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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 14 March 2024 is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1-10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachwani (U.S. Pat. No. 8,826,240, hereinafter Lachwani) in view of Stuehler (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0165855, hereinafter Stuehler).
Regarding claim 1, Lachwani discloses A computer-implemented method for translating or verifying text of a software application (Systems and methods for “validating an application based on an object level hierarchy for the application”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 15, lines 50-58;), the method comprising: receiving one or more new screenshots, one or more new hierarchy files, or both, of the software application (“the first object level hierarchy is an object level hierarchy generated based on a current version of the application under validation 110”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 15, lines 59-67;); retrieving one or more previously accepted screenshots, one or more previously accepted hierarchy files, or both (“second object level hierarchy is previously generated based on a previous version of the application.”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 15, lines 59-67;); comparing the one or more new screenshots with the one or more previously accepted screenshots, or the one or more new hierarchy files with the one or more previously accepted hierarchy files (“At 1002, a first object level hierarchy is compared to a second object level hierarchy.”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 15, lines 59-67;); locating text that has changed based on an output of the comparison (The comparison method of FIG. 10 is used to identify differences “in the objects, relationships, or attributes”. This is done in the context of FIG. 11, where “At 1104, an object level hierarchy for the application may be analyzed to determine” changes in “one or more text attributes included in objects associated with the application.”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 16, lines 16-30, and 45-53; FIGS. 10-11); presenting a translation of the text that has changed to a translator for acceptance or rejection of the translation (The method “report[s] the text attributes” in a “report”, depicted at FIG. 12, that is “reviewed by a user to verify that localization… has been performed accurately” where a report to a user for localization is presenting to a translator for acceptance or rejection of the translation; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 17, lines 23-35; Col. 3, lines 13-25); and storing the one or more new screenshots, the one or more new hierarchy files, or both… (“the first and second hierarchies are stored as part of the object level hierarchy data 120 on the validation server 108”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 16, lines 1-5). However, Lachwani fails to expressly recite storing the one or more new screenshots, the one or more new hierarchy files, or both, when the translation has been accepted.
Stuehler teaches systems and methods for “facilitating the process of translating strings between human languages.” (Stuehler, ¶ [0001]). Regarding claim 1, Stuehler teaches and storing the one or more new screenshots, the one or more new hierarchy files, or both, when the translation has been accepted (“One or more of the saved segments are displayed to a user at 1616. At 1620, user input is received from the user providing a translation for the displayed one or more saved segments. The stored one or more saved segments are updated with the translation at 1624.”; Stuehler, ¶ [0135]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the application/localization validation through object level hierarchy analysis of Lachwani to incorporate the teachings of Stuehler to include storing the one or more new screenshots, the one or more new hierarchy files, or both, when the translation has been accepted. The facilitated translations described in Stuehler provide for an automated solution to the problem of manual translations from Lachwani, which can overcome the tedious and time consuming task of manual translation and avoid unnecessary delays, as recognized by Stuehler. (Stuehler, ¶ [0003], [0024]).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lachwani further discloses wherein the one or more previously accepted screenshots and the one or more previously accepted hierarchy files are from a last translation and verification for the same user interface of the software application (The described baseline is a “previously generated hierarchy for a previous version of the application”. Though not explicitly recited as saved when the translation is accepted, the hierarchies are saved contemporaneously and the user may select the “baseline version of the application for comparison” from “a list of available baseline versions based on the object level hierarchy data 120 stored on the validation server(s) 108,” which based on the saved data, includes the last translation and verification hierarchy files.; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 9, lines 23-37; Col. 16, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lachwani disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Lachwani fail(s) to expressly recite further comprising: applying one or more exceptions to the comparison, the one or more exceptions excluding at least one text from the output of the comparison.
The relevance of Stuehler is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 3, Stuehler teaches further comprising: applying one or more exceptions to the comparison, the one or more exceptions excluding at least one text from the output of the comparison (“The properties file 500 is formatted such that a plurality of segments 508 are defined, where a given segment includes a tag 512, a key 516, and a value 520. The tags 512 can be used to indicate whether a given segment should be translated or not. For example, tags 512 a, having the notation “NOTR,” can be used to designate segments that are not to be translated. While tag 512 b, “TRANSLATE,” indicates that the segment should be translated.”; Stuehler, ¶ [0094]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the application/localization validation through object level hierarchy analysis of Lachwani to incorporate the teachings of Stuehler to include further comprising: applying one or more exceptions to the comparison, the one or more exceptions excluding at least one text from the output of the comparison. The facilitated translations described in Stuehler provide for an automated solution to the problem of manual translations from Lachwani, which can overcome the tedious and time consuming task of manual translation and avoid unnecessary delays, as recognized by Stuehler. (Stuehler, ¶ [0003], [0024]).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lachwani further discloses wherein the comparing the one or more new hierarchy files with the one or more previously accepted hierarchy files comprises: parsing the one or more new hierarchy files; and parsing the one or more previously accepted hierarchy files (“the application validation module 112 may iteratively request portions of the assembly code data 118 to analyze address data for objects listed in the assembly code data 118, determine parent-child relationships among the objects, or generate one or more object level hierarchies based on the objects and their relationships. “; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 5, lines 20-28); wherein the comparing the one or more new hierarchy files with the one or more previously accepted hierarchy files comprises performing a plain text comparison of the parsed one or more new hierarchy files and the parsed one or more previously accepted hierarchy files (“At 1104, an object level hierarchy for the application may be analyzed to determine one or more text attributes included in objects associated with the application” where “this step includes searching the object level hierarchy for attributes that have a text value, such as “ID=‘TOP STORIES’” in the object 904 of FIG. 9.” which is a plain text comparison; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 16, lines 40-54).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lachwani further discloses wherein the comparing comprises determining differences in page structure, element structure, or images (The comparison “identif[ies] one or more of differences in the number or identity of objects in the hierarchy, differences in the relationships between the objects, or differences in one or more attributes associated with the objects.”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 2, lines 65-Col. 3, line 7).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lachwani further discloses wherein the presenting the translation of the text that has changed comprises highlighting previous text in the one or more previously accepted screenshots, one or more previously accepted hierarchy files, or both, and highlighting the text that has changed in the one or more new screenshots, the one or more new hierarchy files, or both (FIG. 4 includes “Baseline Object Level Hierarchy 404” and “Current Object Level Hierarchy 406” where the differences “between the two object level hierarchies may be highlighted, differently colored or otherwise indicated”, which is understood to include highlighting both of the different portions of 404 and 406.; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 9, lines 6-14; FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lachwani further discloses further comprising: presenting a change history of the one or more new screenshots to the translator (The UI includes one or more controls 410 that enable a user to “select a baseline version… for comparison” from a “list of available baseline versions based on the object level hierarchy data stored” this list is a change history.; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 9, lines 22-30).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lachwani further discloses further comprising: collecting and capturing the one or more new screenshots, the one or more new hierarchy files, or both, of the software application (The system “instructs the host device to execute an assembly code generation module” This module “generates assembly code data” which the “application validation module...builds an object level hierarchy for the application”, which is collecting and capturing.; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 2, lines 35-47).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Lachwani further discloses wherein the one or more new screenshots collected are not for all languages of interest (The localization validation process described in FIG. 11 involves checking text attributes against a single “target character set”, which is understood as the capture being for a single language context.; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 16, lines 31-45).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Lachwani further discloses wherein the collecting and capturing comprises iterating through every user interface of the software application (The capture process involves a “recursive traversal of a view hierarchy for the main window”, which is “iterating through” the UI.; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 15, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Lachwani disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Lachwani fail(s) to expressly recite further comprising: submitting a translation request of the text that has changed to the translator; and receiving the translation of the text that has changed from the translator.
The relevance of Stuehler is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 12, Stuehler teaches further comprising: submitting a translation request of the text that has changed to the translator (The method includes “generat[ing] a translation request to a translation service”; Stuehler, ¶ [0135]); and receiving the translation of the text that has changed from the translator (“receiving…user input… providing a translation for the displayed one or more saved segments”; Stuehler, ¶ [0135]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the application/localization validation through object level hierarchy analysis of Lachwani to incorporate the teachings of Stuehler to include further comprising: submitting a translation request of the text that has changed to the translator; and receiving the translation of the text that has changed from the translator. The facilitated translations described in Stuehler provide for an automated solution to the problem of manual translations from Lachwani, which can overcome the tedious and time consuming task of manual translation and avoid unnecessary delays, as recognized by Stuehler. (Stuehler, ¶ [0003], [0024]).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Lachwani further discloses wherein the submitting the translation request comprises sending one or more files to the translator (The method includes “generat[ing] a translation request to a translation service”; Stuehler, ¶ [0135]), the one or more files including only the text that has changed (Further, the method includes “a translator can be presented only with text requiring translation”, which is the delta. The method generates a request “including the first set” of strings “designated to be translated”; Stuehler, ¶ [0135], [0140]).
Regarding claim 14, Lachwani discloses A system for translating text of a software application (Systems and methods for “validating an application based on an object level hierarchy for the application”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 15, lines 50-58;), the system comprising: a memory that stores one or more previously accepted screenshots, one or more previously accepted hierarchy files, or both (“second object level hierarchy is previously generated based on a previous version of the application” stored as part of the “memory 210” which “provides storage of computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, and other data for the operation of the validation server(s) 108.”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 15, lines 59-67; Col. 6, lines 60-63); a processor that: receives one or more new screenshots, one or more new hierarchy files, or both, of the software application (“the first object level hierarchy is an object level hierarchy generated based on a current version of the application under validation 110” using “one or more processors 202 configured to execute one or more stored instructions.”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 15, lines 59-67; Col. 6, lines 21-24); retrieves the one or more previously accepted screenshots, the one or more previously accepted hierarchy files, or both from the memory (“second object level hierarchy” as “previously generated based on a previous version of the application” is retrieved.; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 15, lines 59-67;); compares the one or more new screenshots with the one or more previously accepted screenshots, or the one or more new hierarchy files with the one or more previously accepted hierarchy files (“At 1002, a first object level hierarchy is compared to a second object level hierarchy.”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 15, lines 59-67;); stores the one or more new screenshots, the one or more new hierarchy files, or both… (“the first and second hierarchies are stored as part of the object level hierarchy data 120 on the validation server 108”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 16, lines 1-5); and locates text that has changed based on an output of the comparison (The comparison method of FIG. 10 is used to identify differences “in the objects, relationships, or attributes”. This is done in the context of FIG. 11, where “At 1104, an object level hierarchy for the application may be analyzed to determine one or more text attributes included in objects associated with the application.”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 16, lines 16-30, and 45-53; FIGS. 10-11); and a display that presents a translation of the text that has changed to a translator for acceptance or rejection of the translation (The method “report[s] the text attributes” in a “report”, depicted at FIG. 12, that is “reviewed by a user to verify that localization… has been performed accurately” where a report to a user for localization is presenting to a translator for acceptance or rejection of the translation; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 17, lines 23-35; Col. 3, lines 13-25).. However, Lachwani fail(s) to expressly recite stores the one or more new screenshots, the one or more new hierarchy files, or both, when the translation has been accepted.
The relevance of Stuehler is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 14, Stuehler teaches stores the one or more new screenshots, the one or more new hierarchy files, or both, when the translation has been accepted (“One or more of the saved segments are displayed to a user at 1616. At 1620, user input is received from the user providing a translation for the displayed one or more saved segments. The stored one or more saved segments are updated with the translation at 1624.”; Stuehler, ¶ [0135]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the application/localization validation through object level hierarchy analysis of Lachwani to incorporate the teachings of Stuehler to include stores the one or more new screenshots, the one or more new hierarchy files, or both, when the translation has been accepted. The facilitated translations described in Stuehler provide for an automated solution to the problem of manual translations from Lachwani, which can overcome the tedious and time consuming task of manual translation and avoid unnecessary delays, as recognized by Stuehler. (Stuehler, ¶ [0003], [0024]).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Claim 15 is substantially the same as claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale as above.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Claim 16 is substantially the same as claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale as above.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Claim 17 is substantially the same as claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale as above.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Claim 18 is substantially the same as claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale as above.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Claim 19 is substantially the same as claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale as above.
Regarding claim 20, Lachwani discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium, the computer readable medium including instructions that, when executed, perform a method for translating or verifying text of a software application (Systems and methods for “validating an application based on an object level hierarchy for the application” as implemented using “one or more computer-readable storage media (“CRSM”)” which “provides storage of computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, and other data for the operation of the validation server(s) 108.”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 15, lines 50-58; Col. 6, lines 53-62), the method comprising: receiving one or more new screenshots, one or more new hierarchy files, or both, of the software application (“the first object level hierarchy is an object level hierarchy generated based on a current version of the application under validation 110”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 15, lines 59-67;); retrieving one or more previously accepted screenshots, one or more previously accepted hierarchy files, or both (“second object level hierarchy is previously generated based on a previous version of the application.”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 15, lines 59-67;); comparing the one or more new screenshots with the one or more previously accepted screenshots, or the one or more new hierarchy files with the one or more previously accepted hierarchy files (“At 1002, a first object level hierarchy is compared to a second object level hierarchy.”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 15, lines 59-67;); locating text that has changed based on an output of the comparison (The comparison method of FIG. 10 is used to identify differences “in the objects, relationships, or attributes”. This is done in the context of FIG. 11, where “At 1104, an object level hierarchy for the application may be analyzed to determine one or more text attributes included in objects associated with the application.”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 16, lines 16-30, and 45-53; FIGS. 10-11); presenting a translation of the text that has changed to a translator for acceptance or rejection of the translation (The method “report[s] the text attributes” in a “report”, depicted at FIG. 12, that is “reviewed by a user to verify that localization… has been performed accurately” where a report to a user for localization is presenting to a translator for acceptance or rejection of the translation; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 17, lines 23-35; Col. 3, lines 13-25); and storing the one or more new screenshots, the one or more new hierarchy files, or both… (“the first and second hierarchies are stored as part of the object level hierarchy data 120 on the validation server 108”; Lachwani, ¶ Col. 16, lines 1-5). However, Lachwani fail(s) to expressly recite and storing the one or more new screenshots, the one or more new hierarchy files, or both, when the translation has been accepted.
The relevance of Stuehler is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 20, Stuehler teaches storing the one or more new screenshots, the one or more new hierarchy files, or both, when the translation has been accepted (“One or more of the saved segments are displayed to a user at 1616. At 1620, user input is received from the user providing a translation for the displayed one or more saved segments. The stored one or more saved segments are updated with the translation at 1624.”; Stuehler, ¶ [0135]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the application/localization validation through object level hierarchy analysis of Lachwani to incorporate the teachings of Stuehler to include and storing the one or more new screenshots, the one or more new hierarchy files, or both, when the translation has been accepted. The facilitated translations described in Stuehler provide for an automated solution to the problem of manual translations from Lachwani, which can overcome the tedious and time consuming task of manual translation and avoid unnecessary delays, as recognized by Stuehler. (Stuehler, ¶ [0003], [0024]).
Claims 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachwani and Stuehler as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Multer (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0029227, hereinafter Multer).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Lachwani and Stuehler disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Lachwani and Stuehler fail to expressly recite further comprising: determining that at least one screenshot does not have the text that has changed; and discarding the at least one screenshot, a corresponding at least one hierarchy file, or both.
Multer teaches systems and methods for data comparison and synchronization. (Multer, ¶ [0003]). Regarding claim 11, Multer teaches further comprising: determining that at least one screenshot does not have the text that has changed (Describes a “pull” synchronization process (FIG. 15) where the system checks for new data. “Once the engine server lock is acquired, the storage server will be checked to determine whether a new version of the data exists on the storage server at step 1430. If no new version exists, the synchronization process ends.”; Multer, ¶ [0190]); and discarding the at least one screenshot, a corresponding at least one hierarchy file, or both (“Differencing transmitter 100... converts the information extracted into difference information Δ.” and “Difference information Δ comprises only the changes to System B’s data which have occurred on System B and instructions for implementing those changes.” where creatin a package comprising only the changes, the system has, by definition, discarded all components that were determined to be unchanged.; Multer, ¶ [0044], [0190]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the application/localization validation through object level hierarchy analysis of Lachwani, as modified by the translation facilitation systems of Stuehler, to incorporate the teachings of Multer to include further comprising: determining that at least one screenshot does not have the text that has changed; and discarding the at least one screenshot, a corresponding at least one hierarchy file, or both. Lachwani and Multer share the same fundamental technical challenge of comparing a baseline version of data with a new version to find the difference. Though, Lachwani teaches finding differences, it fails to address what to do with files that don’t have changes. Multer teaches a well-known solution as applied to the challenge shared between Multer and Lachwani, describing a differencing engine which solves the problem by creating a change log that may only include new components, changed components, and deleted components, providing an efficient solution to the handling of low value data points, as recognized by Multer. (Multer, ¶ [0044]-[0045]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carmi (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2014/0189576) discloses systems and methods for automatically matching images of screens. A first screenshot of a screen may be obtained, the first screenshot including a view port exposing a portion of a panel. A second screenshot of a screen may be obtained. A digital difference image may be generated and a match between the first and second screenshots may be determined based on the digital difference image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean E. Serraguard whose telephone number is (313)446-6627. The examiner can normally be reached 07:00-17:00 M-F.
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, Daniel C. Washburn can be reached at (571) 272-5551. 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.
/Sean E Serraguard/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2657