DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to communications: RCE filed on 9/29/2025.
Claims 1-7, and 9-21 are pending. Claims 1, 13, and 19-21 are independent.
The previous rejection of claims 1-7, and 9-21 under 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 12-17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loforte et al. (US2020/0387567) in view of Nelson et al. (US2020/0356726), and Ross et al. (US2010/0262621).
In regards to claim 1, Loforte et al. substantially discloses a method for document processing, comprising:
acquiring, in response to receiving an editing operation performed by a first user on a target document, edit content (Loforte et al. para[0058] ln5-12, detects an edit event and acquires characteristics of edit content);
sending, based on the edit content, a first data request to a server(Loforte et al. para[0059] ln1-7, sends information about edit to server to determine if change should be propagated).
Loforte et al. does not explicitly disclose updating, in response to receiving a ubiquitous language sent by the server, a target content in the edit content to be in a ubiquitous language, wherein the ubiquitous language is contents for explaining concepts or knowledge points agreed within a work team, and the ubiquitous language is determined based on the edit content.
However Nelson et al. substantially discloses updating, in response to receiving a ubiquitous language sent by the server, a target content in the edit content to be in a ubiquitous language, wherein the ubiquitous language is contents for explaining concepts or knowledge points agreed within a work team, and the ubiquitous language is determined based on the edit content (Nelson et al. para[0099] ln3-16, changes made by one team member are propagated to automatically to other team members, para[0107] ln10-19, determines language (military jargon) based on edited content, para[0134] ln1-8, ubiquitous language identifier (semantic tag) identifying natural language operation is provided to client device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the localization method Loforte et al. with the dependency graphs of Nelson et al. in order to track how changes to a document section effect other sections of the document (Nelson et al. para[0023] ln3-13).
Loforte et al. does not explicitly disclose the ubiquitous language is determined based on the edit content by:
Performing fuzzy search in a ubiquitous language database by using the edit content that is untokenized, to obtain a fuzzy search result;
Performing tokenization of the edit content and performing on the edit content, and performing exact search in the ubiquitous language database by using the tokenized edit content to obtain an exact search result; and
Acquiring the ubiquitous language identifier based on a hybrid result of the fuzzy search results and the exact search result.
However Ross et al. discloses the ubiquitous language is determined based on the edit content by:
Performing fuzzy search in a ubiquitous language database by using the edit content that is untokenized, to obtain a fuzzy search result (Ross et al. fig. 2A S3 para[0114], determines if there are any fuzzy match for lookup segment);
Performing tokenization of the edit content and performing on the edit content, and performing exact search in the ubiquitous language database by using the tokenized edit content to obtain an exact search result (Ross et al. fig. 2A S1 para[0113], any exact match for lookup segment in source text is determined by exact match determinator); and
Acquiring the ubiquitous language identifier based on a hybrid result of the fuzzy search results and the exact search result (Ross et al. para[0063], generates hybrid scenario where contexts of both exact and fuzzy matches are considered).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the localization method of Loforte et al. with the matching system of Ross et al. in order to improving quality of translations by using context to verify translation (Ross et al. para[0009]).
In regards to claim 2, Loforte et al. as modified by Nelson et al., and Ross et al. substantially discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the updating, in response to receiving a ubiquitous language identifier sent by the server, the target content in the edit content to be in the ubiquitous language comprises:
presenting a first interaction area, wherein the first interaction area is associated with the target content in the edit content (Loforte et al. fig. 7 para[0075] ln1-10); and
updating, in response to receiving a first operation performed by the first user on the first interaction area, the target content in the edit content to be in the ubiquitous language (Loforte et al. fig.8 para[0076] ln10-17).
In regards to claim 3, Loforte et al. as modified by Nelson et al., and Ross et al. substantially discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the updating, in response to receiving the ubiquitous language identifier sent by the server, the target content in the edit content to be in the ubiquitous language comprises:
presenting a second interaction area, wherein the second interaction area comprises ubiquitous language identifiers associated with the target content in the edit content (Loforte et al. para[0033] ln8-17);
acquiring, in response to receiving a second operation performed by the first user on the second interaction area, a ubiquitous language identifier corresponding to the target content (Loforte et al. para[0034] ln1-5); and
updating, in response to receiving a third operation performed by the first user on the second interaction area, the target content in the edit content to be in the ubiquitous language corresponding to the ubiquitous language identifier (Loforte et al. para[0035] ln4-7).
In regards to claim 4, Loforte et al. as modified by Nelson et al., and Ross et al. substantially discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, the updating, in response to receiving the ubiquitous language identifier sent by the server, the target content in the edit content to be in the ubiquitous language comprises:
presenting a third interaction area in a case that a plurality of target contents are included in the edit content, wherein the third interaction area comprises ubiquitous language information associated with the plurality of target contents (Loforte et al. fig. 10 para[0082] ln4-8);
matching the target contents with corresponding ubiquitous language identifiers, in response to receiving a fourth operation performed by the first user on the third interaction area (Loforte et al. para[0082] ln28-34); and
updating the target contents in the edit content to be in ubiquitous languages corresponding to the matched ubiquitous language identifiers, in response to receiving a fifth operation performed by the first user on the third interaction area (Loforte et al. para[0082] ln40-43).
In regards to claim 5, Loforte et al. as modified by Nelson et al., and Ross et al. substantially discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
establishing an association relationship between the target content in the edit content and the ubiquitous language identifier (Loforte et al. para[0083] ln4-6); and
storing the association relationship in a mapping relationship table (Loforte et al. para[0043] ln3-10).
In regards to claim 6, Loforte et al. as modified by Nelson et al., and Ross et al. substantially discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
switching, in response to a current editing mode being a first mode, a display mode of the target content in the edit content from the first mode to a second mode (Loforte et al. para[0058] ln4-7); or
switching, in response to a current editing mode being a third mode, the display mode of the target content in the edit content from the third mode to a second mode associated with the third mode (Loforte et al. para[0082] ln19-28).
In regards to claim 7, Loforte et al. as modified by Nelson et al., and Ross et al. substantially discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
In response to an insertion operation for the ubiquitous language performed by the first user at a target location in the target document, automatically updating, at the target location in the target document, content inputted in the target document subsequent to the insertion operation to be in the ubiquitous language (Nelson et al. para[0072] ln1-9, in response to a change to natural language operations updates subsequent (dependent) semantic tags).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the localization method Loforte et al. with the dependency graphs of Nelson et al. in order to track how changes to a document section effect other sections of the document (Nelson et al. para[0023] ln3-13).
In regards to claim 9, Loforte et al. as modified by Nelson et al., and Ross et al. substantially discloses the method according to claim 7, further comprising:
presenting a first operation entry, in response to the inserting operation for the ubiquitous language, wherein the first operation entry is used to acquire a target ubiquitous language (Loforte et al. para[0033] ln8-17);
presenting a second operation entry, in response to acquiring the target ubiquitous language (Loforte et al. para[0034] ln1-5); and
displaying, in the target document, the target ubiquitous language, in response to receiving an operation instruction on the second operation entry (Loforte et al. para[0035] ln4-7).
In regards to claim 10, Loforte et al. as modified by Nelson et al., and Ross et al. substantially discloses the method according to claim 7, further comprising:
acquiring, in response to the insertion operation for the ubiquitous language, the target location (Loforte et al. para[0072] ln34-44); and
displaying, in the target document, the ubiquitous language, the target location (Loforte et al. para[0072] ln1-9).
In regards to claim 12, Loforte et al. as modified by Nelson et al., and Ross et al. substantially discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the target content is part of or all of the edit content (Loforte et al. para[0060] ln1-7).
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1. Thus claim 13 is rejected along the same rationale as claim 1.
In regards to claim 14, Loforte et al. as modified by Nelson et al., and Ross et al. substantially discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein the acquiring, based on the edit content, the ubiquitous language identifier corresponding to the edit content comprises:
performing tokenization processing on the edit content to obtain a plurality of tokens corresponding to the edit content (Loforte et al. para[0061] ln4-7); and
determining ubiquitous language identifier corresponding to each token, by matching each token in the ubiquitous language database (Loforte et al. para[0061] ln18-25).
In regards to claim 15, Loforte et al. as modified by Nelson et al., and Ross et al. substantially discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein the acquiring, based on the edit content, the ubiquitous language identifier corresponding to the edit content comprises:
performing aggregation processing on data information corresponding to at least one edit content, and determining a total amount of data information after the aggregation processing (Loforte et al. para[0058] ln7-12); and
acquiring, in a case that the total amount of data information meets a threshold condition, the ubiquitous language identifier corresponding to the edit content (Loforte et al. para[0059] ln7-12).
In regards to claim 16, Loforte et al. as modified by Nelson et al., and Ross et al. substantially discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein In response to an insertion operation for the ubiquitous language performed by the first user at a target location in a target document, the client device automatically updates, at the target location in the target document, content inputted in the target document subsequent to the insertion operation to be in the ubiquitous language (Nelson et al. para[0072] ln1-9, in response to a change to natural language operations updates subsequent (dependent) semantic tags).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the localization method Loforte et al. with the dependency graphs of Nelson et al. in order to track how changes to a document section effect other sections of the document (Nelson et al. para[0023] ln3-13).
In regards to claim 17, Loforte et al. as modified by Nelson et al., and Ross et al. substantially discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein a second data request further comprises a user identifier, and the method further comprises:
determining, based on the user identifier and the identifier of a target document, whether the user is authorized with permission of the target document (Loforte et al. para[0060] ln7-10);
in response to the user being authorized with the permission of the target document, querying for ubiquitous language description information corresponding to ubiquitous language identifier in the ubiquitous language database (Loforte et al. para[0060] ln2-7).
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1. Thus claims 19 is rejected along the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1. Thus claim 20 is rejected along the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 21 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1. Thus claim 21 is rejected along the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim(s) 11,and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loforte et al. in view of Nelson et al., Ross et al., and Muthusamy et al. (US11,468,245).
In regards to claim 11, Loforte et al. as modified by Nelson et al., and Ross et al. substantially discloses the method according to claim 1. Loforte et al. does not explicitly disclose further comprising:
receiving, in response to an adding operation for the ubiquitous language, a name of the ubiquitous language and description information of the ubiquitous language; and
sending, to the server, the name of the ubiquitous language and the description information of the ubiquitous language, to allow the server to create a corresponding ubiquitous language record.
However Muthusamy et al. discloses further comprising:
receiving, in response to an adding operation for the ubiquitous language, a name of the ubiquitous language and description information of the ubiquitous language (Muthusamy et al. col12 ln27-36); and
sending, to the server, the name of the ubiquitous language and the description information of the ubiquitous language, to allow the server to create a corresponding ubiquitous language record (Muthusamy et al. col9 ln1-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the localization method of Loforte et al. with the language generation method of Muthusamy et al. in order to organize and reuse phrases between documents (Muthusamy et al. col2 ln8-15).
In regards to claim 18, Loforte et al. as modified by Nelson et al., and Ross et al. substantially discloses the method according to claim 13. Loforte et al. does not explicitly disclose further comprising:
receiving a name of the ubiquitous language and ubiquitous language description information sent by the client device;
querying, based on the name of the ubiquitous language, in a ubiquitous language database; and
updating, in response to not finding the name of the ubiquitous language, the ubiquitous language database based on the name of the ubiquitous language and the ubiquitous language description information.
However Muthusamy et al. discloses further comprising:
receiving a name of the ubiquitous language and ubiquitous language description information sent by the client device (Muthusamy et al. col12 ln27-36);
querying, based on the name of the ubiquitous language, in a ubiquitous language database (Muthusamy et al. col13 ln12-18); and
updating, in response to not finding the name of the ubiquitous language, the ubiquitous language database based on the name of the ubiquitous language and the ubiquitous language description information (Muthusamy et al. col13 ln19-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the localization method of Loforte et al. with the language generation method of Muthusamy et al. in order to organize and reuse phrases between documents (Muthusamy et al. col2 ln8-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, and 9-21 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply the current rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Poh et al. (US12,079,371) teaches generating hybrid fuzzy tokens based on fuzzy tokens and exact tokens.
Kalekar et al. (US2023/0325421) teaches providing a language identifier to select content in the same language.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS HASTY whose telephone number is (571)270-7775. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Matt Ell can be reached at (571)270-3264. 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.
/N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2141
/MATTHEW ELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2141