a return on investment, for example) and Mental Processes (determining a classification for an element, for example) under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the amended claim language in light of the Specification at Step 2A Prong One of the analysis, as explained in detail at paragraph 8 above in this office action. The computer-related descriptions such as ‘dynamic’, ‘automatically’ and elements such as ‘webpages’, ‘network’ are additional elements which are considered at Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis.
11. Applicant argues (at p. 10) that, at Step 2A Prong Two, “The claims provide an improvement to known technical problems regarding localization of Internet content. .. Applicant's claimed concept overcomes such technical problems by automatic determination, adjustment, and routing to localization sources”, and the claims thus integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore eligible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims when considered as a whole, including the additional elements, generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use ( MPEP 2106.05(h)). Also, the additional elements are merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), and are therefore not indicative of integration into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two.
12. Applicant argues (at pp. 11-12) that, at Step 2B of the analysis, “claim 1 amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception” under Berkheimer, when the claim language is considered as a whole, but that “the Office Action has also incorrectly and improperly identified that the alleged "additional elements" do not amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in detail at paragraph 8 above in this office action, the claims when considered as a whole, including the additional elements, as required by Berkheimer, do not amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception).
With regard to Applicant’s contention that the Office has merely addressed the additional elements on their own without reference to the totality of the claim language: Examiner notes that the language at paragraph 8 above states “the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements .. individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers .. nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment”. See also MPEP 2105.05(I), 2105.05(II).
13. Examiner further notes that the novelty in the current claims (as indicated by withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection) lies in the selection process for a translation service based on estimated return on investment, which is part of the abstract idea, not an improvement of technology.
Conclusion
14. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Wu Rutao can be reached on (571) 272-6045. 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights