3DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3 and 7-21 are pending for examination.
Claims 1 and 14 are independent Claims.
Claims 1, 3 and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§112(a), 103.
Claim Objections
Claims 19’s are objected to because of the following informalities: there are two Claim 19 in the claim set. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 16 are objected to because the Claims are exactly the same as the independent Claims (applicant rolls these Claims up into independent Claims without cancel these Claims).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The Claims recites "wherein a application-specific descriptor identifies an application associated with the subset of the plurality of text-displaying interface elements" without sufficient support in the Specification. Applicant’s specification (originally filed specification, last paragraph of page 5) discloses “message tokens composed of a hierarchical string of descriptors including, but not limited to: application; page specific/common; content type; context; content key;”. There is no further explanation on “application” in the application’s disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 7-14 and 16-21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dang et al. (U.S. 2002/01740150 hereinafter Dang) in view of Bayer (U.S. 6,311,190 hereinafter Bayer).
As Claim 1, Dang teaches a method comprising:
parsing, by a processor (Dang (¶0070 line 6), microprocessor or microcontroller), a plurality of text displaying interface elements into a plurality of message tokens (Dang (¶0040, fig. 2 item S60), skeleton or virtual content portion is extracted for the content elements. Extracting virtual content portion from webpage is construed as “parsing”.);
wherein each message token comprising a hierarchical string of a plurality of descriptors (Dang (¶0057, ¶0060, fig. 6, fig. 7), fig. 6 shows data structure for identity element storage. Element storage includes client identifier portion and content identifier portion);
wherein each message token comprising a hierarchical string of a plurality of descriptors (Dang (¶0057, ¶0060, fig. 6, fig. 7), fig. 6 shows data structure for identity element storage. Element storage includes client identifier portion and content identifier portion. Fig. 7 shows a language tag or rule);
wherein each message token comprises at least one descriptor of each of the following types:
application-specific (Dang (¶0068, ¶0069, fig. 8, fig. 9), data structure stores textual and graphic translations of content elements. There are two different languages, English and French, Dang (¶0057, ¶0060, fig. 6, fig. 7), fig. 7 shows a language tag (application specific) in the content),
context-specific (Dang (¶0057, ¶0060, fig. 6, fig. 7), fig. 6 shows client identifier portion 910 (context specific) and a content element portion 920), and
content-specific (Dang (¶0057, ¶0060, fig. 6, fig. 7), fig. 6 shows client identifier portion 910 and a content element portion 920 (content specific))
wherein a application-specific descriptor identifies an application associated with the subset of the plurality of text-displaying interface elements (Dang (¶0068, ¶0069, fig. 8, fig. 9), data structure stores textual and graphic translations of content elements. There are two different languages, English and French, Dang (¶0057, ¶0060, fig. 6, fig. 7), fig. 7 shows a language tag in the content. Language tag is construed as “an application associated with the subset of the plurality of … interface element”);
utilizing, by the processor, a subset of the plurality of message tokens associated with a subset of the plurality of text-displaying interface elements to query at least one source database (Dang (¶0068, ¶0069, fig. 8, fig. 9), data structure stores textual and graphic translations of content elements) for a plurality of parameters associated with a visual presentation of the subset of the plurality of text-displaying interface elements within an application-specific interface (Dang (¶0036 line 1-11), content elements of a navigation bar are translated into Japanese language);
wherein the plurality of parameters corresponds to an interpretation of the subset of the plurality of text-displaying interface elements in a pre-determined language (Dang (¶0042 line 1-1-6), content elements are translated from a source language into a target language); and
instructing, by the processor, to modify the application-specific interface so as to display the interpretation of the subset of the plurality of text-displaying interface elements on a screen of a device that is configured to display the plurality of text-displaying interface elements (Dang (¶0036 line 1-11), information is presented in different languages).
Dang may not explicitly disclose:
configured to display information to a plurality of entities empowered to cast votes via a system,
wherein the application-specific interface having the plurality of displaying interface elements is configured to enable a proxy voting;
Bayer teaches:
configured to display information to a plurality of entities empowered to cast votes via a system (Bayer (abtract), system to conduct surveys to voters in multiple different languages),
wherein the application-specific interface having the plurality of displaying interface elements is configured to enable a proxy voting (Bayer (abtract), system to conduct surveys to voters in multiple different languages);
Dang discloses a system/method to display user interface element in different language based on a language/application tag. Bayer discloses a system/method to change the language of the user interface for online voting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify web elements of Dang instead be a Voting system taught by Bayer, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would be to “conduct survey to voters in multiple different languages” (Bayer (abstract)).
As Claim 7, beside Claim 1, Dang in view of Bayer teaches:
wherein the application-specific interface having the plurality of text-displaying interface elements is configured to enable a proxy voting (Bayer (abtract), system to conduct surveys to voters in multiple different languages).
As Claim 8, beside Claim 1, Dang in view of Bayer teaches further comprising:
receiving, by the processor, an identification of a particular language for the interpretation of the subset of the plurality of text-displaying interface elements (Dang (¶0042 line 1-1-6), system determines a target language); and
utilizing, by the processor, the subset of the plurality of text-displaying interface elements and the identification of the particular language to query the at least one source database for the plurality of parameters so that the visual presentation of the subset of the plurality of text- displaying interface elements within the application-specific interface is in the particular language as the pre-determined language (Dang (¶0042 line 1-1-6), content elements are translated from a source language into a target language).
As Claim 9, beside Claim 1, Dang in view Bayer teaches:
further comprising: storing, by the processor, in a computer cache for rapid access, at least one parameter of the plurality of parameters associated with the at least one source database in a subsequent visual presentation of another subset of the plurality of text-displaying interface elements when the at least one parameter is common between the subset of the plurality of text-displaying interface elements and the another subset of the plurality of text-displaying interface elements (Bayer (col. 15 line 11-15 and 21-26), the language record is found in the language table 31. If the poll is not found, the system build survey from a default language).
As Claim 10, beside Claim 1, Dang teaches wherein the application-specific interface comprises a first page and a second page (Dang (¶0042 line 1-1-6), content elements are translated from a source language into a target language); and
wherein a first portion of the subset of the plurality of text-displaying interface elements is displayed in the first page in a first language (Dang (¶0042 line 1-1-6), content elements are translated from a source language into a target language); and
wherein the first portion of the subset of the plurality of text-displaying interface elements is displayed in the second page in a second language (Dang (¶0042 line 1-1-6), content elements are translated from a source language into a target language).
As Claim 11, beside Claim 1, Dang in view of Bayer teaches further comprising: identifying, by the processor, the subset of the plurality of text-displaying interface elements based on at least one presentation template (Dang (¶0043 line 1-4, fig. 2 item S100), content is merged with the skeleton and virtual content portion).
As Claim 12, beside Claim 1, Dang in view of Bayer teaches:
further comprising: identifying, by the processor, the at least one presentation template based on at least one activity associated with proxy voting (Bayer (abstract), system to conduct surveys to voters in multiple different languages).
As Claim 13, beside Claim 1, Dang in view of Bayer teaches:
further comprising: determining, by the processor, a locale associated with the pre-determined language (Bayer (col. 16 line 27-39), language is selected based on the country identifier);
generating, by the processor, a hash map of locale-specific descriptors from the plurality of descriptors (Bayer (col. 14 line 53-57), cookies stored in user browser. Bayer (col. 15 line 32-35), voter’s country is determined form the Registration Record ID); and
generating, by the processor, the subset of the plurality of message tokens based on the hash map of locale-specific descriptors (Bayer (col. 16 line 27-39), language is selected based on the country identifier).
As Claim 14, Dang teaches a system comprising:
a processor and a non-transient computer memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, instruct the processor (Dang (¶0070 line 1-4), general purpose computer) to:
The rest of the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
As Claim 12, beside Claim 1, Dang in view of Bayer teaches:
further comprising: identifying, by the processor, the at least one presentation template based on at least one activity associated with proxy voting (Bayer (abstract), system to conduct surveys to voters in multiple different languages).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify web elements of Dang instead be a Voting system taught by Bayer, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would be to “conduct survey to voters in multiple different languages” (Bayer (abstract)).
As Claim 13, beside Claim 1, Dang in view of Bayer teaches:
further comprising: determining, by the processor, a locale associated with the pre-determined language (Bayer (col. 16 line 27-39), language is selected based on the country identifier);
generating, by the processor, a hash map of locale-specific descriptors from the plurality of descriptors (Bayer (col. 14 line 53-57), cookies stored in user browser. Bayer (col. 15 line 32-35), voter’s country is determined form the Registration Record ID); and
generating, by the processor, the subset of the plurality of message tokens based on the hash map of locale-specific descriptors (Bayer (col. 16 line 27-39), language is selected based on the country identifier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify web elements of Dang instead be a Voting system taught by Bayer, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would be to “conduct survey to voters in multiple different languages” (Bayer (abstract)).
As Claim 16, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 7.
As Claim 17, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 8.
As Claim 18, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 9.
As Claim 19’s, the Claims are rejected for the same reasons as Claims 10-11.
As Claim 20, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 12.
As Claim 21, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 13.
Claim 3 and 15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dang in view of Bayer in further view of Jaqua (U.S. 2002/0099533 hereinafter Jaqua).
As Claim 3, besides Claim 1, Dang in view of Bayer may not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of interface elements comprises at least two of: a text entry box, a drop-down list box, a drop-down combo box, a column of a table, a text label associated with a row of a table, a text label for a radio button, a text label for a check box, a caption for a tab element, or a caption for a command button.
Jaqua teaches:
wherein the plurality of interface elements comprises at least two of: a text entry box, a drop-down list box, a drop-down combo box, a column of a table, a text label associated with a row of a table, a text label for a radio button, a text label for a check box, a caption for a tab element, or a caption for a command button (Jaqua (¶0026 line 7-21, fig. 4A-4D), message tokens are assigned into hierarchy strings such as headings and pull down lists).
Dang in view of Bayer discloses a system/method for displaying user interface elements. Jaguar disclose a system/method to includes hierarchy lists. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify web elements of Dang in view of Bayer instead be a heading and drop box taught by Jaqua, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would be to “facilitate communication between entities that do not share a common language” (Jaqua (¶0002).
As Claim 15, the Claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting Rejection:
Applicant filed a Terminal Disclaimer on 11/15/24; therefore, double patenting rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102:
As per Dang, Applicant argues that Dang does not disclose “application-specific descriptors” because Dang’s “translation targets and rule mappings tied to client/user language references and are not descriptor specific to an application’s functional context as claimed” (last paragraph of page 12 and first paragraph of page 13 in the remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. Dang’s language tag is construed as an application-specific descriptor because it specifies a language application of the user interface elements.
Applicant argues that Office Action does not address the fundamental distinction between the claimed invention and Dang’s disclosure (second paragraph of page 13 in the remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. It’s the applicant’s opportunity to bring the distinction into the Claims. If the limitation(s) are not in the Claims, the Office Action does not and cannot address these limitation(s).
Applicant argues that a person skilled in the art would not be motivated to parse interface element in Dang’s system because parsing is neither required or suggested by Dang’s disclosure (third paragraph of page 13 in the remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. Dang teaches “parsing, by a processor, a plurality of text displaying interface elements into a plurality of message tokens (Dang (¶0040, fig. 2 item S60), skeleton or virtual content portion is extracted for the content elements)”.
Applicant argues that Dang does not disclose “application-specific descriptors”, “context specific descriptors” or “content-specific descriptors” (last paragraph of page 13 in the remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. Dang teaches:
wherein each message token comprises at least one descriptor of each of the following types:
i) application-specific (Dang (¶0068, ¶0069, fig. 8, fig. 9), data structure stores textual and graphic translations of content elements. There are two different languages, English and French, Dang (¶0057, ¶0060, fig. 6, fig. 7), fig. 7 shows a language tag (application specific) in the content),
ii) context-specific (Dang (¶0057, ¶0060, fig. 6, fig. 7), fig. 6 shows client identifier portion 910 (context specific) and a content element portion 920), and
iii) content-specific (Dang (¶0057, ¶0060, fig. 6, fig. 7), fig. 6 shows client identifier portion 910 and a content element portion 920 (content specific))
Limitations are construed as “application specific” to language tag, “context specific” to identifier portion 910, and “content specific” to content element portion 920.
Applicant argues that Dang is related to location based determination of the location tags (second paragraph of page 14 in the remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. Dang’s fig. 7 clearly shows a message token (with <language= English>). The location is parsed and entered into the message token.
Applicant argues that “application descriptors identify which application or program is being modified (second paragraph of page 15 in the remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. The limitation is not supported by the Applicant’s Specification. Applicant’s specification (originally filed specification, last paragraph of page 5) discloses “message tokens composed of a hierarchical string of descriptors including, but not limited to: application; page specific/common; content type; context; content key;”. There is no further explanation on “application” in the application’s disclosure.
Applicant argues that Office Action fails to clarify how Dang’s various data field apply to the three required descriptor types of the Claims (last paragraph of page 15 in the remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. Dang teaches:
wherein each message token comprises at least one descriptor of each of the following types:
i) application-specific (Dang (¶0068, ¶0069, fig. 8, fig. 9), data structure stores textual and graphic translations of content elements. There are two different languages, English and French, Dang (¶0057, ¶0060, fig. 6, fig. 7), fig. 7 shows a language tag (application specific) in the content),
ii) context-specific (Dang (¶0057, ¶0060, fig. 6, fig. 7), fig. 6 shows client identifier portion 910 (context specific) and a content element portion 920), and
iii) content-specific (Dang (¶0057, ¶0060, fig. 6, fig. 7), fig. 6 shows client identifier portion 910 and a content element portion 920 (content specific))
Limitations are construed as “application specific” to language tag, “context specific” to identifier portion 910, and “content specific” to content element portion 920.
Applicant argues that does not disclose “dynamic interface parsing required in Claim 1” because parsing imply dynamic analysis and decomposition of interface elements into structured tokens (last paragraph of page 16 and first paragraph of page 17 in the remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive because the limitation(s) are not in the Claims. Adding the aspect of “parsing” into the Claims might advance the prosecution. However, Applicant should avoid adding any new matter into the Claims.
Applicant argues that Dang fails to disclose claim 1 and 14 because Dang does not disclose “at leat one descriptor of each of the following types: i) application specific, ii) context specific and iii) content specific …” (paragraph 1-3 of page 18 in the remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. Dang teaches:
wherein each message token comprises at least one descriptor of each of the following types:
i) application-specific (Dang (¶0068, ¶0069, fig. 8, fig. 9), data structure stores textual and graphic translations of content elements. There are two different languages, English and French, Dang (¶0057, ¶0060, fig. 6, fig. 7), fig. 7 shows a language tag (application specific) in the content),
ii) context-specific (Dang (¶0057, ¶0060, fig. 6, fig. 7), fig. 6 shows client identifier portion 910 (context specific) and a content element portion 920), and
iii) content-specific (Dang (¶0057, ¶0060, fig. 6, fig. 7), fig. 6 shows client identifier portion 910 and a content element portion 920 (content specific))
Limitations are construed as “application specific” to language tag, “context specific” to identifier portion 910, and “content specific” to content element portion 920.
Applicant argues that Dang does not disclose “parsing step” because Dang assumes pre-identified “skeleton” and/or “content elements” (second paragraph of page 19 in the remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. Dang teaches “parsing, by a processor, a plurality of text displaying interface elements into a plurality of message tokens (Dang (¶0040, fig. 2 item S60), skeleton or virtual content portion is extracted for the content elements)”. Extracting virtual content portion from webpage is construed as “parsing”. Further clarifying “parsing step” might advance the prosecution. However, Applicant should avoid adding any new matter into the Claims.
Applicant argues that Applicant’s Specification enables modification of a program’s operation while Dang merely teaches static, content-specific website translation (last paragraph of page 19 in the remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. The Claims does not show any distinction between the claimed inventions and Dang. Applicant also fails to points out any limitation(s) that are not met by Dang.
Applicant argues that a person skilled in the art would not be motivated to parse interface element in Dang’s system (second and third paragraph of page 20 in the remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. Dang teaches the parsing limitation. Specifically, Dang teaches “parsing, by a processor, a plurality of text displaying interface elements into a plurality of message tokens (Dang (¶0040, fig. 2 item S60), skeleton or virtual content portion is extracted for the content elements)”. Extracting virtual content portion from webpage is construed as “parsing”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jokipii (U.S. 7,418,390) disclose multi-language system for online communications..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT HUY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7333. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 12:00-8:00 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, Viker Lamardo can be reached on 571-270-5871. 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.
/NHAT HUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147
Prosecution Insights