CTFR 18/022,260 CTFR 83977 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 and reference Chen (as well as other references Gilliland, Tawfik, Baunach and Shaw) failing to disclose limitation “ determining, by the data processing system, that the client device uses both the first language and the second language based on a number of previous requests from the client device in the second language satisfying a threshold number ” (Arguments, 5/14/26, pg. 14-16) have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection involving reference Buryak as provided in the rejection below. Furthermore, absent any argument as to why the cited portions of the references fail to disclose language recited in the dependent claims, Examiner maintains that the rejections of dependent claims are appropriate. 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. 07-21-aia AIA 1. Claim s 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 27, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliland US 9,824,147 B1 (“Gilliland”) in view of Buryak et al US 2015/0161227 A1 (“Buryak”) Per claim 1 , Gilliland discloses a method of selecting content to provide in networked environments, comprising: receiving, by a data processing system having one or more processors, from a client device, a request for content to insert into a content slot of an information resource, the request including one or more keywords in a first language (fig. 8A; Front end server 122 receives search queries from, and returns search results to respective clients 102 via its connection with the communication network 104. A search query can contain any number of ordered search terms…., col. 4, ln 4-12); determining, by the data processing system, the first language based on the one or more keywords of the request and requests received prior to the request (col. 4, ln 49-51; col. 11, ln 28-56); determining, by the data processing system, using the request, a location identifier identifying a location of the client device (In some implementations, front end server 122 also receives indicia of the locale (hereinafter the “client locale”) where the client 102 that sent the search query is operated …, col. 4, ln 25-31); identifying, by the data processing system, a second language associated with the location identifier, the second language different from the first language (This classification is performed by classification engine 128 and serves as a proxy for a determination of whether the user of client application 132 is multilingual and wishes to receive search results in a different language than the application language. For example, a user in France using a French search engine interface who submits a search query in Spanish is presumed to be literate in Spanish. By identifying received queries that are in languages that are not in the same language as the application language, a determination is made that the user wishes to see results in the other language …, col. 4, ln 25-67); determining, by the data processing system, that the client device uses both the first language and the second language (For example, a user in France using a French search engine interface who submits a search query in Spanish is presumed to be literate in Spanish and is presumed to be requesting search results that are in Spanish. By identifying received queries that are in languages that are not in the same language as the application language, a determination is made that the user wishes to see results in the other language … For example, a user using an English interface in Canada is more likely to want to receive French search results, in addition to English search results, than a user using an English interface in Peru. Accordingly, in some implementations, classification engine 128 adjusts the classification of the search query based on the application language and the client locale from which the search query was received, col. 4, ln 51- col. 5, ln 12; col. 8, ln 15-22); identifying, by the data processing system, a first plurality of content items in the first language and a second plurality of content items in the second language based on the one or more keywords of the request in the first language, responsive to determining that both the first language and the second language are used on the client device (fig. 4A, elements 404, 424; locale-specific queries contain keywords strongly associated with requests for information about entities …, col. 8, ln 46-64; In some implementations, in response to receiving (436) the translated search results for the translated search query, front end server 122 performs one or more determinations prior to conveying the search results to client 102 …, col. 10, ln 25-33; In some instances, search results from the original search query include search results that are in the application language 802, 804 and search results that are in a foreign language (not shown), col. 13, ln 16-38); selecting, by the data processing system, a content item from one of the first plurality of content items and the second plurality of content items in accordance with a content selection protocol (Thus, if the proportion of foreign results in the search query exceeds the defined threshold value, front end server 122 conveys (446) the search results from the original search query to the client 102 without conveying translated search results. (57) If the proportion of foreign results in the search query is less than the defined threshold value, then the front end server 122 combines (442) search results from the translated and the original search queries and conveys (444) the combined search results to the client 102 …, col. 10, ln 34 – col. 11, ln 7); and providing, by the data processing system, the content item to the client device to insert into the content slot of the information resource (col. 10, ln 34 – col. 11, ln 7) Gilliland does not explicitly disclose determining, by the data processing system, that the client device uses both the first language and the second language based on a number of previous requests from the client device in the second language satisfying a threshold number However, this feature is taught by Buryak (For example, if a user first accesses a search application, the user may specify a preferred language for search results, or may submit search queries in a preferred language…, para. [0028]; A user's history, such as a browsing history or search query history, may provide a language indicator… As another example, locations, regions, addresses, and the like that the user has searched in a map or other search application may suggest that a language associated with the locations is a preferred language of the user. As a specific example, if a user has accessed map data for locations in Quebec, this search history may suggest that French and/or English are a preferred language for the user, para. [0029]; communications from a user's web browser or other application or device may be examined to determine if the browser provides an explicit indication of a preferred language … if a primary preferred language is identified at 425, languages identified by language indicators considered at and subsequent to 430 may be selected as additional preferred languages, para. [0041], at least one submitted search query in a preferred language in search history as implying request satisfying at least a zero threshold number of requests, determining two preferred languages for an application or device in response to a search request in one language as implying determining that the client device uses both the first language and the second language ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Buryak with the method of Gilliland in arriving at the missing features of Gilliland, because such combination would have resulted in providing localization for an application accessed by a user (Buryak, para. [0004]). Per claim 2 , Gilliland in view of Buryak discloses the method of claim 1, Gilliland discloses: identifying, by the data processing system, a second request from the client device, the second request including one or more second keywords in accordance with the second language (Abstract; For example, front end server 122 receives indicia that the application language is French, which indicates that the user interface displays search options and other user interface information in French…., col. 4, ln 19-22; For example, a user in France using a French search engine interface who submits a search query in Spanish is presumed to be literate in Spanish and is presumed to be requesting search results that are in Spanish…., col. 4, ln 55-58); and determining, by the data processing system based on the one or more keywords of the request and the one or more second keywords of the second request, that the client device uses the first language and the second language (This classification is performed by classification engine 128 and serves as a proxy for a determination of whether the user of client application 132 is multilingual and wishes to receive search results in a different language than the application language. For example, a user in France using a French search engine interface who submits a search query in Spanish is presumed to be literate in Spanish and is presumed to be requesting search results that are in Spanish. By identifying received queries that are in languages that are not in the same language as the application language, a determination is made that the user wishes to see results in the other language, col. 4, ln 49-62). Per claim 3 , Gilliland in view of Buryak discloses the method of claim 1, Gilliland discloses generating, by the data processing system, responsive to determining that the client device uses the first language and the second language, one or more second keywords in the second language based on the one or more keywords in the first language (fig. 4A; col. 10, ln 3-24), and wherein identifying the first plurality of content items further comprises identifying the first plurality of content items using the one or more keywords in the first language, and wherein identifying the second plurality of content items further comprises identifying the second plurality of content items using the one or more second keywords in the second language (fig. 4A; fig. 8C; col. 10, ln 3-24). Per claim 5 , Gilliland in view of Buryak discloses the method of claim 1, Gilliland discloses: determining, by the data processing system, that the first language determined from the one or more keywords of the request differs from the second language associated with the location identifier of the request (col. 4, ln 49 – col. 5, ln 12); and wherein identifying the first plurality of content items and the second plurality of content items further comprises identifying the first plurality of the content items and the second plurality of content items responsive to determining that the first language differs from the second language (fig. 8C; col. 10, ln 34 – col. 11, ln 7; col. 13, ln 55 – col. 14, ln 3). Per claim 6 , Gilliland in view of Buryak discloses the method of claim 1, Gilliland discloses: generating, by the data processing system, a selection value for each content item of the first plurality of content items and the second plurality of content items based on comparison of a language of the content item and the first language determined from the request (col. 10, ln 43 – col. 11, ln 7); and selecting, by the data processing system, the content item from the first plurality of content items and the second plurality of content items based on a corresponding plurality of selection values in accordance with the content selection protocol (col. 10, ln 43 – col. 11, ln 7). Per claim 8 , Gilliland in view of Buryak discloses the method of claim 1, Gilliland discloses wherein receiving the request further comprises receiving a query via a search engine accessed via an application executing on the client device, the query including the one or more keywords (col. 3, ln 14-22); and wherein providing the content item further comprises providing the content item in the content slot of the information resource and search results for the query as primary content on the information resource for presentation via the application (fig. 8A-8D; col. 3, ln 14-22). Per claim 10 , Gilliland in view of Buryak discloses the method of claim 1, Gilliland discloses: receiving, by the data processing system, prior to the request, a second request from the client device, the second request including one or more second keywords in the second language (For example, a user in France using a French search engine interface who submits a search query in Spanish is presumed to be literate in Spanish and is presumed to be requesting search results that are in Spanish. By identifying received queries that are in languages that are not in the same language as the application language, a determination is made that the user wishes to see results in the other language …, col. 4, ln 49 – col. 5, ln 12); determining, by the data processing system, the second language based on the one or more second keywords (col. 4, ln 49 – col. 5, ln 12; col. 13, ln 3-25); and identifying, by the data processing system, responsive to determining the second language, a third plurality of content items in the second language without identifying any content items in the first language (fig. 8A; col. 4, ln 49 – col. 5, ln 12). Per Claim 11 , Gilliland discloses a system for selecting content to provide in networked environments, comprising: a data processing system having one or more processors coupled with memory (fig. 1-3), configured to: receive, from a client device, a request for content to insert into a content slot of an information resource, the request including one or more keywords in a first language (fig. 8A; Front end server 122 receives search queries from, and returns search results to respective clients 102 via its connection with the communication network 104. A search query can contain any number of ordered search terms…., col. 4, ln 4-12); determine the first language based on the one or more keywords of the request and requests received prior to the request (col. 4, ln 49-51; col. 11, ln 28-56); determine, using the request, a location identifier identifying a location of the client device (In some implementations, front end server 122 also receives indicia of the locale (hereinafter the “client locale”) where the client 102 that sent the search query is operated …, col. 4, ln 25-31); identify a second language associated with the location identifier, the second language different from the first language (This classification is performed by classification engine 128 and serves as a proxy for a determination of whether the user of client application 132 is multilingual and wishes to receive search results in a different language than the application language. For example, a user in France using a French search engine interface who submits a search query in Spanish is presumed to be literate in Spanish. By identifying received queries that are in languages that are not in the same language as the application language, a determination is made that the user wishes to see results in the other language …, col. 4, ln 25-67); determine that the client device uses both the first language and the second language (For example, a user in France using a French search engine interface who submits a search query in Spanish is presumed to be literate in Spanish and is presumed to be requesting search results that are in Spanish. By identifying received queries that are in languages that are not in the same language as the application language, a determination is made that the user wishes to see results in the other language … For example, a user using an English interface in Canada is more likely to want to receive French search results, in addition to English search results, than a user using an English interface in Peru. Accordingly, in some implementations, classification engine 128 adjusts the classification of the search query based on the application language and the client locale from which the search query was received, col. 4, ln 51- col. 5, ln 12; col. 8, ln 15-22); identify a first plurality of content items in the first language and a second plurality of content items in the second language based on the one or more keywords of the request in the first language, responsive to determining that both the first language and the second language are used on the client device (fig. 4A, elements 404, 424; locale-specific queries contain keywords strongly associated with requests for information about entities …, col. 8, ln 46-64; In some implementations, in response to receiving (436) the translated search results for the translated search query, front end server 122 performs one or more determinations prior to conveying the search results to client 102 …, col. 10, ln 25-33; In some instances, search results from the original search query include search results that are in the application language 802, 804 and search results that are in a foreign language (not shown), col. 13, ln 16-38); and select a content item from one of the first plurality of content items and the second plurality of content items in accordance with a content selection protocol (Thus, if the proportion of foreign results in the search query exceeds the defined threshold value, front end server 122 conveys (446) the search results from the original search query to the client 102 without conveying translated search results. (57) If the proportion of foreign results in the search query is less than the defined threshold value, then the front end server 122 combines (442) search results from the translated and the original search queries and conveys (444) the combined search results to the client 102 …, col. 10, ln 34 – col. 11, ln 7); and provide the content item to the client device to insert into the content slot of the information resource (col. 10, ln 34 – col. 11, ln 7) Gilliland does not explicitly disclose determining, by the data processing system, that the client device uses both the first language and the second language based on a number of previous requests from the client device in the second language satisfying a threshold number However, this feature is taught by Buryak (For example, if a user first accesses a search application, the user may specify a preferred language for search results, or may submit search queries in a preferred language…, para. [0028]; A user's history, such as a browsing history or search query history, may provide a language indicator… As another example, locations, regions, addresses, and the like that the user has searched in a map or other search application may suggest that a language associated with the locations is a preferred language of the user. As a specific example, if a user has accessed map data for locations in Quebec, this search history may suggest that French and/or English are a preferred language for the user, para. [0029]; communications from a user's web browser or other application or device may be examined to determine if the browser provides an explicit indication of a preferred language … if a primary preferred language is identified at 425, languages identified by language indicators considered at and subsequent to 430 may be selected as additional preferred languages, para. [0041], at least one submitted search query in a preferred language in search history as implying request satisfying at least a zero threshold number of requests, determining two preferred languages for an application or device in response to a search request in one language as implying determining that the client device uses both the first language and the second language ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Buryak with the system of Gilliland in arriving at the missing features of Gilliland, because such combination would have resulted in providing localization for an application accessed by a user (Buryak, para. [0004]). Per claim 12 , Gilliland in view of Buryak discloses the system of claim 11, Gilliland discloses wherein the data processing system is further configured to: identify a second request from the client device, the second request including one or more second keywords in accordance with the second language (For example, front end server 122 receives indicia that the application language is French, which indicates that the user interface displays search options and other user interface information in French…., col. 4, ln 19-22; For example, a user in France using a French search engine interface who submits a search query in Spanish is presumed to be literate in Spanish and is presumed to be requesting search results that are in Spanish…., col. 4, ln 55-58) and determine, based on the one or more keywords of the request and the one or more second keywords of the second request, that the client device uses the first language and the second language (This classification is performed by classification engine 128 and serves as a proxy for a determination of whether the user of client application 132 is multilingual and wishes to receive search results in a different language than the application language. For example, a user in France using a French search engine interface who submits a search query in Spanish is presumed to be literate in Spanish and is presumed to be requesting search results that are in Spanish. By identifying received queries that are in languages that are not in the same language as the application language, a determination is made that the user wishes to see results in the other language col. 4, ln 49-62). Per claim 13 , Gilliland in view of Buryak discloses the system of claim 11, Gilliland discloses wherein the data processing system is further configured to: generate, responsive to determining that the client device uses the first language and the second language, one or more second keywords in the second language based on the one or more keywords in the first language (fig. 4A; col. 10, ln 3-24) identify the first plurality of content items using the one or more keywords in the first language, and identify the second plurality of content items using the one or more second keywords in the second language (fig. 4A; fig. 8C; col. 10, ln 3-24). Per claim 15 , Gilliland in view of Buryak discloses the system of claim 11, Gilliland discloses wherein the data processing system is further configured to: determine that the first language determined from the one or more keywords of the request differs from the second language associated with the location identifier of the request (col. 4, ln 49 – col. 5, ln 12); and identify the first plurality of content items and the second plurality of content items responsive to determining that the first language differs from the second language (fig. 8C; col. 10, ln 34 – col. 11, ln 7; col. 13, ln 55 – col. 14, ln 3). Per claim 16 , Gilliland in view of Buryak discloses the system of claim 11, Gilliland discloses wherein the data processing system is further configured to: generate a selection value for each content item of the first plurality of content items and the second plurality of content items based on comparison of a language of the content item and the first language determined from the request (col. 10, ln 43 – col. 11, ln 7); and select the content item from the first plurality of content items and the second plurality of content items based on a corresponding plurality of selection values in accordance with the content selection protocol (col. 10, ln 43 – col. 11, ln 7). Per claim 18 , Gilliland in view of Buryak discloses the system of claim 11, Gilliland discloses wherein the data processing system is further configured to: receive a query via a search engine accessed via an application executing on the client device, the query including the one or more keywords (col. 3, ln 14-22); and provide the content item in the content slot of the information resource and search results for the query as primary content on the information resource for presentation via the application (fig. 8A-8D; col. 3, ln 14-22). Per claim 20 , Gilliland in view of Buryak discloses the system of claim 11, Gilliland discloses wherein the data processing system is further configured to: receive a second request from the client device, the second request including one or more second keywords in the second language (For example, a user in France using a French search engine interface who submits a search query in Spanish is presumed to be literate in Spanish and is presumed to be requesting search results that are in Spanish. By identifying received queries that are in languages that are not in the same language as the application language, a determination is made that the user wishes to see results in the other language …, col. 4, ln 49 – col. 5, ln 12); determine the second language based on the one or more second keywords (col. 4, ln 49 – col. 5, ln 12; col. 13, ln 3-25); and identify, responsive to determining the second language, a third plurality of content items in the second language without identifying any content items in the first language (fig. 8A; col. 4, ln 49 – col. 5, ln 12). Per claim 27 , Gilliland in view of Buryak discloses the system of claim 11, Gilliland discloses wherein determining the first language based on the one or more keywords of the request and the requests received prior to the request includes applying a language recognition machine learning model to the one or more keywords of the request and the requests received prior to the request (col. 4, ln 49-51; col. 11, ln 48-56). Per claim 28 , Gilliland in view of Buryak discloses the system of claim 27, Gilliland discloses wherein the data processing system is further configured to: train the language recognition machine learning model to identify a language in which a text is written using a training dataset including one or more corpuses of text labeled with respective languages in which the respective corpuses are written (col. 4, ln 49-51; col. 11, ln 48-56). Per claim 30 , Gilliland in view of Buryak discloses the system of claim 11, Gilliland discloses wherein identifying the second plurality of content items in the second language based on the one or more keywords in the first language includes: applying a translation machine learning model to the one or more keywords in the first language to generate one or more keywords in the second language (fig. 1, element 125; fig. 3; a translated search server 125 as described above, including a translation engine 126 and a classification engine 128 …, col. 7, ln 10-18); and identifying second plurality of content items in the second language based on the generated one or more keywords in the second language (col. 10, ln 25-33) . 07-22-aia AIA 2. Claim s 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliland in view of Buryak as applied to claim s 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Tawfik US 2015/0234920 A1 (“Tawfik”) Per claim 7 , Gilliland in view of Buryak the method of claim 1, Gilliland does not explicitly disclose determining, by the data processing system, using a log record for the client device, a first interaction rate with content items in the first language and a second interaction rate with content items in the second language, generating, by the data processing system, a selection value for each content item of the first plurality of content items and the second plurality of content items based on at least one of the first interaction rate and the second interaction rate, or selecting, by the data processing system, the content item from the first plurality of content items and the second plurality of content items based on a corresponding plurality of selection values in accordance with the content selection protocol However, these features are taught by Tawfik : determining, by the data processing system, using a log record for the client device, a first interaction rate with content items in the first language and a second interaction rate with content items in the second language (para. [0029]; the extracted features comprise the linguistic profile of the user which indicates for example the languages that a user is able to speak and/or understand and may be obtained by analysing the web pages the user visits …, para. [0032]); generating, by the data processing system, a selection value for each content item of the first plurality of content items and the second plurality of content items based on at least one of the first interaction rate and the second interaction rate (a user's click through rates and in particular the language of web pages the user visits may be analysed with appropriate consent of the user. Thereby, a linguistic profile of the user may be obtained …, para. [0029]; para. [0032]); and selecting, by the data processing system, the content item from the first plurality of content items and the second plurality of content items based on a corresponding plurality of selection values in accordance with the content selection protocol (para. [0029]; para. [0032]; para. [0040]; para. [0045]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Tawfik with the method of Gilliland in view of Buryak in arriving at the missing features of Gilliland, because such combination would have resulted in improving the user’s search results (Tawfik, para. [0045]). Per claim 17 , Gilliland in view of Buryak the system of claim 11, Gilliland does not explicitly disclose determining, by the data processing system, using a log record for the client device, a first interaction rate with content items in the first language and a second interaction rate with content items in the second language, generating, by the data processing system, a selection value for each content item of the first plurality of content items and the second plurality of content items based on at least one of the first interaction rate and the second interaction rate, or selecting, by the data processing system, the content item from the first plurality of content items and the second plurality of content items based on a corresponding plurality of selection values in accordance with the content selection protocol However, these features are taught by Tawfik : wherein the data processing system is further configured to: determine, using a log record for the client device, a first interaction rate with content items in the first language and a second interaction rate with content items in the second language (para. [0029]; the extracted features comprise the linguistic profile of the user which indicates for example the languages that a user is able to speak and/or understand and may be obtained by analysing the web pages the user visits …, para. [0032]); generate a selection value for each content item of the first plurality of content items and the second plurality of content items based on at least one of the first interaction rate and the second interaction rate (a user's click through rates and in particular the language of web pages the user visits may be analysed with appropriate consent of the user. Thereby, a linguistic profile of the user may be obtained …, para. [0029]; para. [0032]); and select the content item from the first plurality of content items and the second plurality of content items based on a corresponding plurality of selection values in accordance with the content selection protocol (para. [0029]; para. [0032]; para. [0040]; para. [0045]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Tawfik with the system of Gilliland in view of Buryak in arriving at the missing features of Gilliland, because such combination would have resulted in improving the user’s search results (Tawfik, para. [0045]) . 07-22-aia AIA 3. Claim s 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliland in view of Buryak as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Baunach et al US 2020/0210053 A1 (“Baunach”) Per claim 21 , Gilliland in view of Buryak discloses the system of claim 11, Gilliland does not explicitly disclose wherein receiving the request includes receiving audio input and wherein the data processing system is further configured to: convert, using a speech recognition model, the audio input into a set of alphanumeric characters to be used as the one or more keywords of the request However, this feature is taught by Baunach (The user entering the text message may include one or more of: the user typing the text message and the user using a speech-to-text system to enter the text …, para. [0025]; The phrase detection engine 326 of software 314 may include natural language processing (NLP) functionality that may include speech recognition and/or natural language understanding techniques …, para. [0084]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Baunach with the system of Gilliland in view of Buryak in arriving at the missing features of Gilliland in view of Buryak, because such combination would have resulted in providing an alternate method of receiving user input as well as in detecting individual words or phrases that represent a place or location of interest (Baunach, para. [0025]; para. [0084]) Per claim 22 , Gilliland in view of Buryak and Baunach discloses the system of claim 21, Baunach discloses wherein the data processing system is further configured to: train the speech recognition model to identify keywords based on audio input (para. [0056]; Machine learning functionality of the phrase detection engine 326 may use, as a learning dataset, a set of messages sent and/or received by the user of mobile device A 102 and/or other users. In one example, such learning datasets may be tagged or labeled with words or phrases that are places or items of interest that may have location data associated with such items. The machine learning algorithm is then trained …, para. [0093]). Per claim 23 , Gilliland in view of Buryak and Baunach discloses the system of claim 21, Baunach discloses wherein the speech recognition model is a natural language processing (NLP) model (para. [0084]). Per claim 24 , Gilliland in view of Buryak discloses the system of claim 11, Gilliland does not explicitly disclose wherein determining, using the request, the location identifier identifying the location of the client device includes determining the location identifier by applying a machine learning model to the one or more keywords of the request However, this feature is taught by Baunach (para. [0093]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Baunach with the system of Gilliland in view of Buryak in arriving at the missing features of Gilliland in view of Buryak, because such combination would have resulted in improving the efficiency and speed of composing electronic messages (Baunach, para. [0097]). Per claim 25 , Gilliland in view of Buryak and Baunach discloses the system of claim 24, Baunach discloses wherein the data processing system is further configured to: train the machine learning model to recognize keywords associated with geographic regions (para. [0093]). Per claim 26 , Gilliland in view of Buryak and Baunach discloses the system of claim 24, Baunach discloses wherein the machine learning model is a natural language processing (NLP) model (para. [0084]) . 07-22-aia AIA 4. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliland in view of Buryak as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Shaw US 8,515,934 B1 (“Shaw”) Per claim 31 , Gilliland in view of Buryak discloses the system of claim 30, Gilliland discloses wherein the data processing system is further configured to: train the translation machine learning model to generate one or more keywords in the second language based on one or more keywords in the first language, using a training dataset including one or more corpuses of text written in different languages (fig. 1, element 125; fig. 3; a translated search server 125 as described above, including a translation engine 126 and a classification engine 128 …, col. 7, ln 10-18; col. 11, ln 48-56). Gilliland does not explicitly disclose wherein one or more pairs of the one or more corpuses of text are labeled as translations of one another However, this feature is taught by Shaw (col. 7, ln 20-43) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Baunach with the system of Gilliland in view of Buryak in arriving at the missing features of Gilliland in view of Buryak, because such combination would have resulted in providing highly relevant and high-quality search results to a multilingual searcher (Shaw, col. 1, ln 31-43) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4, 9, 14, 19, 29 and 32 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 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 form . Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUJIMI A ADESANYA whose telephone number is (571)270-3307. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00pm. 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, 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 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. /OLUJIMI A ADESANYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 2 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 3 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 4 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 5 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 6 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 7 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 8 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 9 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 10 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 11 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 12 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 13 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 14 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 15 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 16 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 17 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 18 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 19 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 20 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 21 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 22 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 23 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 24 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 25 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/022,260 Page 26 Art Unit: 2658
Prosecution Insights