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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to because due to the following minor informalities:
In step 304 of Fig. 3, the word “assocaited” should instead be “associated”. Additionally, “determine whether apply feedback” in step 312 should instead be “determine whether to apply feedback”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 7 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7 and 15: “corresponding at least a portion of the translation release” should instead read “corresponding to at least a portion of the translation release”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, “A method” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process) (Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes which fall into the category of abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1: YES).
The following limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes:
receiving… a request to translate a character string, the character string comprising text: a person obtains and reads a text to be translated.
analyzing…the character string, and determining, based on the analysis, language information associated with the text: the person analyzes what they read and writes down information related to the language in the text.
identifying…based on the language information, a translator model: the person then uses the language information to determine a model (e.g. set of rules) for translating the text
performing… a … translation of the character string by executing the translator model with the character string as input: the person uses the model to translate the text.
identifying…a translation release, the translation release comprising at least a portion of the text being translated from an original language to a target language: the person obtains a translation in the target language
determining… an accuracy of the translation release: the person analyzes the translation to determine how accurate it is.
and outputting… for display …, the translation release based on the determined accuracy: the person makes a decision based on the accuracy (e.g. decide not to provide the translation if it has a low accuracy, and displaying the translation result to the user on a piece of paper if the accuracy is high enough).
Claim 1 does not contain any additional limitations which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: NO). The only additional limitations are performing each step “by a device”, “performing…a machine translation…”, and “outputting..for display within a user interface (UI)…”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not provide any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Claim 1 does not contain any additional limitations which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed above, the only additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, “The method” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process) (Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite further mental processes in addition to those recited in independent claim 1 which fall into the category of abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1: YES).
The following limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes:
Claim 2:
wherein the output of the translation release comprises functionality for feedback to be provided to at least a portion of the translated text, wherein the functionality is provided based on the determined accuracy: the person obtains the translated text using feedback depending on the accuracy (e.g. re-translate/obtain different translation if translation is poor accuracy).
Claim 2 contains no additional limitations.
Claim 3:
receiving the feedback, wherein the feedback is used as a basis for continued … translation of the character string: the person receives feedback to determine to continue translating the text.
Claim 3 contains the additional limitations of “continued machine translation”, which amounts to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer.
Claim 4:
wherein the continued … translation comprises at least one of modification of the translation release and re-translation of the character string: the person continues translation by modifying the text of the translation and re-translating the text (e.g. using a different model)
Claim 4 contains the additional limitations of “continued machine translation”, which amounts to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer.
Claim 5:
identifying another translator model; and performing another … translation based on the other translator model: the person chooses a different model (e.g. one that might yield higher accuracy), and then re-translates the text using the different model.
Claim 5 contains the additional limitations of “another machine translation”, which amounts to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer.
Claim 6:
Claim 6 contains the additional limitation “wherein the feedback is provided by the device based on autonomous analysis of the translation release.”. This limitation is recited broadly, and amounts to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer.
Claim 7:
wherein the feedback comprises user input corresponding at least a portion of the translation release: the person uses user input about the translation as feedback.
Claim 7 contains no additional limitations.
Claim 8:
wherein the language information comprises information selected from a group consisting of: a type of language, format of language, source of language, grammar, language pairs, syntax, phrases, punctuation, paragraphs, wild-cards, format of the text and/or character string, relationship to a target language and identity of a dictionary defining terms of the language: the person can identify language information such as type of language (e.g. English, French), format of language (e.g. what kind of alphabet, symbols), source of language (e.g. what kind of content item), grammar, language pairs, syntax, phrases, punctuation, paragraphs, wild-cards, format of the text and/or character string, relationship to a target language and identity of a dictionary defining terms of the language.
Claim 8 contains no additional limitations.
Claim 9:
wherein the translation release is identified during the performance of the … translation: the person determines the translation while performing the translation.
Claim 9 contains the additional limitations of “machine translation”, which amounts to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer.
Claim 10:
wherein the translation release is an output of the translator model at a conclusion of an iteration of the execution of the translation model: the person obtains the translation as a result of using the translator model at a particular iteration (e.g. for a particular input text).
Claim 10 contains no additional limitations.
Claims 2-10 do not contain any additional limitations which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: NO). The only additional limitations are those discussed above, which amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not provide any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Claims 2-10 do not contain any additional limitations which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed above, the only additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 2-10 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, “A system” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (machine) (Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite limitations similar to those found in claims 1-2, and thus also recites mental processes which fall into the category of abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1: YES) (see above analysis for independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2).
Claim 11 does not contain any additional limitations which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: NO). The only additional limitations are performing each step “A system comprising: one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer readable media, the one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising program instructions stored thereon that when executed cause the one or more computers to”, performing the steps “by the one or more processors” “machine translation…”, and “output..for display within a user interface (UI)…”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not provide any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Claim 11 does not contain any additional limitations which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed above, the only additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 12-15, “The system” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (machine) (Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite limitations similar to those recited in: claims 3 and 4 (Claim 12), claims 3 and 4 (Claim 13), claim 5 (Claim 14), and claims 7 and 9-10 (Claim 15), and thus also recite further mental processes which fall under the category of abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1: YES) (see above analysis for claims 3-5, 7, and 9-10).
Claims 12-15 do not contain any additional limitations which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: NO). The only additional limitations are those discussed above with regards to dependent claims 3-5, 7, and 9-10, which amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not provide any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Claims 12-15 do not contain any additional limitations which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed above, the only additional limitations amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 12-15 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
4. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pierard et al. (US 10,108,610 B1, hereinafter Pierard).
Regarding claim 1, Pierard discloses A method comprising: receiving, by a device (Fig. 1, 106), a request to translate a character string (Col. 4 Lines 27-34 “For example, and without limitation, a user of the computing device 106 can request to view the content page 108 in a human-readable language other than the language in which the content items 110 are expressed. For instance, the content items 110 can be text expressed in the English language, and a user of the computing device 106 can request to view the content page 108 in Spanish or French.”; Col. 4 Lines 35-38 “Responsive to receiving a request 104 for the page 108, the front-end service 102 can simultaneously submit translation requests 116 for each of the content items 110 on the page 108 to multiple machine translation services 114.”), the character string comprising text (Col. 4 Lines 4-6 “The content items 110 can include text content or images. For example, and without limitation, the content items 110 might be text expressed in the English language.”;); analyzing, by the device, the character string, and determining, based on the analysis, language information associated with the text (Col. 9 Lines 30-40 “The machine translation service 114 to be utilized to translate a particular content item 110 can also be selected based upon an estimated difficulty of translation of a content item 110. For example, long spans of text in certain languages (e.g. Japanese or Chinese), can be very difficult to translate. Consequently, these types of content items 110 can be initially sent to the machine translation service 114A for translation and updated in the manner described above. Spans of text that are estimated to be easier to translate can be transmitted to the machine translation service 114C for immediate high quality translation.”); identifying, by the device, based on the language information, a translator model (Col. 9 Lines 30-40 “The machine translation service 114 to be utilized to translate a particular content item 110 can also be selected based upon an estimated difficulty of translation of a content item 110. For example, long spans of text in certain languages (e.g. Japanese or Chinese), can be very difficult to translate. Consequently, these types of content items 110 can be initially sent to the machine translation service 114A for translation and updated in the manner described above. Spans of text that are estimated to be easier to translate can be transmitted to the machine translation service 114C for immediate high quality translation.”); performing, by the device, a machine translation of the character string by executing the translator model with the character string as input (Col. 4 Lines 50-52 “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the machine translation services 114 are configured to generate machine translations of content items 110 at varying levels of expected quality.”); identifying, by the device, a translation release, the translation release comprising at least a portion of the text being translated from an original language to a target language (Col. 6 Lines 16-27 “It is to be appreciated that the application 120 can utilize various mechanisms to determine whether translated content items 118 are available from the front-end service 102. For example, and without limitation, a “pull” mechanism can be utilized where the application 120 periodically polls the front-end service 102 to determine whether new translated content items 118 are available. Alternately, a “push” mechanism can be utilized where the front-end service 102 can inform the application 120 that new translated content items 118 are available. The application 120 can then retrieve the translated content items 118 from the front-end service or another location.”); determining, by the device, an accuracy of the translation release (Col. 6 Lines 36-40 “In one configuration, the machine translation services 114 can also compute a quality estimate for the translations that they generate. For instance, in the example shown in FIG. 1, the machine translation service 114C has computed the quality estimate 124.”); and outputting, by the device, for display within a user interface (UI) (Fig. 1, 122), the translation release based on the determined accuracy (Col. 6 Lines 62-67 and Col. 7 Lines 1-3 “In some configurations, the request 104 specifies a threshold quality for translations that the computing device 106 can accept. In these configurations, the front-end service 102 can utilize the threshold and the quality estimates 124 to identify those translated content items 118 that are to be provided to the computing device 106. Translated content items 118 that do not have a quality estimate 124 in excess of the threshold will not be provided to the computing device 106.”; Col. 5 Lines 58-64 “When the front-end service 102 subsequently receives the translated content item 118B, the front-end service 102 can provide the translated content item 118B to the computing device 106. The application 120 can then replace the previously displayed translated content item 118A with the translated content item 118B in the UI 122 (i.e. when the UI 122 is a visual UI).”).
Regarding claim 2, Pierard discloses wherein the output of the translation release comprises functionality for feedback to be provided to at least a portion of the translated text (Col. 10 Lines 66-67 and Col. 11 Lines 1-5 “At operation 508, the application 120 determines whether a different (e.g. higher quality) translation is available for a translated content item 110 that has previously been received by the computing device 106. If a different translated content item 110 is available for a previously presented content item 110, the routine 500 proceeds from operation 508 to operation 510.”; Fig. 5 feedback loop (steps 508-512)), wherein the functionality is provided based on the determined accuracy (Col. 11 Lines 13-16 “From operation 510, the routine 500 proceeds to operation 512, where the application 122 might present the different translated content item 110 in the UI 122 in place of the previously presented translated content item 110.”; Col. 6 Lines 52-61 “The front-end service 102 can utilize the quality estimates 124 to determine whether a translated content item 118 is to be provided to the computing device 106. For example, and without limitation, the quality estimates 124 might indicate in some circumstances that the machine translation service 114A has generated a higher quality translation than the machine translation service 114C. In this scenario, the front-end service 102 might elect no to provide the translated content item 118C to the computing device 106.”).
Regarding claim 3, Pierard discloses receiving the feedback, wherein the feedback is used as a basis for continued machine translation of the character string (Col. 10 Lines 66-67 and Col. 11 Lines 1-5 “At operation 508, the application 120 determines whether a different (e.g. higher quality) translation is available for a translated content item 110 that has previously been received by the computing device 106. If a different translated content item 110 is available for a previously presented content item 110, the routine 500 proceeds from operation 508 to operation 510.”; Col. 11 Lines 6-7 “At operation 510, the application 120 obtains the different (e.g. higher quality) translated content item 118 from the front-end service 102.”).
Regarding claim 4, Pierard discloses wherein the continued machine translation comprises at least one modification of the translation release and re-translation of the character string (Col. 11 Lines 6-7 “At operation 510, the application 120 obtains the different (e.g. higher quality) translated content item 118 from the front-end service 102.”; continued machine translation involves obtaining a retranslation (higher quality translation) which modifies the output translation release Col. 5 Lines 29-37 “When the machine translation services 114 have completed translation of the content item 110A, they will return a translated content item 118. As discussed above, each machine translation service 114 will return a translated content item 118 having a different level of quality. For instance, in the example shown in FIG. 1, the translated content item 118A is of a lower quality, the translated content item 118B is of a medium quality, and the translated content item 118C is of a high quality.”; Col. 5 Lines 61-67 “The application 120 can then replace the previously displayed translated content item 118A with the translated content item 118B in the UI 122 (i.e. when the UI 122 is a visual UI). In this way, the low quality translation of the content item 110A presented in the UI can be automatically replaced with a higher quality translation of the content item 110A when it is received by the front-end service 102.”).
Regarding claim 5, Pierard discloses identifying another translator model (Col. 6 Lines 16-22 “It is to be appreciated that the application 120 can utilize various mechanisms to determine whether translated content items 118 are available from the front-end service 102. For example, and without limitation, a “pull” mechanism can be utilized where the application 120 periodically polls the front-end service 102 to determine whether new translated content items 118 are available.”); and performing another machine translation based on the other translator model (Col. 5 Lines 29-37 “When the machine translation services 114 have completed translation of the content item 110A, they will return a translated content item 118. As discussed above, each machine translation service 114 will return a translated content item 118 having a different level of quality. For instance, in the example shown in FIG. 1, the translated content item 118A is of a lower quality, the translated content item 118B is of a medium quality, and the translated content item 118C is of a high quality.”).
Regarding claim 6, Pierard discloses wherein the feedback is provided by the device based on autonomous analysis of the translation release (Col. 10 Lines 66-67 and Col. 11 Lines 1-2 “At operation 508, the application 120 determines whether a different (e.g. higher quality) translation is available for a translated content item 110 that has previously been received by the computing device 106.”; autonomous push and pull operations provide feedback: Col. 6 Lines 18-25 “For example, and without limitation, a “pull” mechanism can be utilized where the application 120 periodically polls the front-end service 102 to determine whether new translated content items 118 are available. Alternately, a “push” mechanism can be utilized where the front-end service 102 can inform the application 120 that new translated content items 118 are available.”).
Regarding claim 7, Pierard discloses wherein the feedback comprises user input corresponding at least a portion of the translation release (Col. 9 Lines 15-23 “The machine translation service 114 to be utilized to translate a particular content item 110 can also be selected based upon preferences specified by the user of the application 120. For example, the user might indicate that they are willing to wait for higher quality translations and that, therefore, content items 110 are to be transmitted to the machine translation service 114C for translation. The order of translation of the content items 110 can also be selected based upon user preferences.”; Col. 13 Lines 23-34 “For example, and without limitation, a user's interaction (e.g. mouse cursor movement, keyboard input, etc.) with the UI 220 can be monitored and content items 110 for preemptive machine translation can be selected based upon the interaction. For example, if a user hovers the mouse cursor over a hyperlink to a page 108, the content items 110 on that page might be preemptively machine translated in the manner described above. As another example, if the user scrolls a page 108 to the bottom of the UI 122, content items 110 in pages 108 located at the bottom of the page 108 can be preemptively machine translated in the manner described above.”).
Regarding claim 8, Pierard discloses wherein the language information comprises information selected from a group consisting of: a type of language, format of language source of language, grammar, language pairs, syntax, phrases, punctuation, paragraphs, wild-cards, format of the text and/or character string, relationship to a target language and identity of a dictionary defining terms of the language (Col. 9 Lines 30-40 “The machine translation service 114 to be utilized to translate a particular content item 110 can also be selected based upon an estimated difficulty of translation of a content item 110. For example, long spans of text in certain languages (e.g. Japanese or Chinese), can be very difficult to translate. Consequently, these types of content items 110 can be initially sent to the machine translation service 114A for translation and updated in the manner described above. Spans of text that are estimated to be easier to translate can be transmitted to the machine translation service 114C for immediate high quality translation.”).
Regarding claim 9, Pierard discloses wherein the translation release is identified during the performance of the machine translation (Col. 6 Lines 16-22 “It is to be appreciated that the application 120 can utilize various mechanisms to determine whether translated content items 118 are available from the front-end service 102. For example, and without limitation, a “pull” mechanism can be utilized where the application 120 periodically polls the front-end service 102 to determine whether new translated content items 118 are available.”; Col. 5 Lines 5-8 “Due to the varying levels of expected quality of the translations generated by the machine translation services 114, the translations generated by the machine translation services 114 can be generated in varying amounts of time.”).
Regarding claim 10, Pierard discloses wherein the translation release is an output of the translator model at a conclusion of an iteration of the execution of the translation model (translation models perform iterations depending on order in which content items are transmitted: “In this regard, it is to be appreciated that the order in which content items 110 are transmitted to the machine translation services 114 for translation can also be chosen based upon various attributes of the content items 110. For example, and without limitation, content items 110 above the fold can be sent for translation first, while content items 110 below the fold can be sent for translation later.”; translation release is output of model for particular content item: Col. 6 Lines 16-27 “It is to be appreciated that the application 120 can utilize various mechanisms to determine whether translated content items 118 are available from the front-end service 102. For example, and without limitation, a “pull” mechanism can be utilized where the application 120 periodically polls the front-end service 102 to determine whether new translated content items 118 are available. Alternately, a “push” mechanism can be utilized where the front-end service 102 can inform the application 120 that new translated content items 118 are available. The application 120 can then retrieve the translated content items 118 from the front-end service or another location.”).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is a system claim with limitations similar to method claims 1-2, and is thus rejected under similar rationale.
Furthermore, Pierard discloses A system (Fig. 12) comprising: one or more processors (Fig. 12, 1204) and one or more non-transitory computer readable media (Col. 19 Lines 49-56 “In addition to the mass storage device 1218 described above, the computer 1200 can have access to other computer-readable storage media to store and retrieve information, such as program modules, data structures, or other data. It should be appreciated by those skilled in the art that computer-readable storage media is any available media that provides for the non-transitory storage of data and that can be accessed by the computer 1200.”), the one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising program instructions stored thereon that when executed cause the one or more computers to (Col. 20 Lines 17-30 “In one configuration, the mass storage device 1218 or other computer-readable storage media is encoded with computer-executable instructions which, when loaded into the computer 1200, transform the computer from a general-purpose computing system into a special-purpose computer capable of implementing the configurations described herein. …According to one configuration, the computer 1200 has access to computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the computer 1200, perform the various processes described above with regard to FIGS. 1-8.”).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 contains limitations similar to claims 3-4, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 contains limitations similar to claims 3-4, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 contains limitations similar to claim 5, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 contains limitations similar to claims 7 and 9-10, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Meuser et al. (US 12,308,032 B1): machine translation with user feedback (Fig. 1, Col. 4 Lines 49-58)
Vlad et al. (US 11,995,414 B1): machine translation with revised translation based on unsatisfactory quality estimations (Fig. 3)
Freitag et al. (US 11,295,092 B2): post-editing of translation for translation correction (Fig. 6)
Zhang et al. (US 2021/0042475 A1): machine translation, selection of machine translation model based on text (Fig. 7, para. 0215)
Fuerstenau & Hieber (US 10,248,651 B1): machine translation, post-editing (Fig. 1)
Huang (US 2017/0169015 A1): machine translation, re-translation using better system if confidence score below a threshold (Fig. 5, step 520)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY DOUGLAS HUTCHESON whose telephone number is (703)756-1601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at (571)-272-7799. 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.
/CODY DOUGLAS HUTCHESON/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
/PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659