DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the submission filed November 21, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 21, 2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to method, computer program product, and system for retrieving, by one or more processors, a user interface for translation to a second language, wherein the user interface comprises a plurality of elements in a first language; determining, by the one or more processors, at least one semantic cluster of the plurality of elements; determining, by the one or more processors, at least one location cluster of the plurality of elements; and generating, by the one or more processors, a translation of the plurality of elements in the first language to the second language, wherein the translation of the plurality of elements maintains proximity of i) the at least one semantic cluster of the plurality of elements or ii) the at least one location cluster of the plurality of elements. The limitation for “retrieving..a user interface for translation…comprising a plurality of elements..” is a data gathering step that can be achieved by a person obtaining a translation request of multiple elements from a display or that is written on a piece of paper. The limitation for “determining….at least one semantic cluster…” can be achieved by the person reading the elements and using natural language processing, organizing the elements/words based on contexts/meanings and organizing the elements into similar groupings. The limitation for “determining …a location cluster…” can be achieved by the person reviewing the elements and grouping elements based on location within the document. The step for “generating a translation…”can be achieved by the person, using pen and paper, translating the elements/words and maintaining the organizational/hierarchy/location of the elements within the paper. The recited limitations are directed a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer, system, computer program product, and generic computer components (processor/media/computer instructions). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited generic computer, system, computer program product, and generic computer components (processor/media/computer instructions). amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as indicated with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the generic computer, system, computer program product, and generic computer components (processor/media/computer instructions). to perform the various steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed to steps of organizing or manipulating semantic/location data of the elements/words; implementing natural language processing rules or principles to compare elements and performing mathematical calculations to determine element/word similarity and determine appropriate groupings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ren et al (WO 2019/041084), hereinafter Ren.
Ren discloses translating text in user interfaces based on user interface contexts. Regarding claim 1, Ren teaches a method comprising: retrieving, by one or more processors, a user interface for translation to a second language, wherein the user interface comprises a plurality of elements in a first language [Fig. 1; para 0014]; determining, by the one or more processors, at least one semantic cluster of the plurality of elements [hierarchical relationship – para 0016-0019; 0023-0028; 0030; 0039; 0043]; determining, by the one or more processors, at least one location cluster of the plurality of elements [proximity relationship -- para 0020; 0029; 0030; 0039; 0043]; and generating, by the one or more processors, a translation of the plurality of elements in the first language to the second language, wherein the translation of the plurality of elements maintains proximity of i) the at least one semantic cluster of the plurality of elements or ii) the at least one location cluster of the plurality of elements [Fig 1; para 0015;translating (at 104) , based on an identified relationship between UI elements in the UI context, text in the UI from a first language to a second language different from the first language].
Regarding claim 2, Ren teaches the at least one semantic cluster is determined based on a sematic similarity between labels or values of the plurality of elements in the user interface [hierarchical relationship – para 0016-0019; 0023-0028; 0030; 0039; 0043].
Regarding claim 4, Ren teaches one location cluster of the plurality of elements is determined based on a rendered location of the plurality of elements in the user interface [proximity relationship -- para 0020; 0029; 0030; 0039; 0043].
Regarding claim 6, Ren teaches the at least one semantic cluster and the at least one location cluster are determined by a respective deep learning model [machine learning engine – para 0031-0032; 0042; 0045].
Regarding claim 7, Ren teaches the respective deep learning models are trained using data representations of one or more pre-designed user interfaces [machine learning engine training– para 0031-0032; 0042; 0045].
Claims 8-10, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under similar rationale as claims 1-3 and 6-7.
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.
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren in view of Jayaraman et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0153342).
Regarding claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19, Ren teaches processing the elements using correlation techniques [para 0043], but fails to specifically teach processing the semantic clusters in comparison to thresholds. In a similar field of endeavor, Jayaraman teaches clustering and dynamic reclustering of similar textual documents [para 0007; 0190; 0193; 0203]. One having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of implementing the clustering/threshold processing suggested by Jayaraman, in the system of Ren, and the results would be predictable in improving the clustering processing ensuring the elements are appropriately grouped, thus ensuring correct translations are generated, thereby improving the system and the user’s experience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Swvigaradoss et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0286638) discloses dynamic translations of graphical user interfaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7598. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,TH,F 11:30-8:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ANGELA A. ARMSTRONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/ANGELA A ARMSTRONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659