DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 3/20/2026.
Claims 1 and 3-17 are pending. Claim 2 has been cancelled, and all pending claims are currently amended.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claims 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0278347 (“Luo”).
With regard to Claim 13, Luo teaches an information transmission method, comprising:
receiving first transmitted information and relevant information of a webpage associated with a web application, the first transmitted information sent by a sharing end ([0050] describes that an end user provides a translation of a message to a target language, along with a unique index that is used to identify the message. [0042] describes that messages are part of source code for a web-based computer application executable in a web browser, which falls under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “webpage associated with a web application”);
storing the first transmitted information and the relevant information of the webpage in correspondence with each other ([0050]-[0051] describe that the translated message can be stored for subsequent sending in correspondence with the unique identifier);
receiving second transmitted information sent by the sharing end through a native application ([0051] describes that a localized application can be created using the translated message and an extension/plugin. [0034] describes that the web based application is executable in a web browser, i.e. a native application, where [0044] describes that translated messages can be retrieved using, e.g., JavaScript calls or requests); and
sending the relevant information of the webpage stored in correspondence with the first transmitted information to the target native application of the sharing end and a shared end in a case that the second transmitted information matches with the first transmitted information ([0051]-[0052] describes that a user, which may or may not be the translating user, can subsequently receive the translated messages that have been stored and match the unique index that was generated originally for the message in the first language).
Claim 17 recites a method which is substantially the same as the method of Claim 13, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 14, Luo teaches that the first transmitted information comprises an identifier (ID) of the webpage and/or an ID of a content corresponding to the webpage; and the relevant information of the webpage comprises a uniform resource locator (URL) address of the webpage and/or a current browsing position of the target webpage; or, the first transmitted information comprises current browsing position information of the target webpage, and the relevant information of the target webpage comprises the URL address of the target webpage. [0050]-[0052] describe that the initial message includes an identifier of a message contained within the source code. A message corresponds to a current browsing position, at least as far as it is content and can be browsed to as part of a user executing the source code of the application.
With regard to Claim 15, Luo teaches that the first transmitted information comprises the ID of the content corresponding to the webpage, and after the storing the first transmitted information and the relevant information of the target webpage in correspondence with each other, the method further comprises: receiving the ID of the content sent by the native application of the sharing end; and determining a service type corresponding to the ID of the content. Luo teaches at [0043] that extracting text strings as messages and attaching a unique identifier in the code allows for the device viewing the code to identify that the messages are of a type that is shared for translation, by enabling users to highlight the strings in an interface and provide translations therefor.
Luo also teaches that the sending the relevant information of the target webpage stored in correspondence with the first transmitted information to the native application of the sharing end and the shared end in the case that the second transmitted information matches with the first transmitted information comprises: sending the relevant information of the webpage stored in correspondence with the first transmitted information to the native application of the sharing end and the shared end in a case that the service type is a shared content type, and the second transmitted information matches with the first transmitted information. [0051]-[0052] describes that a user, which may or may not be the translating user, can subsequently receive the translated messages that have been stored and match the unique index that was generated originally for the message in the first language.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo, in view of Takahashi, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2008/0250398 (“Takahashi”).
With regard to Claim 16, Luo, in view of Takahashi teaches receiving first description information of the webpage and/or a first shared user ID of the webpage sent by the sharing end; and storing the first description information and the first transmitted information in correspondence with each other, and/or, storing the first shared user ID of the webpage and the first transmitted information in correspondence with each other; the method further comprises: receiving second description information and/or a current second shared user ID of the webpage sent by the sharing end through the native application; performing a verification to the second description information according to the first description information as stored, and/or verifying the current second shared user ID as received according to the first shared user ID of the webpage as stored; and sending the relevant information of the webpage stored in correspondence with the first transmitted information to the native application of the sharing end and the shared end in a case that the verification is passed and the second transmitted information matches with the first transmitted information.
Luo teaches at [0042]-[0043] that text strings in source code for a web-based computer application executable in a web browser. Identifiers can be inserted for the text strings, and the code can be executed to obtain the messages. [0044] describes that the received messages can then be translated into target messages, which can be further transmitted as described at [0045]. Therefore, the server stores information, and the information is verified as stored because the server is able to retrieve it and serve it to requesting users. Takahashi teaches at [0035]-[0037] that the mapping file is used by decoding the zero-width ID and using the decoded ID to retrieve the location data corresponding to the ID. Software displays the verification -target character string; upon user selection, the software obtains and decodes the character control code to obtain the original ID, which is then used to retrieve information using the decoded ID and mapping data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Takahashi with Luo. The background of Takahashi identifies many inefficiencies that exist in the art with regard to providing translations. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve system functioning by eliminating additional inefficiencies with regard to translating documents.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-12 are allowable over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot, as the prior art rejection of Claim 1 has been withdrawn, and the claims which stand rejected have not been specifically challenged apart from the subject matter of Claim 1.
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 KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 PM.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
5/18/2026
Prosecution Insights