CTNF 18/649,012 CTNF 89675 DETAILED ACTION This Action is a response to the filing received 29 April 2024. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. At Step 1 of the eligibility determination, the claims are evaluated for whether they fall within the statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter (MPEP § 2106.03). Claims 1-18 recite an article of manufacture, claim 19 recites a machine, and claim 20 recites a process; accordingly, the analysis proceeds to Step 2. At Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility determination, the claims are evaluated for whether they recite (set forth or describe) a judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)), such as an abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). Claim 1 recites the following mental process steps: (1) identifying a first scope in a plurality of scopes for an application, wherein the plurality of scopes are organized in a first hierarchy of parent-child relationships, and each of the plurality of scopes are associated with different contexts of the application; (2) determining one or more first string keys for the first scope that are used by a first context of the application associated with the first scope; (3) identifying one or more second scopes in the plurality of scopes for which the first scope inherits one or more second string keys; and (4) providing the one or more first string keys and the one or more second string keys to be accessible at runtime by the first context of the application. Each of the foregoing elements comprises an observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion by a human user (such as a software developer) may make in the mind. For example, when reviewing the code for an application, the developer could identify a first scope for an application, a first string key for the first scope used by a first context, identify a second scope for which the first scope inherits a second string key, and provide code that ensures the first and second string keys are accessible at runtime by the first application context. In at least one embodiment falling within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, these are design decisions that the developer may make to ensure the appropriate data is provided within the application context. Accordingly, the analysis proceeds to Step 2A, Prong 2. At Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are evaluated for whether they recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). The additional elements of claim 1 are: (1) one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations. This recites the use of general-purpose computing components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, or the performance of the abstract idea on a general-purpose computing system. This does not result in a finding that these elements, considered individually or in any combination (including with other claim elements), provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology, require the use of a particular machine, or recite any other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The analysis therefore proceeds to Step 2B. At Step 2B, the claims are evaluated for whether they recite additional elements that set forth significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05). The analysis set forth above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2 is incorporated; and the additional elements are additionally evaluated for whether they recite other than what is well-understood, routine and/or conventional in the field (MPEP § 2106.05(II)). Here, the claims do not recite other than what is well-understood, routine and/or conventional in the field, as the additional element recites the use of general-purpose computing elements (computer-readable media and processor) to perform the storage and retrieval of information from memory (the stored instructions) and the performance of repetitive calculations (the execution of the retrieved instructions). Accordingly, the claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea, and claim 1 is ineligible . Claims 19 and 20 are ineligible for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 above. Claim 19 additionally recites a system comprising processor(s) and memory device(s) storing instructions executable by the processor(s) to perform operations, and claim 20 additionally recites a method. Claim 19 recites the additional element of a general-purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and for similar reasons as those provided with respect to claim 1, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or recite significantly more. Claim 20 does not recite an additional element, but merely sets forth the performance of a method comprising the abstract idea steps. Claim 2 recites that the parent-child relationships of the first hierarchy are organized such that the first context uses the first and second string keys when the application uses the first context, which merely describes a basic logical structure for the hierarchy. Claim 3 recites that the application comprises a plurality of contexts each representing a distinct user interface, which merely sets forth what a context references. Claims 4-8 recite a second parent-child hierarchy representing translations of the first and second string keys, the translation determined by traversing the hierarchy which may not reach a root scope of the second hierarchy, wherein in some cases a child scope can override a translation of a parent scope. These recite the organization of a hierarchical set of transformations which a human user may traverse, such that appropriate data use and transformation may be effective. Claim 9 recites that identifying the first scope comprises determining that the first scope is exportable, which is an observation, evaluation and/or judgment a human user may perform. Claims 10-11 recite that the operations are performed by a central text repository accessed by a plurality of applications operating in different computing environments and using the same scopes to generate string keys, the different environments operating in different languages into which string keys may be translated. These elements recite a distributed computing system with a server text repository and a plurality of client applications (not an improvement in computer functionality or other than what is well-understood, routine and/or conventional) and a judgment or evaluation by a user that the translations should result in local language output. Claims 12-13 recite that the string keys are provided by a generated resource bundle incorporating the string keys and corresponding keys, and that the application uses additional string keys not included in the resource bundle. These represent an evaluation or judgment by a human user as to the resources to include in an application distribution, and the possibility of a human user adding additional translations to the bundle. Claim 14 recites sending the resource bundle to a content delivery network from which an application may download. This does not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or recite other than what is well-understood, routine and/or conventional in the computing field. Claims 15-16 recite that a string key may comprise one or more modifiers identifying different forms of the string associated with the key, the application selecting a string with a corresponding modifier that best matches a corresponding application modifier requirement. This is an evaluation and/or judgment a human user may make as to which data format to make available to the application based on application context information. Claim 17 recites that a first string key may override a second string key, which further describes the scope-inheritance relationship of the keys. Claim 18 recites that determining a first string key for the first scope comprises identifying string keys store a link to the first scope. This is an evaluation, observation and/or judgment a human user may perform based on the information stored. In view of the foregoing, claims 2-20 are also ineligible . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Wester, Joachim, U.S. 2018/0260258 A1 (“Wester”) . Regarding claim 1 , Wester teaches: One or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (Wester, e.g., ¶132, “ processor executes computer-executable instructions stored in memory, such as executing one or more computer programs … ”) , cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: identifying a first scope in a plurality of scopes for an application, wherein the plurality of scopes are organized in a first hierarchy of parent-child relationships, and each of the plurality of scopes are associated with different contexts of the application (Wester, e.g., ¶¶53-54, “ each autonomous software application generally features its own user interface, separate from the user interfaces of other autonomous applications … a user might have to check an inventory application about the quantity in stock for a particular product and a product information management system for commercial images … allow independently developed, autonomous applications to share data and present a combined user interface without requiring them to be written using a shared data model or a shared user interface … by providing ‘translation information’ to the execution environment … ” See also, e.g., ¶64, “ derived ‘Product’ data item 122a1, formatted according to the application-specific data model of the point-of-sale application 130a … ” Examiner’s note: each particular user interface (or user interface portion in the event of a combined application) comprises the context; the hierarchy of parent-child relationships are the derivation relationships between the data item of the particular application versus the data item of the combined data store / data model) ; determining one or more first string keys for the first scope that are a used by a first context of the application associated with the first scope; identifying one or more second scopes in the plurality of scopes for which the first scope inherits one or more second string keys (Wester, e.g., ¶64, “ … the derived ‘Product’ data item … computed by a key transformation function … from the fundamental ‘Vendible’ data item … ” Examiner’s note: “vendible” and “product” are the string name/identifier, consistent with a key as described in the Specification (see, e.g., Spec. ¶23)) ; and providing the one or more first string keys and the one or more second string keys to be accessible at runtime by the first context of the application (Wester, e.g., FIG. 1j, wherein a plurality of second string keys, which inherit from one or more first string keys as set forth above, are presented for display in the combined application). Claims 19 and 20 are rejected for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1. Examiner notes that with respect to claim 19, Wester further teaches: A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memory devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Wester, e.g., ¶132, “ processor executes computer-executable instructions stored in memory, such as executing one or more computer programs … ”) comprising: [[[the operations of the medium of claim 1]]]; and with respect to claim 20, Wester further teaches: A method (Wester, e.g., ¶132, “ some examples of methods and systems herein are described in terms of software executing on various machines … ”) comprising: [[[the operations of the medium of claim 1]]]. Regarding claim 2 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Wester further teaches: wherein the parent-child relationships of the first hierarchy are organized such that the first context uses the one or more first string keys and the one or more second string keys when the application executes the first context (Wester, e.g., FIG. 1j, wherein a plurality of second string keys, which inherit from one or more first string keys as set forth above, are presented for display in the combined application). Regarding claim 3 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Wester further teaches: wherein the application comprises a plurality of contexts, and each of the plurality of contexts represents a distinct user interface provided by the application (Wester, e.g., ¶¶53-54, “ each autonomous software application generally features its own user interface, separate from the user interfaces of other autonomous applications … a user might have to check an inventory application about the quantity in stock for a particular product and a product information management system for commercial images … allow independently developed, autonomous applications to share data and present a combined user interface without requiring them to be written using a shared data model or a shared user interface … by providing ‘translation information’ to the execution environment … ” See also, e.g., ¶64, “ derived ‘Product’ data item 122a1, formatted according to the application-specific data model of the point-of-sale application 130a … ” Examiner’s note: each particular user interface (or user interface portion in the event of a combined application) comprises the context; the hierarchy of parent-child relationships are the derivation relationships between the data item of the particular application versus the data item of the combined data store / data model). Regarding claim 4 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Wester further teaches: wherein the plurality of scopes are also organized into a second hierarchy of parent-child relationships representing translations of the one or more first string keys and the one or more second string keys (Wester, e.g., ¶57, “ translation information may contain mapping functions defining ‘mapping relationships’ between data items … define how a derived data item may be computed from fundamental data items … ” See also, e.g., ¶58, “ Mapping relationships may be transitive … A and B are in a mapping relationship, and B and C are in a mapping relationship … ”). Regarding claim 5 , the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, and Wester further teaches: wherein the operations further comprise determining a translation for each of the one or more first string keys by traversing the second hierarchy of parent-child relationships (Wester, e.g., ¶64, “ derived ‘Product’ data item 122a1 … is computed by a key transformation function ‘prod(x)’ mapping function from the fundamental ‘Vendible’ data item 122f11 in accordance with translation information … ”). Regarding claim 6 , the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, and Wester further teaches: wherein traversing the first hierarchy of parent-child relationships does not reach a root scope of the second hierarchy of parent-child relationships (Wester, e.g., ¶64, “ derived ‘Product.Margin’ data item 122a4 is computed using a more complex mapping function … ”). Regarding claim 7 , the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, and Wester further teaches: wherein the operations further comprise determining a translation for each of the one or more first string keys by traversing the second hierarchy of parent-child relationships (Wester, e.g., ¶64, “ derived ‘Product’ data item 122a1 … is computed by a key transformation function ‘prod(x)’ mapping function from the fundamental ‘Vendible’ data item 122f11 in accordance with translation information … ”). Regarding claim 8 , the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, and Wester further teaches: wherein the second hierarchy of parent-child relationships represents child scope that can override a translation of a parent scope (Wester, e.g., ¶64, “ derived ‘Product’ data item 122a1 … is computed by a key transformation function ‘prod(x)’ mapping function from the fundamental ‘Vendible’ data item 122f11 in accordance with translation information … ” Examiner’s note: by performing the translation, the key Product overrides Vendible). Regarding claim 9 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Wester further teaches: wherein identifying the first scope in the plurality of scopes comprises determining that the first scope is exportable (Wester, e.g., ¶64, “ derived ‘Product’ data item 122a1 … is computed by a key transformation function ‘prod(x)’ mapping function from the fundamental ‘Vendible’ data item 122f11 in accordance with translation information … ” Examiner’s note: determining that a function exists to provide the translation comprises a determination that the Vendible data item is exportable by translation to produce the Product data item). Regarding claim 10 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Wester further teaches: wherein the operations are performed by a central text repository that is accessed by a plurality of applications operating in different computing environments and utilize the same plurality of scopes to generate string keys (Wester, e.g., ¶¶28-31, describing a user installing a plurality of distinct applications from distinct vendors, on a machine including or having access to a data store, and installing distinct sets of translation functions to provide derived data items for a plurality of applications in a single combined GUI; see also, e.g., ¶¶127-131, describing a broader environment in which a plurality of networked devices may access and/or generate the combined GUI in different devices). Regarding claim 11 , the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, and Wester further teaches: wherein the different computing environments comprise computing environments operating in different languages, and the central text repository translates the one or more first string keys and the one or more second string keys into corresponding languages (Wester, e.g., ¶142, “ in some embodiments, code such as that of the SQL example above may be used to access data items created according to code such as the C example above. Thus, in some embodiments, data items may be created according to the constructs employed by one computer language, and later accessed using constructs employed by another computer language ”). Regarding claim 12 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Wester further teaches: wherein providing the one or more first string keys and the one or more second string keys comprises generating a resource bundle that includes all of the string keys and corresponding strings used by the first context of the application (Wester, e.g., ¶61, “ A shared data model may be provided alongside the execution environment … Fundamental data items may be formatted according to the shared data model, which may act as a common mapping target for one or more applications. An application vendor may then provide translation information defining mapping relationships … ” See also, e.g., ¶30, “ user begins by installing the point-of-sale application 130 … by installing an executable binary file and a separate text file containing translation information 132a … ” Examiner’s note: the translation information comprises keys and corresponding strings used by the first context of the application (i.e., the point-of-sale application as part of a combined application)). Regarding claim 13 , the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated, and Wester further teaches: wherein the application uses additional string keys that are not included in the resource bundle (Wester, e.g., ¶60, “ unidirectional mapping function may allow a derived data item to be computed … but may not allow derived data items to be created … bidirectional mapping functions may … transform creations … into corresponding creations … of fundamental data items … ”). Regarding claim 15 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Wester further teaches: wherein a string key in the one or more first string keys comprises a plurality of modifiers that identify different forms of a string associated with the string key (Wester, e.g., ¶66, “ two derived ‘Supply’ data items 122b3 and 122b7, also formatted … according to the application-specific data model … are computed by key translation mapping functions ‘supy(x)’ from the fundamental ‘Price’ data items 122f18 and 122f14, respectively … ”). Regarding claim 16 , the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated, and Wester further teaches: wherein the application selects a string with a corresponding modifier from the plurality of modifiers that best matches a corresponding modifier requirement at the application (Wester, e.g., ¶66, “ two derived ‘Supply’ data items 122b3 and 122b7, also formatted … according to the application-specific data model … are computed by key translation mapping functions ‘supy(x)’ from the fundamental ‘Price’ data items 122f18 and 122f14, respectively … ” Examiner’s note: the translation function is selected according to the application-specific data model; that is, the selection (which generates a string) performs the appropriate modification based on the context of the requesting application). Regarding claim 17 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Wester further teaches: wherein a string key in the first one or more string keys overrides a string key in the one or more second string keys (Wester, e.g., ¶64, “ derived ‘Product’ data item 122a1 … is computed by a key transformation function ‘prod(x)’ mapping function from the fundamental ‘Vendible’ data item 122f11 in accordance with translation information … ” Examiner’s note: by performing the translation, the key Product overrides Vendible). Regarding claim 18 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Wester further teaches: wherein determining the one or more first string keys for the first scope comprises identifying string keys store a link to the first scope (Wester, e.g., ¶57, “ translation information may contain mapping functions defining ‘mapping relationships’ between data items … define how a derived data item may be computed from fundamental data items … ” See also, e.g., ¶58, “ Mapping relationships may be transitive … A and B are in a mapping relationship, and B and C are in a mapping relationship … ” Examiner’s note: key A includes a link to key B, in that the translation function requires access to B in order to derive A) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wester in view of Hunter, Jeff, U.S. 2014/0006951 A1 (“Hunter”) . Regarding claim 14 , the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated, but Wester does not more particularly teach sending the resource bundle to a content delivery network such that the resource bundle is available for download by the application at runtime. However, Hunter does teach: wherein the operations further comprise sending the resource bundle to a content delivery network, such that the resource bundle is available for download by the application at runtime (Hunter, e.g., ¶¶1052-1054, “ software is packaged and distributed … resource bundles … ” See also, e.g., ¶302, “ content delivered over an IP network is stored at an intermediary and located within a content delivery network (CDN) comprising a distributed network of content servers ”) for the purpose of providing for access by a plurality of client devices runtime access to one or more media or information data items utilizing a distributed content delivery network (Hunter, e.g., ¶¶295-302, 408-429). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for utilizing a data store and translation information to provide text to interoperating software applications as taught by Wester to provide for sending the resource bundle to a content delivery network such that the resource bundle is available for download by the application at runtime because the disclosure of Hunter shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for using a content delivery network for providing and accessing content items to provide for sending the resource bundle to a content delivery network such that the resource bundle is available for download by the application at runtime for the purpose of providing for access by a plurality of client devices runtime access to one or more media or information data items utilizing a distributed content delivery network (Hunter, Id. ). Conclusion Examiner has identified particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of Applicant. Although the citations made are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the enumerated claims, the teaching of the cited art as a whole is not limited to the cited passages. Other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art and/or disclosed by Examiner. Examiner respectfully requests that, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c). Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO-supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant is encouraged to submit an Automated Interview Request (AIR) which may be done via https://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form, or may contact Examiner directly via the methods below. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from Examiner should be directed to Andrew M. Lyons , whose telephone number is (571) 270-3529 , and whose fax number is (571) 270-4529 . The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui , can be reached at (571) 272-3708 . Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center . If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or (571) 272-1000 . /Andrew M. Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/649,012 Page 2 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/649,012 Page 3 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/649,012 Page 4 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/649,012 Page 5 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/649,012 Page 6 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/649,012 Page 7 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/649,012 Page 8 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/649,012 Page 9 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/649,012 Page 10 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/649,012 Page 11 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/649,012 Page 12 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/649,012 Page 13 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/649,012 Page 14 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/649,012 Page 15 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/649,012 Page 16 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/649,012 Page 17 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/649,012 Page 18 Art Unit: 2191
Prosecution Insights