DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the amendment filed 23 July 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and considered below.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
After describing the newly added features in the independent claims, Applicant argues:
These features are not abstract ideas, nor are they mental processes. Humans do not and cannot maintain or dynamically update multiple context-specific dictionaries in real time, nor do they perform automated context fingerprinting at scale. The claimed process is not merely "applying a generic computer to an abstract idea," but rather recites a specific improvement to computer translation technology (context-aware translation and dictionary management).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the claims disclose neither updating multiple dictionaries nor context fingerprinting “at scale”. Nevertheless, a human may determine a context of a text based on keywords contained in the text and use that information to select a domain dictionary from a plurality of domain dictionaries for translating text string. Also, the claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that (using existing machine learning technology) they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved. We have consistently held, in the context of computer-assisted methods, that such claims are not made patent eligible under § 101 simply because they speed up human activity. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; DealerTrack, 674 F.3d at 1333. Whether the issue is raised at step one or step two, the increased speed and efficiency resulting from use of computers (with no improved computer techniques) do not themselves create eligibility. See, e.g., Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (rejecting argument that “humans could not mentally engage in the ‘same claimed process’ because they could not perform ‘nanosecond comparisons’ and aggregate ‘result values with huge numbers of polls and members’”) (internal citation omitted); Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding claims abstract where “[t]he only improvements identified in the specification are generic speed and efficiency improvements inherent in applying the use of a computer to any task”)
Applicant further argues:
Furthermore, the claims are integrated into a practical application. Under the USPTO's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (and MPEP 2106.05(a)), claims that "improve the functioning of a computer or other technology" or "recite a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts" are not abstract ideas. The amended claims are integrated into a practical application because they recite a specific, technical solution to the problem of inaccurate translation due to lack of context awareness. The context-fingerprinting and dictionary selection steps materially improve the accuracy and reliability of automated translation, as described in the specification (see, e.g., [0047]-[0049]). The claims include a specific sequence of technical operations that cannot be performed in the human mind and are not routine or conventional. The Office Action's rationale for the §101 rejection is no longer applicable. The claims do not merely recite "receiving," "translating," and "outputting" data using generic computer components. Instead, they require a non-conventional, context-aware translation pipeline that is specifically implemented in software and improves the operation of translation systems.
However, the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements – “automatically”, a “data processing system”, “translation logic of a translation service” (claims 1, 7 and 13), a “device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” (claim 7) and one or more “non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” (claim 13) which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Applicant also argues:
Additionally, the claims recite significantly more than a judicial exception. The amended claims now recite a specific, non-generic data structure (a plurality of context-specific dictionaries, selected and updated based on automated context detection), and automated context analysis and dictionary management, which are not routine, conventional, or well-understood activities in the field. A translation pipeline that is materially different from the prior art and cannot be performed mentally. These features provide an inventive concept and amount to "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea.
However, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above, the claims recite the additional limitations of “automatically”, a “data processing system”, “translation logic of a translation service” (claims 1, 7 and 13), a “device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” (claim 7) and one or more “non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” (claim 13). However, these are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications (see Applicant’s specification [0084] and [0086]-[0092]). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Applicant finally argues:
The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to specific improvements in computer- related technology are patent-eligible. See, e.g.,Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to a specific data structure for a computer database are patent- eligible); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting specific rules for automated animation are patent-eligible); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims reciting a specific, non-abstract data structure for computer security are patent-eligible). Here, the amended claims recite a specific, non-abstract improvement to computer translation technology, supported by the specification and not found in the cited art.
However, the claims are not directed to specific improvements in computer-related technology; they merely implement an abstract idea using generic computer components. Further, the fact that the prior art may not teach the pending claims, which is not factual (see prior art rejection below) does not overcome the statutory 101 issues.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1, in line 2, recites the limitation “the text string”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Further, it is believed:
“a text string” in line 6 should be ‘the [[a]] text string’;
“based on outputting” in line 12 should be ‘based on the outputting’;
“in response to validating” in line 18 should be ‘in response to the validating’;
“in response to validating” in line 20 should be ‘in response to the validating’.
Claims 7 and 13 suffer from similar deficiencies and are likewise rejected. The dependent claims are rejected for depending upon a rejected claim without providing a remedy.
Also, claim 4, in lines 6-7, recites the limitation “the context-free dictionary corresponding to the detected context of the second text string”. Neither “the context-free dictionary corresponding to the detected context of the second text string” nor “the detected context of the second text string” have sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. Claims 10 and 16 suffer from similar deficiencies and are likewise rejected.
Furthermore, claim 19, in line 5-6, recites the limitation “the corresponding translated text string”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation “updating the selected context-specific dictionary to associate the text string of the translation query to the translated text string in the target language of the first translation data” does not further limit the parent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In claims 1, 7 and 13, the limitations detecting a context of the text string by applying a fingerprinting test to identify key terms or phrases indicative of a topical domain; selecting, based on the detected context, a context-specific dictionary from among a plurality of dictionaries, each corresponding to a different context; generating, based on the text string, first translation data comprising a translated text string in the target language; generating second translation data representing translation of the translated text string to the original language from the target language; comparing the second translation data to the translation query; when the translation of the translated text string to the original language from the target language matches the text string of the translation query, validating the first translation data as representing an accurate translation of the text string, and updating, in response to validating, the selected context-specific dictionary to associate the text string of the translation query to the translated text string in the target language, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting “automatically”, a “data processing system”, “translation logic of a translation service” (claims 1, 7 and 13), a “device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” (claim 7) and one or more “non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” (claim 13) nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person may detect a context of the text string by applying a fingerprinting test to identify key terms or phrases indicative of a topical domain; select, based on the detected context, a context-specific dictionary from among a plurality of dictionaries, each corresponding to a different context (e.g. a human may select a domain dictionary based keywords in a text string context); generate, based on the text string, first translation data comprising a translated text string in the target language (e.g. a human may translate a first text string from a source language to a target language to generate a first translated text); generate second translation data representing translation of the translated text string to the original language from the target language (e.g. a human may translate the first translated text to the source language to generate a second translated text); compare the second translation data to the translation query (e.g. a human may the first and second translated texts); when the translation of the translated text string to the original language from the target language matches the text string of the translation query, validate the first translation data as representing an accurate translation of the text string (e.g. a human may decide that the first translated text is valid when the first and second translated texts match); and update, in response to validating, the selected context-specific dictionary to associate the text string of the translation query to the translated text string in the target language (e.g. a human may update a dictionary based on validated translation pairs).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements – “automatically”, a “data processing system”, “translation logic of a translation service” (claims 1, 7 and 13), a “device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” (claim 7) and one or more “non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” (claim 13) which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
The claims also recite the additional elements “receiving a translation query specifying a text string, a target language for translating the text string, and an original language of the text string”, “based on inputting the text string into translation logic of a translation service”, “inputting, into the translation logic of the translation service, the first translation data comprising the translated text string in the target language” and “outputting, in response to validating, the first translation data”. The claims do not impose any limits on how the translation query is received, how the text is inputted into the translation logic of the translation service and how the first translation data is outputted. These limitations therefore represent extra-solution activities because they are mere nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above, the claims recite the additional limitations of “automatically”, a “data processing system”, “translation logic of a translation service” (claims 1, 7 and 13), a “device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” (claim 7) and one or more “non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” (claim 13). However, these are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications (see Applicant’s specification [0084] and [0086]-[0092]). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The claims also recite the additional elements “receiving a translation query specifying a text string, a target language for translating the text string, and an original language of the text string”, “based on inputting the text string into translation logic of a translation service”, “inputting, into the translation logic of the translation service, the first translation data comprising the translated text string in the target language” and “outputting, in response to validating, the first translation data”. The claims do not impose any limits on how the translation query is received, how the text is inputted into the translation logic of the translation service and how the first translation data is outputted. These limitations represent the extra-solution activities of gathering and outputting data which are a well-understood, routine and conventional activities. 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. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite:
in response to validating, updating the selected context-specific dictionary to associate the text string of the translation query to the translated text string in the target language of the first translation data;
further comprising: in response to receiving the translation query, searching the selected context-specific dictionary for a validated translation responsive to the translation query; and when the validated translation responsive to the translation query is in the data index, outputting the validated translation;
further comprising: in response to receiving a second translation query comprising a second text string in the original language for translation to the target language, accessing the plurality of dictionaries storing associations between text strings in the original language and respective translated text string in the target language; determining, based on the accessing, that the context-specific dictionary corresponding to the detected context of the second text string is storing the second text string represented in the second translation query associated with translation data including a second translated text string in the target language; and responsive to determining, providing the second translated text string corresponding to the second text string;
wherein the translation query is a part of a request to provide a translated network resource, and wherein the first translation data is output as a portion of the translated network resource;
wherein the network resource comprises one of a webpage, a form, a document, or an application user interface;
further comprising: in response to determining that the second translation data does not match the text string of the translation query, searching the selected context-specific dictionary for a synonym of the text string; and when a validated translation for the synonym is found, outputting the corresponding translated text string; and
further comprising: in response to determining that neither the text string nor any synonym thereof is validated, generating an alert for manual review of the translation and receiving a manual translation input.
The additional recited limitations further narrow the steps of the independent claims without however providing “a practical application of” or "significantly more than" the underlying “Mental Processes” abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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 1-2, 5-8, 11-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2021/0365645) in view of Seligman et al. (US 2009/0204386), Jahnke et al. (US 2003/0115552) and Hatori et al. (US 2003/0061570).
Claims 1-2:
Li discloses a method comprising:
receiving a translation query specifying a text string (“inputting a sentence, a phrase, a paragraph, or an article of an original language as an original language input (“OLI”)”, [0007]);
generating, based on inputting the text string into translation logic of a translation service, first translation data comprising a translated text string in the target language (“translating the OLI to a sentence, a phrase, a paragraph, or an article of a target language of translation as a version of translation (“TLVx”) using a language translation platform”, [0008]);
inputting, into the translation logic of the translation service, the first translation data comprising the translated text string in the target language; generating, based on the inputting, second translation data representing translation of the translated text string to the original language from the target language (“translating the TLVx to a sentence, a phrase, a paragraph, or an article of the original language using the language translation platform (“TLVOx”)”, [0009]);
comparing the second translation data to the translation query (“comparing the TLVOx with OLI to generate a translation accuracy index (“TAINDx”)”, [0010]);
when the translation of the translated text string to the original language from the target language matches the text string of the translation query, validating the first translation data as representing an accurate translation of the text string (“repeating steps b)-e) until the TAINDx is not less than TAINDo and then designating the corresponding TLVx as target language output (“TLO”)”, [0012], see also examples in [0114] and [0115]); and
outputting, in response to validating, the first translation data (“outputting the TLO”, [0013]).
Li does not explicitly disclose the translation query specifying a target language for translating the text string and an original language of the text string.
In an analogous art similarly receiving a translation query for translating an original language text string into a target language, Seligman discloses a translation query specifying a target language for translating the text string and an original language of the text string (“The translation direction is defined in box 162 of region 160 of the GUI. Additional language choices may be selected through a drop-down menu associated with box 162”, [0068], see also box 162 in Fig. 4A where source language English and target language German are selected).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references to yield the predictable result of Li’s translation query specifying a target language for translating the text string and an original language of the text string because such information is necessary for the translation, and specifying the source language spares the system from having to determine it, thereby reducing the risk of introducing errors caused by language recognition.
Li in view of Seligman does not explicitly disclose automatically detecting, by a data processing system, a context of the text string by applying a fingerprinting test to identify key terms or phrases indicative of a topical domain and selecting, based on the detected context, a context-specific dictionary from among a plurality of dictionaries, each corresponding to a different context
In an analogous art similarly translating a text string in an original language into a target language, Hatori discloses automatically detecting, by a data processing system, a context of the text string by applying a fingerprinting test to identify key terms or phrases indicative of a topical domain and selecting, based on the detected context, a context-specific dictionary from among a plurality of dictionaries, each corresponding to a different context (“The translation direction is defined in box 162 of region 160 of the GUI. Additional language choices may be selected through a drop-down menu associated with box 162”, [0068], see also box 162 in Fig. 4A where source language English and target language German are selected).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references to yield the predictable result of automatically detecting, by a data processing system, a context of the text string by applying a fingerprinting test to identify key terms or phrases indicative of a topical domain and selecting, based on the detected context, a context-specific dictionary from among a plurality of dictionaries, each corresponding to a different context in order to improve translation by using a domain dictionary related to the context of the text string (see Hatori, [0002]-[0003]).
Li in view of Seligman and Hatori does not explicitly disclose updating, in response to validating, the selected context-specific dictionary to associate the text string of the translation query to the translated text string in the target language
In an analogous art similarly translating a translation query specifying a text string to a translated text string in a target language of a first translation data, Jahnke discloses updating, in response to validating, a dictionary to associate the text string of the translation query to the translated text string in the target language (“The translation method may include updating the dictionary database with the validated translation element. By updating the database with new text elements and translation entries the database is extended and improved. This extension may be executed automatically (e.g., by automatically updating the dictionary database with the validation of a translation element)”, [0156]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references to yield the predictable result of: in response to validating, updating a data index to associate Li’s text string of the translation query to the translated text string in the target language of the first translation data so that by “updating the database with new text elements and translation entries the database is extended and improved” thereby improving future translations (see Jahnke, [0156]).
Claim 5:
Li in view of Seligman, Hatori and Jahnke discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the translation query is a part of a request to provide a translated network resource (Li, “inputting a sentence, a phrase, a paragraph, or an article of an original language as an original language input (“OLI”)”, [0007]), and wherein the first translation data is output as a portion of the translated network resource (Li, “translating the OLI to a sentence, a phrase, a paragraph, or an article of a target language of translation as a version of translation (“TLVx”) using a language translation platform”, [0008], see also “outputting the TLO”, [0013]).
Claim 6:
Li in view of Seligman, Hatori and Jahnke discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the network resource comprises one of a webpage, a form, a document (an article), or an application user interface (Li, “inputting a sentence, a phrase, a paragraph, or an article of an original language as an original language input (“OLI”)”, [0007]).
Claims 7-8 and 11-12:
Li in view of Seligman, Hatori and Jahnke discloses a device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Li, [0023] and [0111], see also Seligman, [0207]-[0208]) comprising the steps of process claims 1-2 and 5-6 as shown above.
Claims 13-14 and 17-18:
Li in view of Seligman, Hatori and Jahnke discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Li, [0023] and [0111], see also Seligman, [0207]-[0208]) comprising the steps of process claims 1-2 and 5-6 as shown above.
Claims 3-4, 9-10 and 15-16are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2021/0365645) in view of Seligman et al. (US 2009/0204386), Jahnke et al. (US 2003/0115552), Hatori et al. (US 2003/0061570) and Vigliotti et al. (US 2015/0229591).
Claim 3:
Li in view of Seligman, Hatori and Jahnke discloses the method of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose: in response to receiving the translation query, searching the selected context-specific dictionary for a validated translation responsive to the translation query; and when the validated translation responsive to the translation query is in the data index, outputting the validated translation.
In an analogous art similarly translating a translation query specifying a text string to a translated text string in a target language of a first translation data, Vigliotti discloses: in response to receiving the translation query, searching a dictionary for a validated translation responsive to the translation query (“a decision is made as to whether a translation was found by the search. For example, in embodiments in which the search is performed locally, processors(s) 102 determine whether a translation is available in the translation database stored main memory 104 and/or secondary memory 110”, [0070]); and when the validated translation responsive to the translation query is in the data index, outputting the validated translation (“If a translation is found at decision block 414 in FIG. 4, then processor(s) 102 move to block 416 where a message, including the translated communication, is prepared for sending to mobile device 100-2 (FIG. 1A). In some embodiments, the original text entered by the user in a first language (e.g., English) and the translation of the communication in a second language (e.g., French) are included in the message that is transmitted to mobile device”, [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references to yield the predictable result of: in response to receiving Li’s translation query, searching the selected context-specific dictionary for a validated translation responsive to the translation query; and when the validated translation responsive to the translation query is in the data index, outputting the validated translation in order to quickly check if there is a translation on a local translation database in order to avoid sending the text to a remote server for translation when a speedy local translation is available (see Vigliotti, [0070] and [0073]).
Claim 4:
Li in view of Seligman, Hatori and Jahnke discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose: in response to receiving a second translation query comprising a second text string in the original language for translation to the target language, accessing the plurality of dictionaries storing associations between text strings in the original language and respective translated text string in the target language; determining, based on the accessing, that a context-specific dictionary corresponding to a detected context of the second text string is storing the second text string represented in the second translation query associated with translation data including a second translated text string in the target language; and responsive to determining, providing the second translated text string corresponding to the second text string.
In an analogous art similarly translating a translation query specifying a text string to a translated text string in a target language of a first translation data, Vigliotti discloses: in response to receiving a second translation query comprising a second text string in the original language for translation to the target language, accessing dictionaries storing associations between text strings in the original language and respective translated text string in the target language; determining, based on the accessing, that a dictionary corresponding to a detected context of the second text string is storing the second text string represented in the second translation query associated with translation data including a second translated text string in the target language; and responsive to determining, providing the second translated text string corresponding to the second text string (“a decision is made as to whether a translation was found by the search. For example, in embodiments in which the search is performed locally, processors(s) 102 determine whether a translation is available in the translation database stored main memory 104 and/or secondary memory 110”, [0070]); and responsive to determining, providing the second translated text string corresponding to the second text string (“If a translation is found at decision block 414 in FIG. 4, then processor(s) 102 move to block 416 where a message, including the translated communication, is prepared for sending to mobile device 100-2 (FIG. 1A). In some embodiments, the original text entered by the user in a first language (e.g., English) and the translation of the communication in a second language (e.g., French) are included in the message that is transmitted to mobile device”, [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references to yield the predictable result of: in response to receiving a second translation query comprising a second text string in the original language for translation to the target language, accessing the plurality of dictionaries storing associations between text strings in the original language and respective translated text string in the target language; determining, based on the accessing, that a context-specific dictionary corresponding to a detected context of the second text string is storing the second text string represented in the second translation query associated with translation data including a second translated text string in the target language; and responsive to determining, providing the second translated text string corresponding to the second text string in order to avoid sending the text to a remote server for translation when a speedy local translation is available (see Vigliotti, [0070] and [0073]).
Claims 9-10:
Li in view of Seligman, Jahnke and Vigliotti discloses a device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Li, [0023] and [0111], see also Seligman, [0207]-[0208]) comprising the steps of process claims 3-4 as shown above.
Claims 15-16:
Li in view of Seligman, Jahnke and Vigliotti discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Li, [0023] and [0111], see also Seligman, [0207]-[0208]) comprising the steps of process claims 3-4 as shown above.
??????????????????????
19. (New) The method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to determining that the second translation data does not match the text string of the translation query, searching the selected context-specific dictionary for a synonym of the text string; and when a validated translation for the synonym is found, outputting the corresponding translated text string.
20. (New) The method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to determining that neither the text string nor any synonym thereof is validated, generating an alert for manual review of the translation and receiving a manual translation input.
??????????????????????????????
Conclusion
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 SAMUEL G NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/SAMUEL G NEWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657