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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments/arguments filed on 1/2/26. Claims 1- 20 are pending in the current application.
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.
Claims 1, 5,6, 8, 10, 11, 15 – 18, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Leydon et al. (U.S. 2014/0229157).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Leydon discloses a method for dynamic chat translation, (fig. 7), the method comprising receiving, by a device, a communication for a first user of an electronic game, (“multi-user chat system associated with an online game “, par. 0009), the device storing a localization setting for the first user, (“a system or method may perform translation from chatspeak in a first language”, par. 0052), converting, by the device, the communication using the localization setting and a machine learning model for language processing, (“a translation module 116 configured to receive and service requests for machine text translation”, par. 0063), wherein converting includes replacing at least one segment of the communication with a replacement segment, (fig. 7), and outputting, by the device, an updated communication including the replacement segment to the user, (fig. 7).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Leydon discloses wherein the localization setting includes at least one of a regional, location and language preference of the user, (“a system or method may perform translation from chatspeak in a first language”, par. 0052).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Leydon discloses wherein the machine learning model is configured based on a training set of data for the user and a localization dataset, (“a translation module 116 configured to receive and service requests for machine text translation”, par. 0063).
Regarding claims 8, 10, 18, and 10,Leydon discloses detecting a reaction of the user to the replacement segment and updating the machine learning model based on the reaction, (fig. 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2 – 4, 7, 9, 12 – 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leydon (U.S. 2014/0229157) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Dorn (U.S. 2022/0096937) and Osterhout et al. (U.S. 2012/0075168).
Regarding claims 2 – 4 and 12 – 14, Leydon, as cited above, discloses a method for dynamic chat translation, however, Leydon is silent on the issue of disclosing voice communication of the electronic game. In a related art, Dorn discloses chat translation wherein the communication is at least one of a voice or text communication provided by an interface of the electronic game, (“when the input of the first user includes audio, text or chat content, translating the audio, text or chat content from a first language to a second language”, par. 0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the voice teachings of Dorn into the art disclosed by Leydon in order to attract users to the game and to keep them engaged for an extended period of time, as disclosed by Dorn, (par. 0005).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Leydon is silent on disclosing offensive commentary, however, Dorn discloses replacing at least one segment including offensive commentary, (“The content filter is used to identify a certain keyword that is included in the audio, text or chat content that is perceived as offensive or inappropriate”, par. 0023).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Leydon is silent on disclosing eye tracking data. In a related art, Osterhout discloses language translation, (“a visual recognition language translation facility for providing translations”, par. 0357), wherein Osterhout further discloses eye tracking data for the user, wherein said data is detected during output, (“the glasses may be equipped with eye tracking devices for tracking movement of the user's eye”, par. 0339).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the eye tracking data of Osterhout into the art disclosed by Leydon in order to take advantage of a user's ability to control the eyepiece and its tools with a minimum use of the user's hands, using instead voice commands, gestures or motions, as disclosed by Osterhout, (par. 0391).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicants argue that “Leydon “does not anticipate using a stored localization setting for a user”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In paragraph 0052, Leydon discloses “a system or method may perform translation from chatspeak in a first language, such as English, to chatspeak in a second language, such as French. In another example, a system or method may perform transformation from chatspeak in the first language (e.g., English) to formal speak in the first language (e.g., English), before attempting translation to the second language (e.g., French). Some embodiments may achieve such text translations by first querying a data store (e.g., translations cache), which may contain translations manually entered by a human operator or translations based on previously performed by a translation system”, wherein this is viewed by the Examiner as being equivalent to a stored localization setting. Regarding claims 8 and 10, Applicants further argue that Leydon fails to disclose “detecting a reaction of the user to the replacement segment and updating the machine learning model based on the reaction”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In paragraph 0012, Leydon discloses “ updating a transformation or translation of the word or phrase from the first language to the second language based on the evaluation of the response”, wherein the Examiner views this is being equivalent to detecting a reaction of the user to the replacement segment, wherein Leydon further discloses a “translation data store update module 1326 may be configured to update a transformation or a translation (e.g., stored in the translation data store 210), possibly based on the evaluation of a response submitted”, (par. 0193), which is viewed by the Examiner as being equivalent updating the machine learning model based on the reaction. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Leydon anticipates at least these claim limitations.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1699. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
/E.M.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights