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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/03/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-10 are currently amended.
Response to Amendment
2.1. The amendment to the claims filed on 02/03/2026 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because the amendment does not include the previously canceled claims 11-16. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003, must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states: (c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
Applicant is required make the correction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
Currently amended claims 1-10 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 claims contain subject matter “ communicate via a secure, session-specific, real-time streaming protocol”, real-time, low-latency, multi-modal (video, audio, and text) communication”, wherein the streaming platform is configured to generate and transmit a session-specific identifier and session duration data to the server”, “matching based on dialect, location, and real-time availability status”, display rating and cost information of the able Translators to the Requester 101 on Requestor's device, including session-specific availability and prior session performance metrics”, wherein the Translator device is prompted to confirm availability via a secure, session-specific interface; and “wherein the streaming platform provides real-time monitoring and reporting of session metrics to the server;” , 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 applicant has not provided as how these newly added limitations are supported in the Applicant’s originally filed Specification. The possession of the subject matter claimed is shown by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, See MPEP 2163 (I) and MPEP 2163.02. Each claim limitations must be expressly, Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s originally filed disclosure and it does not describe communicating using a secure, session-specific, real-time streaming protocol”, or real-time low-latency, communication”, or generate and transmit a session-specific identifier and session duration data to the server”, or “matching based on real-time availability status”, or including prior session performance metrics”, or wherein the Translator device is prompted to confirm availability via a secure, session-specific interface; and “wherein the streaming platform provides real-time monitoring and reporting of session metrics to the server;”. It is to be noted that the “Written description requirement is separate and distinct from the enable requirement”. See MPEP 2163, 2163.02, and 2163.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-10 are to a system, which are statutory [Step 1= Yes).
Step 2A analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A language translator system, that links a live translator ("Translator") through a Translator device with a user ("Requester") using a Requester device to remotely perform live translations, comprising:
a. a plurality of user ("Translator") devices adapted to run executable software ("Apps") and interface with a Translator and communicate via a secure, session-specific, real-time streaming protocol with a remote server to set up an account with the server;
b. a plurality of user ("Requester") devices adapted to run executable software ("Apps") and interface with a Requester, and communicate via a secure, session-specific, real-time streaming protocol with a remote server to set up an account with the server;
c. a streaming platform capable of facilitating real-time, low-latency, multi-modal (video, audio, and text) communication between a Requester device and a Translator device, wherein the streaming platform is configured to generate and transmit a session-specific identifier and session duration data to the server;
d. a server adapted to communicate via the secure, session-specific, real-time streaming protocol with the Requester devices and the Translator devices, wherein the server functions to:
i. receive an electronic request for a translation from a first language to a second language from a Requester through a Requester device
ii. search a preloaded database to identify Translators that have the ability to perform the translation, including matching based on dialect, location, and real-time availability status;
iii. display rating and cost information of the able Translators to the Requester 101 on Requestor's device, including session-specific availability and prior session performance metrics;
iv. receive the Requester's selection of a Translator
V. notify the Translator device that the Translator was chosen by the Requester to perform a translation and ask if the Translator is willing to perform the translation, wherein the Translator device is prompted to confirm availability via a secure, session-specific interface;
vi. receive the Translator's response;
vii. if the selected Translator does not accept the translation, then repeat steps "iii" through "vii" and omit the Translators who are not willing to perform the translation;
viii. if Translator accepts the translation, charge the financial account of the Requester for an estimated translation period, wherein the charge is based on the session-specific identifier and session duration data received from the streaming platform;
ix. link the chosen Translator device and the Requester device to a streaming platform to
have a 'live' translation session between the Requester and Translator, wherein the streaming platform provides real-time monitoring and reporting of session metrics to the server;
X. notify the streaming platform to notify server when the translation session has finished, along with the length of the translation session;
xi. receive the length of the translation session from streaming platform, calculate the charge to the Requester and return any overpayment by the financial account of the Requester;
xii. cause payment to a financial account of the Translator via a trusted intermediary;
xiii. prompt Requester through the Requester device for a rating of the Translator;
xiv. receive the Translator's rating from Requester device;
XV. store the Translator's rating in database;
xvi. provide Translator's rating upon request.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1-10 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations comprising, i. receive request for a translation from a first language to a second language from a Requester; ii. search a preloaded database to identify Translators that have the ability to perform the translation, including matching based on dialect, location, and real-time availability status; iii. display rating and cost information of the able Translators to the Requester iv. receive the Requester's selection of a Translator ; v. notify the Translator that the Translator was chosen by the Requester to perform a translation and ask if the Translator is willing to perform the translation; vi. receive the Translator's response; vii. if the selected Translator does not accept the translation, then omit the Translators who are not willing to perform the translation; viii. if Translator accepts the translation, charge the financial account of the Requester for an estimated translation period, wherein the charge is based on the session-specific identifier and session duration data; xi. receive the length of the translation session from streaming platform, calculate the charge to the Requester and return any overpayment by the financial account of the Requester; xii. cause payment to a financial account of the Translator via a trusted intermediary;” under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite an intermediary receiving translation requests from first language to a second language, the intermediary searches from a stored data of translators to identify/determine a translator with the ability to do the job, provide a list of the identified translators and their ratings and cost and in response receive a selection , in response the intermediary checks with the selected translator if he is willing to do the job, after the end of the session determine the time spent in the process, calculate the charges and arrange the payment, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” of abstract ideas because they cover concepts of managing personal interactions following a manual process of being able to receive a translator’s service. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. Since dependent claims 2-5 include these limitations of the base claim, they recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” of abstract ideas.
The limitations comprising ” ii. search a preloaded database to identify Translators that have the ability to perform the translation, including matching based on dialect, location, and real-time availability status;; vii. if the selected Translator does not accept the translation, then repeat steps "iii" through "vii" and omit the Translators who are not willing to perform the translation; and xi calculate the charge to the Requester “, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance manually which can be done by a human operator to be able to search already available stored information on translators to select one, and also to be able to make a decision if a selected translator is not available to repeat the earlier steps to find another translator and to drop those translators who are not willing, and as such these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Mental Processes. That is, other than reciting “by a computer server” nothing in the claim elements precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind and by a human. The repeating of the steps (iii) to (vi) The mere nominal recitation of by a server does not take these claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-5 recite a mental process.
Since claims 1-5 recite both ““Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “mental Processes” abstract ideas, under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Accordingly, the limitations in claims 1-5 are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis.
Since the limitations of the other independent claim 6 recites similar limitations as claim 1 directed to an intermediary receiving translation requests from a requestor , the intermediary searches and determines capable translators and provides/displays information on translators to identify/determine a translator with the ability to do the job, provide a list of the identified translators to the requestor for his selection and arranges a translator to communicate via audio or video or chat and then charging the requestor as per session duration, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” of abstract ideas because they cover concepts of managing personal interactions following a manual process of being able to receive a translator’s service. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. Since dependent claims 7-10 include these limitations of the base claim, they recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” of abstract ideas.
Thus, claims 1-10 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-16: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1, a, b, c, and d recite the additional limitations of using generic computer components comprising a generic computer server electronically communicating via a secure, session-specific, real-time streaming protocol with generic Requester and Translator devices such as smart phones to provide translator services between requestors and translators and executing the steps i to xvi, wherein the system is capable of real-time, low-latency, multi-modal (video, audio, and text) communication between a Requester device and a Translator device, wherein the streaming platform is configured to generate and transmit a session-specific identifier and session duration data to the server; .
The limitations in steps “i. receive an electronic request for a translation from a first language to a second language …. through a Requester device …..”; iii. Display rating and cost information of the able Translators … including session-specific availability and prior performance metrics…..; iv. receive the Requester's selection of a Translator……; v. notify the Translator device that the Translator was chosen by the Requester to perform a translation and ask if the Translator is willing to perform the translation, wherein the Translator device is prompted to confirm availability via a secure, session- specific interface; vi. receive the Translator's response…..; x. notify the streaming platform to notify server when the translation session has finished, along with the length of the translation session; xi. receive the length of the translation session from streaming platform; xiii. prompt Requester electronically through the Requester device for a rating of the Translator; xiv. receive the Translator's rating from Requester device; xv. store the Translator's rating in database; and xvi provide Translator's rating …….upon request.”, are mere data gathering, outputting/sending, storing and displaying recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). The server computer is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of receiving data, transmitting data, displaying data, storing data, asking questions/ and making prompts. See MPEP 2106.05(f) . The limitations in step (iii), “ … including session-specific availability and prior performance metrics….”, is mere data/information about a translator amounting to non-functional descriptive subject matter and the limitations in step “wherein the Translator device is prompted to confirm availability via a secure, session- specific interface;” amount to sending a notification to a translator to respond to the question if he is willing to perform the translation and therefore amounts to mere data transmitting which is non-significant extra-solution activity. Using generic computer functions of “a secure, session- specific interface” to transmit or receive or send notification or data or content is a long-standing practice and the limitations do not recite any details directed to an improvement in using a secure interface.
The limitations in steps “(ii) search a preloaded database to identify Translators that have the ability to perform the translation including matching based on dialect, location, and real-time availability status; “vii”. if the selected Translator does not accept the translation, and omit the Translators who are not willing to perform the translation; and (xi) calculate the charge to the Requester [based on received length of translation session] the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Regarding the limitations of repeating steps “iii” through “vii” in step (vii) have already been analyzed as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The limitations in steps “(viii). if Translator accepts the translation, charge the financial account of the Requester for an estimated translation period, , wherein the charge is based on the session-specific identifier and session duration data received from the streaming platform;; (xi) receive the length of the translation session from streaming platform using RF transmissions, calculate the charge to the Requester and return any overpayment by the financial account of the Requester and (xii). cause payment to a financial account of the Translator via a trusted intermediary;;”, recite arranging payment for a service charge that is for estimated translation period for the translator, are generic commercial functions for selling and purchasing services do not necessitate inextricable tie to computer technology because these steps can be carried out manually and is just performing the disembodied concept on a general-purpose computer. The computer devices are recited at a high level of generality and are used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of receiving data, calculating the charge and arranging payment.. See MPEP 2106.05(f) .
The limitations in the step “ix. Electronically connect the chosen Translator device and the Requester device using RF transmissions to a streaming platform to have a ‘live’ translation session between the Requester and Translator, wherein the streaming platform provides real-time monitoring and reporting of session metrics to the server; “; is merely a generic computer function of connecting a customer with a service provider so that a live chat session can be established to provide a video or an audio or sending text messages.
The use of a secure, session-specific, real-time streaming protocol with generic computer devices including providing real-time, low-latency, multi-modal (video, audio, and text) communication between devices is a long-standing practice of using computer devices to communicate via a secure, session-specific, including real-time streaming protocol including providing real-time, low-latency, multi-modal (video, audio, and text) communication before the effective date of the claimed invention and the claim limitations merely recite using these features without reciting any details directed to an improvement in conducting communication via a secure, session-specific, real-time streaming protocol. Generating a session identifier and transmitting is again a generic computer function.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements in claim 1 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Limitations in dependent claims (2) “ The language translator system of claim 1 wherein the server further functions to: a. prompt the Translator device for a rating of the Requester; b. receive the …..; c. store the Requester's rating in database; and d. provide Requester's rating ……upon request…...”, (3). The language translator system of claim 1 where the server causes payment to a financial account of the Translator through a trusted intermediary . 4. The language translator system of claim 1 wherein the streaming platform hosts a translation session ………. is at least one of a) an interactive video session, b) an interactive audio session, or c) an interactive chat session. 5. The language translator system of claim 1 wherein the Translator has the interactive ability to cause the Translator device to identify the Translator as ‘available’ or ‘not available’ for translation at specified days and times ……...”, are merely further limiting the scope discussed in the base claim 1, and foe the same reasons discussed for claim 1 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The computer devices in communication are recited at a high level of generality and are used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of receiving data, transmitting data, displaying data, storing data, asking questions/ and making prompts. See MPEP 2106.05(f) . (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims 2-5 are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Since the limitations in claims 6-10 are similar to the limitations considered for claims 1-5, they are analyzed on the same basis as directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, claims 1-10 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1-10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claims recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-10 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additional elements including the steps of receiving data, displaying data, storing data and transmitting/outputting data were considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering, outputting, storing, displaying making prompts. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere receiving data, acquiring data, transmitting/outputting data, storing data, making prompts and displaying data using a generic computer is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving data, acquiring data, transmitting/outputting data, storing data, making prompts and displaying data steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
The additional elements using a secure, session-specific, real-time streaming protocol with generic computer devices including providing real-time, low-latency, multi-modal (video, audio, and text) communication between devices and connecting the chosen Translator device and the Requester device to a streaming platform to have a ‘live’ translation session between the Requester and Translator are generic computer functions because these are long-standing practices of using computer devices to communicate via a secure, session-specific, including real-time streaming protocol including providing real-time, low-latency, multi-modal (video, audio, and text) communication are recited at a high level of generality and amount to simply appending well-understood, routine conceptional activities previously known to the industry, which does not qualify as “Significantly More”. See MPEP 2106.05 (d). See, for evidence, references: Papakonstantinou et al. [US 20160142894 A1; see para 0038” The backend system 105 can include a computer system configured to execute a plurality of backend applications 120. In some implementations, each mobile application 103 running on a user's client device 102 is associated with a corresponding backend application 120 running on the backend system 105. The backend application 120 and the corresponding mobile application 103 are configured to communicate regularly to exchange data. In some implementations, the backend application 120 and the corresponding mobile application 103 communicate over a secure communication protocol such as the Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS), the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP), the Secure Communications Interoperability Protocol (SCIP), or other secure communication protocols known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.”, and reference : JP 2007060259 A , see “Background” , “ In order to transmit video data, it is known that it is necessary to secure a large communication bandwidth, and it is known that it is necessary to continuously secure the communication bandwidth in applications that require real-time performance.”.
Even when considered individually and in combination, these additional elements in claims 1`-10 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, pending claims 1-10 are patent ineligible.
5. Note: The bolded text represents “[[emphasis added to the relevant text]] direct quotes from the references are in a smaller and italic font.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
6.1. Claims 6, 8-9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg et. [US Patent 10025776 B1 cited in the IDS filed 02/22/2024 in view of Feng [US 20170222808 A1] and in view of Li et al. [ US 20180247288 A1], hereinafter Li.
Reference claim 6, Sjoberg teaches a language translator system for linking a user (“Requester”) requesting a translation between a first language and a second language with a Translator capable of translating between the first and second languages, comprising:
a. a plurality of Requester devices, each capable of communicating with an associated Requester and a server using RF transmissions; b. a plurality of Translator devices, each capable of communicating with an associated Translator and a server; c. a streaming platform capable of facilitating communication between two connected users ; d. a server capable of interacting with the translator devices to onboard and store information of their associated Translators; e. wherein the server is also capable of interacting with the Requester devices to onboard and store information of their associated Requesters; f. wherein the server receives translation requests from a Requesters device, determines capable Translators , their ratings and costs from the onboarded information and displays information of the capable Translators on the Requester device [See Sjoberg col.5, line 46-col.6, line 17, col.6, lines 36-40, col.6, line 56-, col.7, line 7, “FIG. 1 is a general architecture diagram schematically illustrating an example of an language translation mediation (“LTM”) system 100 that performs and provides the language mediation services described herein, including receiving translation requests, routing the translation requests to qualified and available translators, receiving translations from the translators, forwarding and/or selecting (as needed) the translations to the customer and determining prices for translations and/or translation services. ……. the LTM system 100 communicates with user computing devices 105 using a network 110A to receive translation requests. In FIG. 1, the LTM system 100 includes several components, such as a translation request processing engine 120, a price determination engine 125, and translation selection engine 130, configured to execute the methods for language translation mediation ….. LTM system 100, the translation request processing engine 120, the price determination engine 125, and/or the translation selection engine 130 can also include one or more servers (e.g., a web server) configured to receive and respond to requests from the user computing devices 105. …… The LTM system 100 can also include a translator data store 140 which may store data related to translators registered with the LTM system 100. Data or attributes related to translators registered with the LTM system 100 may include, for example, languages each translator is qualified to translate (input and output languages), translation services offered (e.g., translation of text, translation of audio, translation of visual content such as images, local information services, tour guide and/or in person translator-for-rent services, etc.), location, time zone, time availability (e.g., periods of time when the translator is available for service) and ask prices (or fees) for translation services offered….. ….. In yet another example, the translation data store 145 may be accessed if the LTM system 100 determines that no translators are qualified and/or available to perform a requested translation. ……. …The translation request processing engine 120 may receive and process translation requests received from, for example, user computing devices 105, access the translator data store 140 to look up, identify and/or determine one or more translators qualified and available to provide the requested translation, and route translation requests to the appropriate translators. ….. FIG. 1 includes the two networks 110A and 110B to illustrate the concept that the LTM system 100 may act as an intermediary or mediator between the user computing devices 105 and the translator computing devices 107.”. As regards communicating electronically using RF transmissions Sjoberg describes using smart phones [See Fig.1 and col.2, lines 19-22, “ A customer may provide an item to be translated, for example by typing or entering a phrase into his mobile computing device (such as a smart phone” ] for communication which will require RF transmissions.
Sjoberg does not explicitly teach after selecting probable translators they are displayed provided on the Requestor’s device and the limitations g. wherein the server functions to receive a selection of one of the capable Translators from Requesters device. Feng, in the same field of endeavor of providing language translation services teaches providing the list of system selected translators to the user’s/requestor’s device and receiving a selection of one of the capable Translators from Requesters device [See Feng paras 0112—0117, “ [0112] After determining the target translator client, the server 140 sends a translation request to the target translator client when there is only one target translator client; when the number of target translator clients is larger than one, the server can feed information of the target translator clients back to the user to allow the user to determine the translator client providing services thereto. The steps are as follows: …… [0115] For example, the server determines the translator clients A, B and C as the target translator clients, as the number of the target translator clients is larger than one, the server 140 feeds information of the translator clients A, B and C back to the user client 120 to prevent repetitive work of translators, improve user experience and give the decision-making power to the user. …... [0117] After the user client 120 receives the information of the target translator client, the user corresponding to the user client 120 decides to select a translator client to provide translation services, and the translator client 160 selected by the user is the awarded translator client. The user client 120 feeds information of the awarded translator client back to the server. For example, if the user selects the translator client C as the awarded translator client, the user client 120 feeds information of the translator client C to the server 140.” Therefore, in view of the teachings of Feng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sjoberg to incorporate the concept of providing and displaying the selected language translators are displayed provided on the Requestor’s device, wherein the server functions to receive a selection of one of the capable Translators from Requesters device, because, as shown in Feng, this would enable, “to prevent repetitive work of translators, improve user experience and give the decision-making power to the user”.
Sjoberg , with regards to the limitations, “ h. a financial module in the server that charges for a translation session to a financial account of the Requester based on session-specific identifier and session duration data received from the streaming platform ; “, teaches that the LTM system does facilitate payment from the customer/requestor for the translation services received via the streaming platform [see Abstract, “ the LTM system may determine a price for a translation and/or facilitate payment on behalf of, or from, the customer, to the translator who provided the translation for the customer.”] but does not provide that this payment is realized by charging a financial account of the Requester and based session-specific identifier and session duration data received. Li in the same field of making payment for charges for an online service to a requester teaches charging to a financial account of a customer/requester , such as a credit card account of the customer and based on session-specific identifier and session duration data received [See paras 0073—0074, “ 0073] ……… the request information from the current service session can include, for example, an authentication device identifier, a service station identifier, a payment amount due, ……. service duration, service identifier, user device identifier, date/time stamp, session identifier, and so forth. …….[0074] At step 410, having received the service token, the first user device is typically responsive to provide payment information or subscription information along with the service token to a payment system via a communications network. The payment information can include, for example, credit card number, expiry date, card holder name, card token issued by payment system, or card token which can be processed by payment system, ……..”]. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sjoberg to incorporate the concept of charging a financial account of the Requester and based session-specific identifier and session duration data received , because It is customary to use a payment account , such as a credit card or bank account for services provided and such payment is calculated based on the amount of services which can be assessed from a session duration for translating services for a specific session recognized by a session identifier, and secondly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Sjoberg reference teaches the limitations, “. a scheduling module that interacts using RF transmissions with the Requester through Requester device and the selected Translator through Translator device to select a time and mode for a translation session”, teaches, see col.6, lines 6-17, “ …. The LTM system 100 can also include a translator data store 140 which may store data related to translators registered with the LTM system 100. Data or attributes related to translators registered with the LTM system 100 may include, for example, languages each translator is qualified to translate (input and output languages), translation services offered (e.g., translation of text, translation of audio, translation of visual content such as images, local information services, ……. etc.), location, ….. time availability (e.g., periods of time when the translator is available for service) and ask prices (or fees) for translation services offered.”. From this excerpt one can discern that from the data available and stored for a translator with the LTM system it will be possible to select a time and mode for scheduling a session for a translation of text, translation of audio, translation of visual content.
j. Sjoberg further teaches a streaming platform capable of passing at least one of audio, video or chat messages between two connected users, [See Abstract and col.6, lines 6-17] and generating session-specific identifiers and session duration data [these limitations are already covered by reference LI for similar limitations in the claim to make a payment for which both the session duration and the session identifier are needed to calculate the right amount of charges].
k. a linking module in server that links both the Requester device and the selected Translator device to the same streaming platform for the translation session allowing communication between the Requester and the Translator [already covered above wherein the LTM system is able to link the requestor devices 105 with the Translator device 107 in real-time [already covered above wherein the LTM system is able to link the requestor devices 105 with the Translator device 107 in real-time, see Abstract] and providing real-time monitoring and reporting of session metrics to the serve [See Abstract , col.1, line 67-col.2, line 16, and Fig.7 and associated text col.14, lines 1-31, “ ……… A language translation mediation (“LTM”) system may provide customers or users with the ability to request and receive language translation services in real-time. …….. These translators may provide translation services to customers, as mediated by the LTM system, in exchange for a translation fee. Translations may be provided on-demand or in “real-time,” such that a customer may request a translation from the LTM system, the LTM system routes the translation request to one or more translators who may perform the translation, and the LTM system provides the translation to the customer. …… FIG. 7 illustrates an example user interface 700 which presents a customer with a translation and allows the customer to submit ratings or feedback for the translation and/or translator involving a language translation mediation system, ……. User interface 700 also presents information to the customer regarding the translation, including an indicator of who provided the translation 740 (e.g. “Jacques” with a 4.7-star average rating), ….. an option to rate the translation 755 (e.g., on a five-star scale, although any rating scale may be used). In response to the customer selecting a rating for the translation, the LTM system 100 may, for example, receive the rating and update the translator data store 140 according to the processes described herein.”, These excerpts describe real time monitoring of the translation service to a requester from a Translator and also receiving performance metrics in form of ratings on a 5-star scale]; and
l. a rating module in the server that interacts with the Requester to acquire the Requester’s rating of the Translator [See col.7, lines 27-35, “the translation selection engine 130 may be configured to receive a rating or feedback for a translation and/or translator and update the translator data store 140” and Fig.7.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations, “ The language translator system of claim 6 where the server causes payment to a financial account of the Translator through a trusted intermediary financial institution that verifies payment authorization and session data. “ are already covered in the analysis of claim 6 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg in view of Feng in view of Li in view of Papakonstantinou and the trusted intermediary is the LTM system of Sjoberg through which the payment is realized. .
Regarding claim 9, Sjoberg teaches that the language translator system of claim 6 wherein the streaming platform hosts a translation session that is at least one of a) an interactive video session, b) an interactive audio session, or c) an interactive chat session and generates session-specific identifiers and sessions duration data for billing and refund . [See Fig.1 and Abstract, “A language translation mediation (“LTM”) system may provide customers with the ability to request and receive language translation services on demand and/or in real-time. Language translation services may be provided by the language translation mediation system, for example via translators who know multiple languages, in exchange for a translation fee. A customer may request a translation of text, images, audio and/or video content from the LTM system, the LTM system routes the translation request to one or more translators who may perform the translation, and the LTM system provides one or more selected translations to the customer. “]. As regards that LTM system can interact with the user [both requester and translator] devices, see Figs. 5-7 with col.12, line 50- col.13, line 8, col.17, lines 6-20 . Regarding limitations, “ and generates session-specific identifiers and session duration data for billing and refund” are already covered and rejected as unpatentable in view of the reference LI.
6.2. Claims 10 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg in view of Feng in view of Li and in view of Papakonstantinou et al [US 20160142894 A1], hereinafter Papakonstantinou.
Regarding claim 10, Sjoberg teaches that the language translator system of claim 6 wherein the Translator has the interactive ability to cause the Translator device to identify the Translator as ‘available’ or ‘not available’ for translation at specified days and times via a secure, session-specific interface [See col.4, lines 35-41 and col.6, lines 6-17, ““The LTM system may be able to access location information (such as Global Positioning System (“GPS”) coordinates or geo-location information) for the customer and for one or more translators, provide an indication to the customer that one or more local translators may be available, and facilitate the customer's rental of one of the local translators if desired.”…”The LTM system 100 can also include a translator data store 140 which may store data related to translators registered with the LTM system 100. Data or attributes related to translators registered with the LTM system 100 may include, for example…………, time zone, time availability (e.g., periods of time when the translator is available for service) and ask prices (or fees) for translation services offered.” . “]. As regards that LTM system can interact with the user [both requester and translator] devices, see Figs. 5-7 with col.12, line 50- col.13, line 8, col.17, lines 6-20. Sjoberg does not teach that communication is conducted via a secure, session-specific interface. Papakonstantinou, in the same field of conducting online communication teaches conducting the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP), the Secure Communications Interoperability Protocol (SCIP), or other secure communication protocols known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Papakonstantinou it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sjoberg to incorporate the concept of using a secure, session-specific interface, as shown in Papakonstantinou to communicate data including audio, video and text , since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations, “The language translator system of claim 6 wherein the rating module is further adapted to interact with the Translator through the Translator device to acquire the Translator's rating of the Requester via a secure, session-specific interface.”, are already covered in the analysis of claims 6 and 10 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg in view of Feng in view of Li in view of Papakonstantinou.
6.3. Claims 1-5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg in view of Feng in view of Li in view of Papakonstantinou, and in view of Greener [US Patent # 7752080 B1] in view of Borges et al. [US 20200053729 A1], hereinafter Borges.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations, “A language translator system, that links a live translator (“Translator”) through a Translator device with a user (“Requester”) using a Requester device to remotely perform live translations, comprising: a. a plurality of user (“Translator”) devices adapted to run executable software (“Apps”) and interface with a Translator and communicate via secure -specific , real- time streaming protocol with a remote server to set up an account with the server; b. a plurality of user (“Requester”) devices adapted to run executable software (“Apps”) and interface with a Requester, and communicate via secure -specific , real- time streaming protocol with a remote server to set up an account with the server; c. a streaming platform capable of facilitating real-time, multi-modal (video, audio, and text) communication between a Requester device and a Translator device; wherein the streaming platform is configured to generate and transmit session specific identifier and session duration data to the server; d. a server adapted to communicate secure -specific , real- time streaming protocol with the Requester devices using RF transmissions and the Translator devices, wherein the server functions to: i. receive an electronic request for a translation from a first language to a second language from a Requester through a Requester device; ii. search a preloaded database to identify Translators that have the ability to perform the translation, including; iii. display rating and cost information of the able Translators to the Requester 101 on Requestor's device, including session-specific availability and prior session performance metrics; iv. receive the Requester's selection of a Translator; v. notify the Translator device that the Translator was chosen by the Requester to perform a translation and ask if the Translator is willing to perform the translation, wherein the Translator device is prompted to confirm availability via a secure, session specific interface; vi. receive the Translator's response; vii. if the selected Translator does not accept the translation, then repeat steps “iii” through “vii” and omit the Translators who are not willing to perform the translation; viii. if Translator accepts the translation, charge the financial account of the Requester for an estimated translation period, wherein the charge is based on the session-specific identifier and session duration data received from the streaming platform; ix. link the chosen Translator device and the Requester device to a streaming platform to have a ‘live’ translation session between the Requester and Translator, wherein the streaming platform provides real-time monitoring and reporting of session metrics to the server; x. notify the streaming platform to notify server when the translation session has finished, along with the length of the translation session; xi. receive the length of the translation session from streaming platform, calculate the charge to the Requester; xii. cause payment to a financial account of the Translator via trusted intermediary [trusted intermediary is the LTM system via which payment is realized]; xiii. prompt Requester through the Requester device for a rating of the Translator; xiv. receive the Translator's rating from Requester device; xv. store the Translator's rating in database; and xvi. provide Translator's rating upon request.”, are already covered in the analysis of claim 6 above as being unpatentable over Sjoberg in view of Feng in view of Li in view of Papakonstantinou, except for the following limitations:
c. a streaming platform capable of facilitating real-time, low-latency, multi-modal (video, audio, and text) communication between a Requester device and a Translator device; ii. search a preloaded database to identify Translators that have the ability to perform the translation, including matching based on dialect, location, and real-time availability status; iii. display rating and cost information of the able Translators to the Requester 101 on Requestor's device, including session-specific availability and prior session performance metrics; v. notify the Translator device that the Translator was chosen by the Requester to perform a translation and ask if the Translator is willing to perform the translation, wherein the Translator device is prompted to confirm availability via a secure, session-specific interface; vi. receive the Translator's response; vii. if the selected Translator does not accept the translation, then repeat steps “iii” through “vii” and omit the Translators who are not willing to perform the translation; x. notify the streaming platform to notify server when the translation session has finished, along with the length of the translation session; and xi. return any overpayment by the financial account of the Requester.
Regarding limitations, ii. search a preloaded database to identify Translators that have the ability to perform the translation, including matching based on dialect, location, and real-time availability status; iii. display rating and cost information of the able Translators to the Requester 101 on Requestor's device, including session-specific availability and prior session performance metrics; Sjoberg teaches the same, see col.3, lines 32-43 “ The output item provided to the customer may be selected based at least in part on price (e.g., a lowest ask price from among the multiple translators), response time (e.g., the output item may be selected from a translator which provided the translated output item to the LTM system first), language qualification (e.g., the output item may be selected from a translator most qualified to translate between the input and output languages) and/or translator rating (e.g., the output item may be selected from a translator with a highest translator rating).”, col.4, lines 34-41, “…………. The LTM system may be able to access location information (such as Global Positioning System (“GPS”) coordinates or geo-location information) for the customer and for one or more translators, provide an indication to the customer that one or more local translators may be available, and facilitate the customer's rental of one of the local translators if desired.”,
Regarding limitations, x. notify the streaming platform to notify server when the translation session has finished, along with the length of the translation session; and xi. return any overpayment by the financial account of the Requester.”, Greener in the similar endeavor of providing services to consumers, teaches these limitations, see col.10, lines 53-62 “ 43) In addition to establishing the service session, under one or more embodiments of the invention, the service management session delivery component 408 can track a period of time during the service session, monitoring time and/or time-related data ……….and/or producing time duration calculations, for tracking or billing purposes. Under one or more embodiments of the invention, once a paying service consumer's participation in the service session terminates, payment from the service consumer is facilitated as discussed next with reference to FIG. 38.. See also, col. 17, lines 4-15. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Greener, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Sjoberg in view of Feng in view of Li in view of Papakonstantinou as applied to claim 1 to incorporate the concept to notify the streaming platform using RF transmissions to notify server when the translation session has finished, along with the length of the translation session, receive the length of the translation session from streaming platform, calculate the charge to the Requester and return any overpayment by the financial account of the Requester, because as shown in Greener, payment has to be made to the translators for their translating services provided for a measured duration, and secondly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding limitations, “ v. notify the Translator device that the Translator was chosen by the Requester to perform a translation and ask if the Translator is willing to perform the translation, wherein the Translator device is prompted to confirm availability via a secure, session-specific interface; and vi. receive the Translator's response..; vii. if the selected Translator does not accept the translation, then repeat steps “iii” through “vii” and omit the Translators who are not willing to perform the translation”, the combined teachings of Sjoberg in view of Feng in view of Li in view of Papakonstantinou teach informing the translator about him being selected via a secure, session-specific interface, then it would be obvious to an ordinary skill in the art to have informed the translator about being selected or accepted by the Requester and then receive the Translator’s response about his availability or acceptance and for any reason if he is not available then again it would be obvious to an ordinary skill to omit the translators not available but to have repeated steps “iii” through “vii”, by the iteration process, if any other translator from the plurality of translators would be available .
Regarding limitations, “ c. a streaming platform capable of facilitating real-time, low-latency, multi-modal (video, audio, and text) communication between a Requester device and a Translator device”, Sjoberg in view of Feng in view of Li in view of Papakonstantinou fails to teach these limitations. Borges, in the same filed of communication, teaches real-time, low-latency, multi-modal (video, audio, and text) communication concept [See para 0148, “ In some embodiments, low-latency Wi-Fi in the communication techniques is used to: communicate low-latency audio (such as a latency of, e.g., 10-30 ms), e.g., in real-time audio use cases, communicate a data stream associated with social media, etc.”. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Borges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Sjoberg in view of Feng in view of Li in view of Papakonstantinou as applied to claim 1 to incorporate the concept that the streaming platform is capable of facilitating real-time, low-latency, multi-modal (video, audio, and text) communication between a Requester device and a Translator device, because as shown in Borges, such techniques are used in multi-modal communication and secondly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Reference claims 2, its limitations, “ The language translator system of claim 1 wherein the server further functions to: a. prompt the Translator device for a rating of the Requester; b. receive the rating from Translator device using RF transmissions; c. store the Requester's rating in database; d provide Requester's rating upon request via the secure, session-specific, real-time streaming protocol.”, are already covered in the analysis of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg in view of Feng in view of Li in view of Papakonstantinou, in view of Greener in view of Borges, specially see Sjoberg Fig. 7 and the associated text and in view of Papakonstantinou for communication via a secure, session-specific, real-time streaming protocol
Regarding claim 3, the limitations, “ The language translator system of claim 1 where the server causes payment to a financial account of the Translator through a trusted intermediary financial institution that verifies payment authorization and session data.”, are already covered in the analysis of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg in view of Feng in view of Li in view of Papakonstantinou, in view of Greener in view of Borges.
Regarding claim 4, its limitations, “ The language translator system of claim 1 wherein the streaming platform hosts a translation session using the secure, session-specific, real-time streaming protocol that is at least one of a) an interactive video session, b) an interactive audio session, or c) an interactive chat session” are already covered in the analysis of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg in view of Feng in view of Li in view of Papakonstantinou, in view of Greener [in view of Borges
Regarding claim 5, Sjoberg teaches that the language translator system of claim 1 wherein the Translator has the interactive ability to cause the Translator device to identify the Translator as ‘available’ or ‘not available’ for translation at specified days and times via a secure, session-specific interface [See col.4, lines 35-41 and col.6, lines 6-17, ““The LTM system may be able to access location information (such as Global Positioning System (“GPS”) coordinates or geo-location information) for the customer and for one or more translators, provide an indication to the customer that one or more local translators may be available, and facilitate the customer's rental of one of the local translators if desired.”…”The LTM system 100 can also include a translator data store 140 which may store data related to translators registered with the LTM system 100. Data or attributes related to translators registered with the LTM system 100 may include, for example…………, time zone, time availability (e.g., periods of time when the translator is available for service) and ask prices (or fees) for translation services offered.” . “]. As regards that LTM system can interact with the user [both requester and translator] devices, see Figs. 5-7 with col.12, line 50- col.13, line 8, col.17, lines 6-20. The limitations that communication is conducted via a secure, session-specific interface is already discussed and covered in the analysis of claim 1 in view of Papakonstantinou, i
Response to Arguments
7.1. Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026, see pages 7-10 with regards to rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 USC 1010 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. For following reasons:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments (I, II, III) that “ The Amended claims are not directed to an Abstract idea and are directed to practical application integrating any judicial exception into a practical application, see pages 7-9, because:
(i) as required by Step 2A, Prong One analysis the claims, as analyzed above under 35 USC 101 rejection, claims 1-5 recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and Mental Processes” and claims 6-10 recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, the limitations of claims 1-10, as analyzed above, “recite” a judicial exception because the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims.
(ii) Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional elements in claims 1-10, as analyzed above under 35 USC 101, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Applicant’s arguments that by using “" Session-specific identifiers and session duration data generated and transmitted by the streaming platform (claims 1(c), 1(d)(viii), 1(d)(ix), 6(h), 6(j), 6(k)) , " Matching based on dialect, location, and real-time availability status (claim 1(d) (ii)) " Session-specific availability and prior session performance metrics (claim 1(d) (iii)) " Trusted intermediary financial institution that verifies payment authorization and session data (claims 3, 8) " Real-time monitoring and reporting of session metrics (claims 1(d)(ix), 6(k))7 of - Secure, session-specific interfaces for translator availability and ratings (claims 1(d)(v), 1(d)(v), 5, 7, 10) “, the claims are technical and integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are not persuasive. These computer communication features are recited at a high level of generality because, see the references cited above amount to simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Applicant’s arguments that the technical features added in the current claims are technical improvements is merely conclusive statement because, as analyzed above, and the references provided above are evidence that these were well-known before the effective date of the claimed invention. The amended limitations do not provide any details reflecting any technical improvement over the known technical features and as such do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and as such do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments (IV A, B, C, and V ) that the claims recite an inventive concept because Step 2B analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. However, the additional elements in the claims 1-10, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, under 35 USC 101 rejection amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The applicant’s arguments that the claims recite “requiring, secure, session-specific, real-time streaming protocol for all communications. " Streaming platform must generate and transmit session-specific identifiers and session duration data, a system architecture with session-specific billing, monitoring, and secure interfaces for ratings and availability”, as already discussed above amount to simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Further, the limitations comprising matching Translators to Requesters based on dialect, location, and real-time availability, providing session metrics and performance data with the intention to use for billing and refunds, and processing payments via an intermediary are mere mental processes and insignificant extra-solution activity being processed by generic computers which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to “Significantly More” because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In view of the foregoing, rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 USC 101 is sustainable and maintained.
7.2. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-24, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the current amendments made to all claims except for the Applicant’s arguments against Official Notice. However, upon further consideration of the amended limitations, new grounds of rejection are made.
Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments for Official Notice, because it is a well-known standing practice to charge a customer or a requester for the services to be provided to charge him and such payment can be realized by charging the customer’s financial account, such as a credit or debit card, or bank account. However, Examiner has provided reference Walker et al. [7472074 B1] which teaches charging the customer’s financial account for service provided.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
YOGESH C. GARG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688