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 .
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 claims are directed toward an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and does not include additional elements that amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed toward a “system”, which is a machine and thus falls within a statutory category under the most recent guidelines of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1 recites instructions for “obtaining content in a first language”; “receiving a first request from the first client device to view the content, wherein the first request is associated with a second language selected by a user,” “determining that the first language of the content is different from the second language associated with the first request”; “in accordance with the determination that the first language of the content is different from the second language associated with the first request”, “obtaining a machine-translated version of the content in the second language”; and “providing the machine-translated version of the content in the second language to one or more client devices.” These limitations collectively recite the collection, evaluation and translation of information, including language evaluation and translation. As characterized by the USPTO guidance and case law, such activities fall within the abstract-idea groupings of mental processes (e.g. observations, evaluations, and judgments that could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper) and organizing /transmitting information. Reference can be made to latest patent eligibility guidelines. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The claim is implemented on a “server including one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs to be executed by the one or more processors.” These are generic computer components performing their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of storing and executing instructions, receiving requests, and sending content.
The claim does not recite any specific improvement to computer functionality (e.g., a particular translation algorithm, model architecture, data structure, memory organization, caching mechanism, latency-reduction technique, or network protocol that improves the operation of the computer or network). Nor does it effect a transformation of a physical article or use the abstract idea in any other manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B
Beyond the abstract idea, the additional elements are the generic “server,” “one or more processors,” and “memory” performing their conventional functions. Implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components does not amount to significantly more. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24).
The ordered combination of limitations mirrors the abstract idea itself performed using routine computer operations. There is no recited unconventional hardware, no technical improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and no nonconventional arrangement of known components etc.
Accordingly, claim 1 does not include an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Therefore , claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Claim 1 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims 2-14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The Independent claim 15 recite(s) the steps of “obtaining content in a first language”; “before providing the content to a first client device, receiving a first request from the first client device to view the content, wherein the first request is associated with a second language selected by a user operating the first client device”; “in response to receiving the first request, determining that the first language of the content is different from the second language associated with the first request”; “in accordance with the determination that the first language of the content is different from the second language associated with the first request”: “obtaining a machine-translated version of the content in the second language;” and “providing the machine-translated version of the content in the second language to one or more client devices.” All the steps can be performed by a human being including applying a translation service algorithm. These limitations collectively recite the collection, evaluation and translation of information, including language evaluation and translation. As characterized by the USPTO guidance and case law, such activities fall within the abstract-idea groupings of mental processes (e.g. observations, evaluations, and judgments that could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper) and organizing /transmitting information. Reference can be made to latest patent eligibility guidelines. Accordingly, claim 15 recites an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computing device the determining and data gathering steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The current specification on paragraph 0039, clearly specifies that “… Client devices 106 are personal electronic computing devices associated with respective users. Client devices 106 include, but are not limited to, smartphones, tablet computers, laptop computers, smart cards, voice assistant devices, or other technology (e.g., a hardware-software combination) known or yet to be discovered that has structure and/or capabilities similar to the mobile devices described herein. Each client device 106 includes a communication capability (e.g., modem, transceiver, radio, and so forth) for communicating through communication network(s) 110.” The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration. The inclusion of the computer or memory and controller to perform the selecting and generating steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing device cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 15 as drafted is not patent eligible. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Independent claim 15 is therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 16-19 are dependent claims and do not contain subject matter that can be overcome the rejection of independent claim 15.
Claim 20 is directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions to implement the method of claim 15 and is rejected under similar rationale.
All dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because any additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons already recited for the independent claims.
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 1-2, 7-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Travieso et al., (US 2012/0016655 A1).
As per claims 1, 15 and 20, Travieso et al., teach a system/method/non-transitory medium to implement the method (0020, abstract – methods, systems and computer readable medium) comprising a server including one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for (0345, 0351):
obtaining content in a first language (0012, 0048);
before providing the content to a first client device, receiving a first request from the first client device to view the content, wherein the first request is associated with a second language selected by a user operating the first client device (0012, 0048, 0052);
in response to receiving the first request, determining that the first language of the content is different from the second language associated with the first request (0058); and
in accordance with the determination that the first language of the content is different from the second language associated with the first request (0058);
obtaining a machine-translated version of the content in the second language (0058); and
providing the machine-translated version of the content in the second language to one or more client devices (0012, 0054, 0061).
As per claims 2 and 16, Travieso et al., teach the system/method of claims 1 and 15, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for:
storing the machine-translated version of the content in the second language in a storage of the server (0013, 0099);
receiving a second request from a second client device to view the content, wherein the second request is associated with the second language (0012, 0048, 0052);
in response to receiving the second request:
determining that the first language of the content is different from the second language associated with the second request (Fig.5, 0057-0058); and
determining that the storage of the server includes the machine-translated version of the content in the second language (0013, 0068); and
in accordance with the determination that the first language of the content is different from the second language associated with the second request and the determination that the storage of the server includes the machine-translated version of the content in the second language (Fig.5, 0013, 0068):
providing the machine-translated version of the content in the second language to the second client device (0012, 0054, 0067-0068) .
As per claim 7, Travieso et al., teach the system of claim 1, wherein: the one or more programs further include instructions for, in response to receiving the first request, determining that the storage of the server does not include a machine-translated version of the content in the second language; and obtaining the machine-translated version of the content in the second language is further in accordance with the determination that the storage of the server does not include a machine-translated version of the content in the second language (0013).
As per claim 8, Travieso et al., teach the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for, prior to receiving the first request from the first client device: receiving, from the first client device, selection of the second language as the selected language for the first client device; and assigning the second language to a profile associated with the user operating the first client device based on the selection of the second language; wherein the association of the first request and the second language is based on the second language being assigned to the profile associated with the user operating the first client device (0222-0223, 0248-0249).
As per claim 9, Travieso et al., teach the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for, prior to receiving the first request from the first client device: receiving, from the first client device, selection of a locale of the first client device; and assigning the second language to a profile associated with the user operating the first client device based on the selection of the locale of the first client device; wherein the association of the first request and the second language is based on the second language being assigned to the profile associated with the user operating the first client device (0162, 0222, 0255, 0257).
As per claim 10, Travieso et al., teach the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: subsequent to receiving the first request, obtaining an update to the content in the first language; and in response to obtaining the update to the content in the first language and prior to receiving any subsequent requests to view the content: obtaining a machine-translated version of the update to the content in the second language; and storing the machine-translated version of the update to the content in the second language in the storage of the server (0198, 0209).
As per claim 11, Travieso et al., teach the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: in response to receiving the first request, providing the content in the first language to the first client device (0052, 0054).
As per claim 12, Travieso et al., teach the system of claim 11, wherein: the instructions for providing the content in the first language to the first client device include instructions for providing a machine-translation option to the first client device; and the one or more programs further include instructions for: receiving an indication from the first client device that the machine-translation option was selected; in response to receiving the indication, obtaining a non-cached machine-translated version of the content in the second language; and providing the non-cached machine-translated version of the content in the second language to the first client device(0052, 0054, 0067, 0082).
As per claim 13, Travieso et al., teach the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: in accordance with the determination that the first language of the content is different from the second language indicated by a profile associated with the first client device, providing the machine-translated version of the content in the second language to the first client device (0222-0223, 0248-0249).
As per claim 14, Travieso et al., teach the system of claim 13, wherein: the instructions for providing the machine-translated version of the content in the second language to the first client device include instructions for providing an original-language option to the first client device; and the one or more programs further include instructions for: receiving an indication from the first client device that the original-language option was selected; and in response to receiving the indication, providing the content in the first language to the first client device (0052, 0054).
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 3-4, 6 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Travieso et al., (US 2012/0016655 A1) in view of Trese (US 2015/0154180 A1).
Travieso et al., teach the system and method of claims 1 and 15. Travieso et al., do not specifically teach the claimed wherein the first request is an Nth request to view the content, and the one or more programs further include instructions for: in response to receiving the first request, determining that N is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold for obtaining a machine translation, wherein the predetermined threshold is at least two; and obtaining the machine-translated version of the content in the second language is further in accordance with the determination that N is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold as claimed in claims 3 and 17. Trese in analogous art does teach the claimed, wherein the first request is an Nth request to view the content, and the one or more programs further include instructions for: in response to receiving the first request, determining that N is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold for obtaining a machine translation, wherein the predetermined threshold is at least two; and obtaining the machine-translated version of the content in the second language is further in accordance with the determination that N is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold (0047, 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the techniques used by Trese in the system/method of Travieso et al., because, the translated informational content remains in its raw, extensible language format until it is rendered and provided to the end user based upon the language preference of the end user (Trese 0013).
As per claims 4 and 18, Travieso et al., in view of Trese teach the system/method of claims 3 and 17. Travieso et al., however does not specifically teach the claimed wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for adjusting the predetermined threshold based on a cost associated with obtaining the machine-translated version of the content in the second language. Trese does teach the claimed wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for adjusting the predetermined threshold based on a cost associated with obtaining the machine-translated version of the content in the second language (Trese 0047, 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the techniques used by Trese in the system/method of Travieso et al., because, the translated informational content remains in its raw, extensible language format until it is rendered and provided to the end user based upon the language preference of the end user (Trese 0013).
As per claim 6. Travieso et al., teach the system of claim 1. However, Travieso et al., do not specifically teach the claimed, wherein: the instructions for obtaining the content in the first language include instructions for obtaining user-submitted content from a third client device; and the one or more programs further include instructions for determining that the user-submitted content is in the first language based on an association of the first language with the third client device. Trese does teach the claimed the instructions for obtaining the content in the first language include instructions for obtaining user-submitted content from a third client device; and the one or more programs further include instructions for determining that the user-submitted content is in the first language based on an association of the first language with the third client device (0014-0016, 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the techniques used by Trese in the system/method of Travieso et al., because, the translated informational content remains in its raw, extensible language format until it is rendered and provided to the end user based upon the language preference of the end user (Trese 0013).
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Travieso et al., (US 2012/0016655 A1) in view of Pinkham et al., (US 2004/0172235 A1).
As per claim 5 and 19, Travieso et teach the system/method of claims 1 and 15. Travieso et al., do not specifically teach the claimed, wherein the machine-translated version of the content in the second language is obtained from a machine-translation algorithm based on one or more machine learning processes that are trained using content received at the server. Pinkham et al., do teach the claimed wherein the machine-translated version of the content in the second language is obtained from a machine-translation algorithm based on one or more machine learning processes that are trained using content received at the server (0001, 0028-0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Pinkham et al., into the system/method of Travieso et al., because, this would enable training and translation to be performed without the need for a bilingual dictionary of content words (Pinkham et al., abstract, 0003).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
The following prior art maybe used alone or in in combination to apply to Applicant claimed invention.
Cazin et al., (US 11,386,131 B2) teach systems and methods for providing a multi-language search include a query receiver that receives a search query from a search user interface that includes a search term in a first language. A search results evaluator determines whether execution of the search query will produce a sufficient number of search results. A cross-language search manager, in response to determining that the processing of the search query will not produce the sufficient number of search results, obtains a first translated version of the search term, requests that a search be executed by a search engine based on at least the search term and the first translated version of the search term, receives a set of search results from the search engine based on the search; and returns the set of search results to the search user interface.
Rottman et al., (US 2017/0185588 A1) teach snippet pre-translation and dynamic selection of translation systems. Pre-translation uses snippet attributes such as characteristics of a snippet author, snippet topics, snippet context, expected snippet viewers, etc., to predict how many translation requests for the snippet are likely to be received. An appropriate translator can be dynamically selected to produce a translation of a snippet either as a result of the snippet being selected for pre-translation or from another trigger, such as a user requesting a translation of the snippet. Different translators can generate high quality translations after a period of time or other translators can generate lower quality translations earlier. Dynamic selection of translators involves dynamically selecting machine or human translation, e.g., based on a quality of translation that is desired. Translations can be improved over time by employing better machine or human translators, such as when a snippet is identified as being more popular.
Jurach et al., (US 2009/0192783 A1) teach a method, system and computer-readable storage medium for generating translated dynamic Web page content comprising a phrasebook storing source phrases and translated phrases, a Web server, and an application server that generates dynamic Web page content in response to Web page requests and includes a translation engine that replaces source phrases in the dynamic Web page with a corresponding translated phrase stored in the phrasebook. In another embodiment the phrasebook also stores translations in a second dialect so that source phrases in a dynamic Web page can be translated into two or more dialects. Also provided is a system of collecting translatable dynamic Web page content including a Web server, a database comprising source phrases and corresponding translated phrases, and an application server that generates a dynamic Web page, identifies within the dynamic Web page a candidate phrase for addition to the database, and adds to the database a translatable component of the candidate phrase. Also disclosed is a method for maintaining a database of translated content whereby translatable dynamic Web page content is collected, translated, and added to the database.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY B CHAWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7601. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Monday thru Thursday.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. 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.
/VIJAY B CHAWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658