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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5, 6, 12, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “…desired granularity…” in claim 5 line 2 (as well as in the similarly recited claims 12 and 19) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “desired granularity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what makes a level of granularity “desired”. The granularity of the image may be interpreted currently as something arbitrary and broad. For instance, the granularity could be considered as “desired” by virtue of the image data merely being selected by the user. Similarly, the granularity may be desired by a strictly set threshold. By what metric is granularity is to be selected in order to be determined as desired?
The term “…desired granularity…” will be read as “…granularity…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Additionally, due to reciting similar limitations, claims 15-20 are rejected for the same reasons as provided below. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, for the reasons as follows:
In re to claim 1, the claim is directed to a method, which falls within one of the four statutory categories. Further, claim 15 is directed to a system, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 1 recites: “A method for correcting translation errors when performing GUI globalization testing, the method comprising: taking a screenshot of a graphical user interface (GUI);
enabling a user to select text in the screenshot;
in response to the selection, automatically retrieving a file in which at least some portion of the text is contained;
automatically locating, within the file, the portion; and
enabling the user to update the portion in the file in order to update corresponding text in the graphical user interface.”
Claim 15 recites similar limitations to claim 1, being the system that is used to execute the method of claim 1.
The limitations of claim 1, as drafted, are considered to fall under the category of an abstract concept, being a mental process.
For example, an individual may perform an evaluation of a graphical user interface (GUI), which they may mentally translate the words (and/or alter the words) that comprise said GUI. They may further update the mental image of the GUI with the translation/change of wording.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Additionally, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Further, regarding claim 15, the claim recites the additional elements of “…at least one processor…” and “…at least one memory device…”
The additional elements do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the additional elements do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in
MPEP 2106).
Furthermore, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. A processor may be implemented by a generic computer that performs functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional. It is a computer element which performs generic computer functions/computations. Thus, this element does not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Memory may be implemented by a generic memory component that performs functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional. Memory is a computer element which performs generic computer data storage. Thus, this element does not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-
identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination
adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no
indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any
other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and
mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Further, the limitations of claim 1 (and similarly in claim 15) “…in response to the selection, automatically retrieving a file in which at least some portion of the text is contained;
automatically locating, within the file, the portion …” are regarded as insignificant extra-solution activity with respect to MPEP 2106.05 (g), being data gathering.
Dependent claims
Claims 2-3 (dependent on claim 1) and claims 16-17 (dependent on claim 15) disclose additional details regarding the captured screenshot data. They do not add significantly more than the abstract idea, nor integrate it into a practical application. As such, they are a part of the abstract idea.
Claims 4-7 (dependent on claim 1) and claims 18-20 (dependent on claim 15) disclose additional details regarding attributes of data processed by the system. They do not add significantly more than the abstract idea, nor integrate it into a practical application. As such, they are a part of the abstract idea.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, for the reasons as follows:
In re to claim 8, the claim is not directed to patentable subject matter, instead it is directed to a computer program product.
Dependent claims
Claims 9-10 (dependent on claim 8) disclose additional details regarding the captured screenshot data. They do not add significantly more than the abstract idea, nor integrate it into a practical application. As such, they are a part of the abstract idea.
Claims 11-14 disclose additional details regarding attributes of data processed by the system. They do not add significantly more than the abstract idea, nor integrate it into a practical application. As such, they are a part of the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zaiwei et al. (US publication 20160283204 A1; hereinafter “Zaiwei”).
In re to claim 1, Zaiwei teaches wherein: A method for correcting translation errors when performing GUI globalization testing, the method comprising: taking a screenshot of a graphical user interface (GUI) ([0022] lines 1-11 discloses the capture of screenshots of a graphical user interface (GUI));
enabling a user to select text in the screenshot ([0028] lines 22-23 and Fig. 4 (415) discloses the selection of text within a screenshot);
in response to the selection, automatically retrieving a file in which at least some portion of the text is contained ([0031] lines 6-8 discloses a generated mapping file. Further, per [0042] lines 1-6 the mapping file is indicated to be edited as a result of user translation (which is shown in Fig. 4 to occur as a result of user selection). As such, in response to selection a file is updated. Thus, the file is retrieved with at least some portion of the text by virtue of changing the original text);
automatically locating, within the file, the portion ([0042] lines 1-6 the mapping file is indicated to be edited as a result of user translation. This edited file is further indicated in [0042] to be used to alter the screenshot. Thus, the text is located within the file for it to be further edited); and
enabling the user to update the portion in the file in order to update corresponding text in the graphical user interface ([0042] lines 1-6 discloses that the file is updated in order to update the text it corresponds to in the screenshot of the GUI. Additionally, per [0058] the updates may be used to change files according to input user changes, and thus is understood to be an update to text in the graphical user interface due to altering the localization build of the software that comprises the GUI).
In re to claim 2 [dependent on claim 1], Zaiwei teaches wherein: enabling the user to select the text in the screenshot comprises retrieving, from picture attributes of the screenshot, coordinates in the screenshot associated with the text (Fig. 8A-8C shows that the mapping file used for editing text in the screenshot includes coordinates for the text. It is further understood that the this is from picture attributes by virtue of it being determined from user selection of an area within the screenshot (as shown in Fig. 4), said attributes being corresponding coordinate data of the selected area).
In re to claim 3 [dependent on claim 1], Zaiwei teaches wherein: enabling the user to select the text in the screenshot (Fig. 4 shows user selection of text within the screenshot (each correspondent tot the claims respectively)) comprises retrieving the text from picture attributes of the screenshot Fig. 8A-8C shows that the mapping file used for editing text in the screenshot includes coordinates for the text. It is further understood that the this is from picture attributes by virtue of it being determined from user selection of an area within the screenshot (as shown in Fig. 4), said attributes being corresponding coordinate data of the selected area).
In re to 7 [dependent on claim 1], Zaiwei teaches wherein: retrieving the file comprises retrieving the file from a plurality of files associated with the graphical user interface ([0049] and Figs. 8A-8C discloses that the retrieved file (correspondent to the claims) indicates that there are a plurality of different files generated for the screenshot with respect to a plurality of texts in said screenshot (as shown in Fig. 7) that includes the GUI).
As to claims 8-11 and 14, they are the computer program product used to execute the method of claims 1-4 and 7 (respectively). As such, they recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons as provided above.
As to claims 15-17, they are the system used to execute the method of claims 1-4 (respectively). As such, they recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons as provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 4-6, 11-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaiwei in further view of Chan et al. (US patent 9971767 B1; hereinafter “Chang”).
In re to claim 4 [dependent on claim 1], Zaiwei does not explicitly teach wherein: further comprising calculating a probability percentage for the file, the probability percentage indicating a probability that the text in the file links to the selected text in the graphical user interface.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Chang teaches wherein: further comprising calculating a probability percentage for the file (col. 6 line 64-col. 7 line 2 discloses retrieval of a file. Further, col. 7 lines 2-14 uses said file for location of character strings. Additionally, col. 8 lines 3-19 discloses the use of character strings from the file retrieved in the translation process to perform translation probability calculations), the probability percentage indicating a probability that the text in the file links to the selected text in the graphical user interface (col. 8 lines 26-37 discloses that the system calculates a probability that the translation suggestions are correct for a translation of the GUI text. It is understood that this is indicative of a calculated link to the selected text (the text being translated) by virtue of determining it to be a correct translation).
Chang, like Zaiwei, discloses a system that performs translation in relation to GUI.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaiwei, to perform probability calculations, as taught by Chang. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to reduce the amount of mental work required of the editor by providing a selection of possible translations regarding a selected area of text.
In re to 5 [dependent on claim 1], Zaiwei does not explicitly teach wherein: enabling the user to select the text comprises enabling the user to select the text at a desired granularity (Fig. 4 indicates that the user may select the text within the screenshot. As the screenshot is composed of image data it has a level of granularity. Thus, it is understood that said user is selecting text at a granularity (being the granularity of the captured screenshot)).
In re to 6 [dependent on claim 5], Zaiwei does not explicitly teach wherein: further comprising calculating a probability percentage for the file, the probability percentage indicating a probability that the text in the file at the desired granularity links to the selected text in the graphical user interface.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Chang teaches wherein: further comprising calculating a probability percentage for the file (col. 6 line 64-col. 7 line 2 discloses retrieval of a file. Further, col. 7 lines 2-14 uses said file for location of character strings. Additionally, col. 8 lines 3-19 discloses the use of character strings from the file retrieved in the translation process to perform translation probability calculations), the probability percentage indicating a probability that the text in the file at the desired granularity links to the selected text in the graphical user interface (col. 8 lines 26-37 discloses that the system calculates a probability that the translation suggestions are correct for a translation of the GUI text. It is understood that this is indicative of a calculated link to the selected text (the text being translated) by virtue of determining it to be a correct translation).
Chang, like Zaiwei, discloses a system that performs translation in relation to GUI.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaiwei, to perform probability calculations, as taught by Chang. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to reduce the amount of mental work required of the editor by providing a selection of possible translations regarding a selected area of text.
As to claims 11, 12 and 13, they are the computer program product used to implement the method of claims 4, 5, and 6 (respectively). As such, they recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons as provided above.
As to claims 18, 19 and 20, they are the system used to execute the method of claims 4, 5, and 6 (respectively). As such, they recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons as provided above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M COOMBER whose telephone number is (571)270-0950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/KEVIN M COOMBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights