DETAILED ACTION
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 filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding arguments on page 8 of the Remarks, Examiner notes that use of a computing device is considered mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Further, it is not clear how the argued improvement is performed by limitations that are in addition to the limitations characterized as abstract. Rather, it appears that the limitations used to cause the improvement are themselves abstract, and therefore cannot be considered as part of the practical application.
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 21-22, 24-26, 28-32, 34-36, and 38-42 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Using the subject matter eligibility test from page 74621 of the Federal Register Notice titled “2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility,” a two-step process is performed. Under step 1, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case, claims 21-22, 24-26, 28-30, and 41 are directed to a method, which is a process, and claims 31-32, 34-36, 38-40, and 42 are directed to a system, which is a machine or an article of manufacture. Step 2A (part 1 of the Mayo test), using the guidance from pages 50-57 of the Federal Register Vol. 84 No. 4 from Monday, January 7, 2019, requires applying a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, determining if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. In this case, claim 21 recites determining a location, accessing language preferences, identifying syntagms, identifying use in a context relevant to a location, retrieving a synonym, determining weightings, selecting synonyms, and replacing the syntagm with a synonym, which is a mental process. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. In this case, additional elements of receiving data is mere extrasolution activity, while circuitry is a generic computing component, neither of which integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B (part 2 of the Mayo test) requires analyzing the claims to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claims 21 and 31, determining a location, accessing language preferences, identifying syntagms, identifying use in a context relevant to a location, retrieving synonyms, determining weightings, selecting a synonym, and replacing the syntagm with a synonym are mental processes, which is an abstract idea. Additional limitations of receiving data is mere extrasolution activity, while circuitry is a generic computing component, neither of which integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more.
Regarding claims 22, 24-25 and 32, 34-35, the limitations are further clarifications of the above abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 26 and 36, updating a relationship is a mental process, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claims 28 and 38, identifying a language preference and identifying that the syntagm is being used in a specific context are mental processes, while accessing a message history is mere extrasolution activity, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more.
Regarding claims 29 and 39, converting a syntagm into a root syntagm is a mental process, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claims 30 and 40, determining a location is a mental process, which is an abstract idea, while transmitting data is mere extrasolution activity, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more.
Regarding claims 41-42, updating a relationship is a mental process, which is an abstract idea, while generating a UI element and receiving feedback are mere extrasolution activity, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more.
The limitations of the claims, taken alone, 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 individually. Applicable case law cited in the Federal Register includes, but is not limited to: Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355-56, Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Benson, 409 U.S. at 63.
See "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.," dated June 25, 2014, and the Federal Register notice titled "2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility" (79 FR 74618).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22, 24-26, 28-32, 34-36, and 38-42 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of Fink, Simpson, Abhyankar, Zavaliagkos, Wespel, and Manandise do not teach the limitations of the amended claims. Specifically, none of the cited prior art teaches the language preferences in the user profiles, the synonyms having a context associated with a second location and the second language preference, determining the weighting based on the second language preference, and selecting a synonym based on the weighting, in addition to the other limitations. Hence, none of the cited prior art, either alone or in combination thereof, teaches the combination of limitations taught by the amended claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2015/0032542 A1 para [0046] teaches expanding a search by using synonyms, as well as substituting local terms.
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 BRYAN S BLANKENAGEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0685. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN S BLANKENAGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658