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 .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant notes that claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended to recite “selecting one or more optimal translation outputs by balancing the respective translation integrity values and the text lengths for each of the generated plurality of translations against the calculated translation deviation range and the calculated guided text length range for the received text in a balancing process, the balancing process allowing selection of an optimal translation for a given user interface that has an acceptable translation integrity while maintaining design requirements for the user interface design.”
a. Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose this claim language . Applicant contends Fuerstenau does not discuss design requirements for the user interface design context being utilized in translation in any way. Applicant further argues Andrews does not cure this deficiency because even if Andrews discusses provision of expansion space for each control associated with a text field within a dialog box such that the expansion of text due to translation may be accommodated, Andrews does not indicate selection of an optimal translation for a give user interface that has an acceptable translation integrity while maintaining design requirements for the user interface design context. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The added limitations merely state the functional result of the balancing step, namely selection of a translation that has acceptable translation integrity while maintaining user interface design requirements Fuerstenau teaches generating translation quality metrics from candidate translation and using those metrics to select among translation outputs or translation mechanisms. Andrews teaches maintaining user interface design requirements by enforcing control sizes, expansion space and layout constraints when translated text is placed in a dialog box and menu templates. Therefore, the combination still teaches selecting an optimal translation for a given user interface that satisfies both translation quality criteria and user interface design requirements
b. Applicant further argues that the references do not disclose generating a plurality of translation of the received text within the user design context in the second language. Applicant states that even assuming that Fuerstenau discloses generating a plurality of translations, there is no discussion of it occurring within the user design context. Applicant further discusses that Fuerstenau does not discuss any sort of design context in any fashion. Applicant also argues that Andrews does not cure this deficiency because even though Andrews discusses translation of text fields within interactive software applications Andrews does not specifically indicate there is a plurality of translations. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not rely on Fuerstenau alone for the user interface aspect. Fuerstenau teaches receiving text to be translated, generating candidate translation in the target language and assigning per candidate numeric quality or confidence value via phrase table analysis. Andrews teaches that the translated text is text for dialog boxes, menus, captions and text fields in an interactive application, i.e., text that exists within a user interface design context. Andrews further teaches that this context includes design requirements and limitations (like all user interfaces regardless of whether it supports a translation back end) because the text fields are subject to control parameters, fixed template structures and expansion space constraints that govern where and how translated text is positioned. Accordingly, the combination teaches receiving text to be translated and generating translation within a user interface design context.
c. Lastly Applicant argues that the references do not disclose generating a plurality of translation of received text within the user interface design context in the second language, each of the generated plurality of translation having a respective translation integrity value and text length. Applicant points to the office actions reliance on Fuerstenau ¶[0018], which states that after obtaining a candidate set of translation in the target language for input text, each candidate translation corresponds to a phrase entry in a phrase table or analogous mapping structure and each entry is a source phrase, target phrase and one or more numeric scores. Applicant states that even if Fuerstenau discloses one or more numeric scores, this does not correspond with each of the generated plurality of translations having a respective translation integrity value and text length. Applicant further contends Andrews does not disclose generating a plurality of translation of the received text at all. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fuerstenau expressly teaches a candidate set of confidence scores, to the candidate translations. These scores correspond to the claimed translation integrity values. Further, each candidate translation is a concrete target language phrase or token sequence and therefore has a corresponding text length. Andrews reinforces the relevance of text length by teaching that translated text must fit within user interface controls and that control parameters and expansion space are used to accommodate differing translated text sizes. Therefore, the cited combination still teaches a plurality of generated translations, each having a respective translation integrity value and text length.
Accordingly, Applicant’s amendments and arguments do not overcome the rejection of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 over Fuerstenau in view of Andrews.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerstenau (US 2020/0380216) in view of Andrews (US 5,243,519).
Regarding Claim 1:
Fuerstenau computer-based method of generating and selecting an optimal translation for a user interface comprising:
receiving text to be translated from a first language to a second language within a user interface design context (Fuerstenau: p[0019] p[0024] discloses obtaining requests to translate token sequences from a first language to a second language using a neural network based machine translation service. The translation requests are generated by client applications executing on user facing devices such as phones, tablets, desktops etc.),
generating a plurality of translations of the received text within the user interface design context in the second language, each of the generated plurality of translations having a respective translation integrity value and text length (Fuerstenau: p[0018] discloses training a neural network based machine translation model and after training obtaining candidate set of translations in the target language for input text, each candidate translation corresponds to a phrase entry in a phrase table or analogous mapping structure. Each entry is a source phrase, a target phrase and one or more numeric scores);
calculating a translation deviation range for the received text (Fuerstenau: p[0018] p[0033] discloses generating statistical phrase tables from the candidate translations and computing various quality metrics and distributions over the probabilities associated with alternative translation of the same source phrase. For each source phrase the system evaluates the distribution scores across the different candidate target phrases and uses characteristics of that distribution to quantify quality and variability);
and selecting one or more optimal translation outputs by balancing the respective translation integrity values in a balancing process, the balancing process allowing selection of an optimal translation for a given user interface that has an acceptable translation integrity (Fuerstenau: ¶[0020]-[0025], ¶[0031]-[0033] and ¶[0048]-[0050] discloses analyzing candidate translations using a phrase table derived from quality metrics, including score thresholds etc. and then using those metrics to determine what translation should be chosen, this is a valancing process. Fuerstenau also discloses using the generated metrics to select among translation outputs or even among translation mechanisms, including selecting an alternate model when the expected quality of the current model is not acceptable. ¶[0024] discloses GUIs, web consoles and apps etc.)
Fuerstenau does not explicitly disclose the crossed out limitations above, however, Andrews discloses
the user interface design context including any design requirements or limitations associated with an environment in which text will be positioned upon being translated (Andrews: Fig. 2, fields 34-48, Fig. 3, Col 1 line 65- Col 2 line 9, Col 4 line 65- Col 4 line 4 discloses a “user interface design context” which includes design requirements or limitations associated with the environment in which the text is positioned. Andrews describes dialog boxes and menu templates whose physical format is “strongly coupled to the length of text fields within the dialog box menu template.” Each text field is associated with control parameters defining its size and layout and the architecture enforces those limit. In other words, the UI design context explicitly includes the size, format and field constraints of the windows, dialog boxes, and menus i.e., design requirements or limitations associated with an environment in which text will be positioned upon being translated);
determining, based on the user interface design context and historical user interface design context sample data related to user interfaces with similar user interface design requirements, one or more optimal user interface designs (Andrews: Col 3 lines 45-49, Figs. 2-3, Fig. 5 teaches a system that uses dialog box templates and menu templates as reusable user interface structures. Each template defines control parameters for each text field and these templates are reused across applications and windows having similar interface requirements. Andrews explains that certain GUI architectures use dialog box and menu templates whose physical format is dependent on field sizes, and that an artificial control is added to templates to identify captions and menu text, enabling automatic extraction and reinsertion of translated text while dynamically adjusting those structures at runtime using control parameters (see Col 2 lines 1-10). The use of dialog bod and menu templates that encode control parameters and are applied repeatedly to different displays or menus having similar layout requirements constitutes historical user interface design context sample data for user interfaces with similar requirements);
calculating a guided text length range for the received text based on the one or more optimal user interface designs, the guided text length range a numerical representation of possible lengths of translated text which allow the translated text to meet user interface design requirements (Andrews: Col 4 lines 17-33, Fig. 5 discloses associating each text field within a dialog box or menu with a control parameter that specifies the fields size and includes a variable expansion space to accommodate increases int text size due to translation. These control parameters and expansion regions necessarily define numeric bounds on how long the translated text may be while still fitting the UI control. This effectively calculates an allowable length interval for translated text in each field that is a numerical representation);
and selecting one or more optimal translation outputs… by balancing… the text lengths for each of the generated plurality of translations against the calculated translation deviation range (Andrews: Col 2-4 discloses that translated UI text must also satisfy UI length constraints using the control parameters and expansion ranges described above).
while maintaining design requirements for the user interface design (Andrews: Col 3 line 65 – Col 4 line 4, Col 4 lines 17-32, Col 5 lines 57-62, Col 5 lines 57-62 teaches that translated UI text must fit within the existing dialog box and menu template structure and that each textual field is associated with a control parameter setting forth field size. Andrews further teaches providing variable expansion space so that the control can be lengthened to accommodate increased text size due to translation. Therefore, preserving the structure and usability of the interface. This is maintaining design requirement for the UI design).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fuerstenau with Andrews. Fuerstenau teaches generating a plurality of translations and evaluating them using confidence scores and model reliability and selecting translations based on accuracy metrics. Andrews discloses the user interface aspects of translated content, ensuring that translated text fits within predefined UI constraints. Andrews describes how translated text fields can be dynamically adjusted to accommodate different lengths by using controls and expansion spaces, allowing content to be presented effectively within a structured UI design. Given these two ideas it would be logical and beneficial to combine these two references because Fuerstenau does not explicitly consider the impact of translation length within a UI. Andrews ensures that translations fit within UI design. By integrating Andrews’ idea into Fuerstenau, it would be obvious to achieve a system that selects the optimal translation output by balancing the translation scores and text length constraints of a user’s UI design. The motivation for doing so is that it enhances usability in UI-based translation systems, providing better translation/UI quality and adaptability.
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Fuerstenau and Andrews further discloses the computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the respective translation integrity values are generated by applying one or more quality assurance metric standards to each of the generated plurality of translations (Fuerstenau: p[0018-0022] p[0033]discloses evaluating translation quality through statistical phrase tables and quality metrics, including confidence scores and probability indicators for correctness. These quality metrics serve as quality assurance metric standards).
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Fuerstenau and Andrews further discloses the computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the translation deviation range is calculated based on self-learning on similar historical translation projects stored within an accessible repository (Fuerstenau: p[0020-0024] discloses a system that evaluates translations using historical translation data stored in statistical phrase tables. The system leverages previous translation data to assess quality and guide future translations).
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Fuerstenau and Andrews further discloses the computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising: employing a user interface design optimization module configured to process and leverage the historical user interface design context sample data to generate layout suggestions for the one or more optimal user interface designs (Andrews: Col 3 line 65 – Col 4 line 4 and Col 5 lines 50-62 discloses optimizing user interface layout using stored text field parameters, which is effectively historical UI design data, to improve user interaction and efficiency).
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Fuerstenau and Andrews further discloses the computer-based method of claim 4, wherein the generated layout suggestions include one or more of optimal sizing suggestions, spacing suggestions, layout suggestions, and icon replacement suggestions (Andrews discusses UI optimization technique’s, including modifying layout, spacing and icon placement, to accommodate translated text within the interface constraints).
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Fuerstenau and Andrews further discloses the computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising: storing feedback received from a user related to the one or more selected optimal translation outputs within a repository (Fuerstenau: p[0028-0030] discloses using quality feedback and statistical evaluation to improve translation accuracy over time. It discloses capturing translated output data and storing it for model improvement).
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Fuerstenau and Andrews further discloses the computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising: employing a translation learning model module configured to process and leverage historical translated sample data to map translation integrity values and corresponding text length changes within the historical translated sample data (Fuerstenau: p[0020-0025] discloses using historical translations to improve future translation models by analyzing translation quality and deviations over time, including mapping translation length variations. Andrews discloses text length changes which given the combination would necessarily include the text length change to become a process within Fuerstenau’s model).
Regarding Claim 8:
Claim 8 has been analyzed with regard to claim 1 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
It is noted Fuerstenau’s computer implemented method carries out the steps of the computer system of claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9:
Claim 9 has been analyzed with regard to claim 2 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 has been analyzed with regard to claim 3 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 has been analyzed with regard to claim 4 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 has been analyzed with regard to claim 5 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 has been analyzed with regard to claim 6 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 has been analyzed with regard to claim 7 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 has been analyzed with regard to claim 1 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
It is noted Fuerstenau’s computer implemented method carries out the steps of the computer program product of claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 has been analyzed with regard to claim 2 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 has been analyzed with regard to claim 3 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 has been analyzed with regard to claim 4 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 has been analyzed with regard to claim 5 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 has been analyzed with regard to claim 6 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN SCOTT MCLEAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4599. The examiner can normally be reached "Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 EST, off Every 2nd Friday".
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, Hai Phan can be reached at (571) 272-6338. 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.
/IAN SCOTT MCLEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2654
/HAI PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights