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 .
Notice to Applicants
This action is in response to the restriction election, amendments, and remarks filed on 05/26/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 04/16/2024 has been fully considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has fully considered Applicant’s presented arguments.
On page 7 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcome the objections to claims 1-20. This is persuasive. All previous claim objections have been withdrawn in view of the re-numbering of the claims.
Restriction/Election
The examiner thanks Applicant for their careful consideration of the restriction requirement mailed on 03/26/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/26/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-15 are objected to.
Regarding claim 9, lines 1-2 read “A computer-implemented method for searching documents saved in a variety of language”, but should read “A computer-implemented method for searching documents saved in a variety of languages” (emphasis added). The same objection also applies to claims 10-15 based on their dependence on claim 9.
Regarding claims 12-15, in the first line of each of claims 12-15, “The method of claim 9” should read “The computer-implemented method of claim 9” (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 15, “wherein the searching criteria includes different searching combination that are selectable by the user” should read “wherein the searching criteria includes different searching combinations that are selectable by the user”.
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, 3-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Analysis for claim 1 is provided in the following. Claim 1 is reproduced in the following (annotation added):
A computer-implemented method for searching documents in a variety of languages, the method comprising:
translating the documents in at least one selected language to generate multi-language versions;
indexing every translated word of the multi-language versions based on predetermined criteria, wherein every translated word is embedded with an index, and there are plural types of indexes in each of the multi-language versions;
entering a keyword and searching criteria for searching;
using the keyword and the searching criteria to search the documents, wherein the searching criteria are associated with certain types of indexes of the multi-language versions;
searching related documents based on the certain type of indexes;
and if the keyword and any of the indexed translated words of the multi-language versions match, outputting the matched multi-language version as search results.
Step 1: Does the claim belong to one of the statutory categories? Claim 1 is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention (YES).
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception? Steps b-c and e-g are regarded as mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind by a human using a physical aid such as pen and paper. Notes that the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and those requiring a human to use a physical aid such as pen and paper, and such an interpretation accounts for variations in individuals’ memory capacities (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.B).
Step b requires translating documents in at least one selected language, which can be performed mentally by anyone capable of translating languages. Step c requires indexing every translated word with an index from a plurality of types of indices. The broadest reasonable interpretation of an “index” in view of the specification is any alternative version of a word, such as a synonym or meaning in a different language. A human can certainly mentally determine such indices for each word of an original or translated document.
Steps e and f require searching documents using a keyword and searching criteria; this can be mentally performed by a human scanning through documents to look for any matching keywords or indices of words. Finally, step g requires outputting documents matching with the keyword and any of the indexed translated words; a human selecting matching documents would read on this. Note that if the “outputting” were not to be considered a mental process, it would instead be considered mere data output (YES).
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? Step a is a non-limiting preamble; it recites that the method is “computer-implemented”, but this computerized system is not elaborated on and is thus recited at a high level of generality. Step d requires entering the keyword and searching criteria, which amounts to mere data input (NO).
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception? The claim as a whole recites a generally computer-implemented process of translating, indexing, and searching documents. Each of these translating, indexing, and searching steps can be practically performed in the human mind by a human using pen and paper. The only additional elements are the entering of the keyword and search criteria, and arguably the document output, which amount to mere data input and output, respectively (NO). Claim 1 is not eligible.
Similar analysis is applicable to independent claim 9. Claim 9 recites limitations similar to step d above, those being “receiving a keyword entered by a user using a first language; receiving searching criteria including searching a document in a second-language version”, which still amount to mere data input. The claim further recites “storing a first language version, a second language versions, and the original documents in a database, wherein the first and second language versions are linked to the original documents”. This is regarded as mere data output or storage; the databases are not further used in any way by the rest of the claim. Claim 9 is not eligible.
Claims 2 and 10 recite performing OCR on the multi-language versions before searching, wherein the OCR generates searchable PDF documents with the plural types of indices embedded. Although the claim further recites searching the PDF documents, which is mentally performable, the other new limitations limit the text recognition to be by a specific computerized process of OCR, and also limit the documents to be a specific type of digital file in PDF documents with the indices embedded. Thus, these limitations apply the judicial exceptions in a meaningful way at step 2B and thus make the claims eligible. Claims 2 and 10 are eligible.
Claim 3 narrows the search criteria to include searching documents in at least one specific language, which can still be performed mentally. The claim further narrows the translating to be performed after selecting the specific language, which can also still be performed mentally. Claim 3 is not eligible.
Claims 4 and 11 narrow the plural types of indices to include multilingual and multidialectal meanings, different character sets and phonetic adaptions, and synonymous words, all of which can still be determined in the human mind. Claims 4 and 11 are not eligible.
Claims 5 and 12 narrow the indexing to include indexing misspelled words and correlating them with their correct spellings, which can still be performed in the human mind. Claims 5 and 12 are not eligible.
Claims 6 and 13-14 require generating summarized versions of the documents if their length is above a predetermined limit, which is also performable in the human mind and using pen and paper. Claims 6 and 13 additionally require saving the summarized version, which amounts to mere data output. Claims 6 and 13-14 are not eligible.
Claim 7 narrows the searching criteria to define what type of indices to look for during searching; a human could still narrow their search to specific indices during searching as well. Claim 7 further requires the searching criteria to be selectable through a user interface, which does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claim 7 is not eligible.
Claims 8 and 15 require selecting a combination of search criteria before searching, which is also practically performable in the human mind. Claims 8 and 15 are not eligible.
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 1, 4, 7-9, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tebbenhoff et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2015/0142794-A1) in view of Chan et al. (U.S. Patent US-6604101-B1).
Regarding claim 1, Tebbenhoff discloses a computer-implemented method for searching documents in a variety of languages (see figures 4-5), the method comprising:
translating the documents in at least one selected language to generate multi-language versions (see figure 2 and paragraphs 0017-0020, where an original document 210 can be translated into different language versions 220, 230, 240);
indexing every translated word of the multi-language versions based on predetermined criteria, wherein every translated word is embedded with an index (see figure 2 and paragraphs 0017-0020, where each of the documents 210-240 are assigned different tags, such as global, language, and local tag values; as illustrated by the following citations, these tag values are determined by indexing the words of each document; see figure 3 and paragraphs 0020-0031, where the ontology logic 322 determines the tag values by indexing the words of the document),
and there are plural types of indexes in each of the multi-language versions (see figure 3, global level 323 and paragraph 0027, where words/terms with consistent meanings, such as trademarks, are indexed as global terms; see figure 3, language level 324 and paragraph 0028, where words are indexed at the language level by indexing their synonyms across different languages; see figure 3, locale level 325 and paragraph 0029, where words are indexed at the locale level by linking synonyms relevant to a dialect);
entering (see figure 5, step 510 and paragraph 0036, where a user can enter searching criteria for an index, such as specific dialect at the locale tag level);
using (see figure 5, step 520 and paragraph 0037, where documents having the specified tag are searched for),
wherein the searching criteria are associated with certain types of indexes of the multi-language versions (see paragraph 0036, where the dialect specified by the user, for example, relates to the locale level indices);
searching related documents based on the certain type of indexes (see figure 5, steps 530, 550 and paragraphs 0037-0038, where if a sufficient number of documents are not found, different indices can be used to further search, such as a language index encompassing the user-selected locale index);
and if the keyword and any of the indexed translated words of the multi-language versions match, outputting the matched multi-language version as search results (see figure 5, steps 540, 560 and paragraphs 0037 and 0039, where in either case, the matched documents are output to the user).
Tebbenhoff merely fails to disclose searching the database using keywords, as illustrated via strikethrough above.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Chan discloses entering a keyword and searching criteria for searching (see figure 3, steps 144, 146 and column 7, lines 1-20, where a user inputs keywords in a source language, along with a selected target language / searching criteria);
using the keyword and the searching criteria to search the documents (see figure 3, step 160 and column 7, lines 20-30, where the database is searched using both the keywords and the specified target language).
Tebbenhoff and Chan are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to searching multi-language document databases. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Chan into Tebbenhoff by searching using both keywords and search criteria because doing so allows for translating the keywords to the target language to accurately search documents in the target language (see Chan column 3, lines 58-67).
Regarding claim 4, Tebbenhoff in view of Chan discloses wherein the plural types of indexes include indexes associated with a multilingual meaning (see Tebbenhoff figure 3, language level 324 and paragraph 0028, where words are indexed at the language level by indexing their synonyms across different languages),
a multidialectal use (see Tebbenhoff figure 3, locale level 325 and paragraph 0029, where words are indexed at the locale level by linking synonyms relevant to a dialect),
different character sets (see Tebbenhoff paragraph 0034, where special characters or kanji can also be considered)
and phonetic adaptions (see Tebbenhoff paragraph 0022, where regional speech patterns can also be considered),
and synonymous words of every translated word of the multi-language versions (both of the above language level and locale level indices read on synonymous words).
Regarding claim 7, Tebbenhoff in view of Chan discloses wherein the searching criteria define what type of indexes to look for during searching (see Tebbenhoff figure 5, step 510 and paragraph 0036, where a user can enter searching criteria for an index, such as specific dialect at the locale tag level),
and the searching criteria is selectable through a user interface (see Tebbenhoff figure 3, user device 340 and paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 8, Tebbenhoff in view of Chan discloses selecting a combination of search criteria, by a user, before performing the searching (see Tebbenhoff paragraph 0024, where additional tags can be used to provide users more granular control over searching; see Tebbenhoff figure 5, step 550 and paragraph 0038, where the user can select an additional tag at the language level to broaden the search).
Regarding claim 9, Tebbenhoff discloses a computer-implemented method for searching documents saved in a variety of language (see figures 4-5), comprising:
receiving searching criteria including searching a document in a second-language version (see figure 5, step 510 and paragraph 0036, where a user can enter searching criteria for an index, such as specific dialect at the locale tag level);
translating original documents into the first and second languages (see figure 2 and paragraphs 0017-0020, where an original document 210 can be translated into different language versions 220, 230, 240, any of which can be designated as first or second language versions)
and storing a first language version, a second language versions, and the original documents in a database (see figure 4, step 440 and paragraph 0035, where each document is stored in a database after indexing),
wherein the first and second language versions are linked to the original documents (paragraph 0022 specifies that the contents of the global and language tags can be used to indicate which versions are original and which are translations of the original);
indexing each translated word of the first and second language versions, wherein each translated word of the first and second language versions is embedded with an index (see claim 1 above; the first and second language versions are interpreted as instances of the multi-language versions of claim 1),
and there are plural types of indexes in each of the first and second language versions (see claim 1 above);
using (see claim 1 above),
wherein the searching criteria are associated with certain types of indexes of the first and second language versions (see claim 1 above);
searching related documents based on the certain type of indexes (see claim 1 above);
and if the keyword and any of the indexed translated words of the first and second versions match, outputting the matched multi-language version as search results (see claim 1 above).
Tebbenhoff fails to disclose receiving a keyword entered by a user using a first language, as well as using the keyword and the searching criteria to search the documents (emphasis added via underline). In other words, Tebbenhoff merely fails to disclose searching the database using keywords.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Chan discloses receiving a keyword entered by a user using a first language; receiving searching criteria including searching a document in a second-language version (see figure 3, steps 144, 146 and column 7, lines 1-20, where a user inputs keywords in a source language, along with a selected target language / searching criteria);
using the keyword and the searching criteria to search the documents (see claim 1 above).
Tebbenhoff and Chan are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to searching multi-language document databases. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Chan into Tebbenhoff by searching using both keywords and search criteria because doing so allows for translating the keywords to the target language to accurately search documents in the target language (see Chan column 3, lines 58-67).
Regarding claim 11, Tebbenhoff in view of Chan discloses claim 11 as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 15, Tebbenhoff in view of Chan discloses claim 15 as applied to claim 8 above.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tebbenhoff et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2015/0142794-A1) in view of Chan et al. (U.S. Patent US-6604101-B1), and further in view of Charlot et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2012/0179696-A1).
Regarding claim 2, Tebbenhoff in view of Chan fails to disclose the limitations of claim 2.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Charlot discloses performing an optical character recognition (OCR) on the multi-language versions before searching (see paragraph 0041, where text-reading tools or OCR are stated to not be usable on images, in contrast to text),
wherein the OCR performance generates searchable PDF documents (paragraph 0041 specifies that PDF documents can be generated and tagged),
wherein the plural types of indexes are embedded in the searchable PDF documents (see paragraph 0031, where words of the document can be tagged with different categories/indices),
and wherein the searching is to search the searchable PDF documents (see paragraphs 0031-0036, where the documents and tags can be searched).
Tebbenhoff and Charlot are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to indexing documents for searching. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Charlot into Tebbenhoff and Chan by using OCR to generate index-embedded PDFs because doing so creates a searchable database of a large number of documents (see Charlot paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 10, Tebbenhoff in view of Chan and Charlot discloses claim 10 as applied to claim 2 above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tebbenhoff et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2015/0142794-A1) in view of Chan et al. (U.S. Patent US-6604101-B1), and further in view of Sarkar (U.S. Publ. US-2011/0196854-A1).
Regarding claim 3, Tebbenhoff in view of Chan discloses wherein the searching criteria includes searching documents in at least one specific language (see Tebbenhoff figure 5, step 510 and paragraph 0036, where a user can enter searching criteria such as specific dialect at the locale tag level).
Tebbenhoff in view of Chan fails to disclose wherein the translating is performed after the at least one specific language is selected.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Sarkar discloses wherein the translating is performed after the at least one specific language is selected (see figures 3A-3B and paragraphs 0068-0069, where a web page document can be indexed in a first language, translated to a selected second language, then indexed and searched in the second language).
Tebbenhoff and Sarkar are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to indexing and searching multi-language documents. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Sarkar into Tebbenhoff and Chan by translating after selecting the specific language because doing so allows users to search foreign documents using their native language (see Sarkar paragraph 0078).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tebbenhoff et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2015/0142794-A1) in view of Chan et al. (U.S. Patent US-6604101-B1), and further in view of Koperda et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2012/0117082-A1).
Regarding claim 5, Tebbenhoff in view of Chan fails to disclose the limitations of claim 5.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Koperda discloses wherein the indexing includes indexing error-spelling words in an original document and their correct-spelling words and correlating the error-spelling words and the correct-spelling words (see paragraph 0050, where misspelled words are identified in documents and linked to their correct spellings).
Tebbenhoff and Koperda are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to indexing documents for searching. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Koperda into Tebbenhoff and Chan by indexing misspelled words and linking them with their correct spellings because doing so eliminates misspellings to prevent the system from considering them important words (see Koperda paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 12, Tebbenhoff in view of Chan and Koperda discloses claim 12 as applied to claim 5 above.
Claims 6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tebbenhoff et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2015/0142794-A1) in view of Chan et al. (U.S. Patent US-6604101-B1), and further in view of Hintz et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2025/0200100-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Tebbenhoff in view of Chan fails to disclose the limitations of claim 6.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Hintz discloses creating a summarized version of the document when a length thereof is longer than a predetermined number of words or pages (see paragraphs 0071-0073, where a summary can be generated of each document; paragraph 0073 specifies that if a document's length is less than a limit, then it is not summarized; conversely, the summary is only generated when the length is above a limit),
and saving the summarized version of the document (see paragraph 0121).
Tebbenhoff and Hintz are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to searching documents. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Hintz into Tebbenhoff and Chan by generating summarized versions of long documents because doing so saves the user time and effort of reading documents (see Hintz paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 13, Tebbenhoff in view of Chan and Hintz discloses claim 13 as applied to claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 14, Tebbenhoff in view of Chan and Hintz discloses claim 14 as applied to claim 6 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO whose telephone number is (703)756-5539. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights