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 statements (IDS) submitted on 7/3/2024 and 11/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,098 in view of Kumaran et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0281578). Claim 1 of the patent teaches all of the limitations of the current claim except for: generating, at a processor in communication with the memory, a machine translation user interface comprising an input text element; outputting, at a display device in communication with the processor, the machine translation user interface; and updating, at the processor, the machine translation user interface to comprise the output text element. Figures 8A & 8B and Paragraphs [0058-0060] of Kumaran teaches these limitations. It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the patent with the user interface of Kumaran et al. because it is case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,098 in view of Kumaran et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0281578). Claim 1 of the patent and Kumaran teach all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Kumaran et al. further discloses the limitations of claim 2 in paragraphs [0015] & [0058-0060].
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,098 in view of Kumaran et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0281578). Claim 1 of the patent and Kumaran teach all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Kumaran et al. further discloses the limitations of claim 3 in paragraphs [0015] & [0058-0060].
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,098 in view of Kumaran et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0281578). Claim 1 of the patent and Kumaran teach all of the limitations of claim 3 above. Kumaran et al. further discloses the limitations of claim 4 in paragraphs [0015], [0026] & [0058-0060].
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,098 and Kumaran et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0281578) in view of Sonoo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0091177). Claim 1 of the patent and Kumaran teach all of the limitations of claim 4 above. Sonoo et al. discloses the limitations of claim 5 in Figures 6-8 and paragraphs [0043-0044].
Claims 8-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,098 in view of Kumaran et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0281578). Claim 1 of the patent and Kumaran teach all of the limitations of claim 3 above. Kumaran et al. further discloses the limitations of claims 8-10 in paragraphs [0021] & [0028-0032].
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,098 in view of Kumaran et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0281578). Claim 12 of the patent teaches all of the limitations of the current claim except for: generating, at a processor in communication with the memory, a machine translation user interface comprising an input text element; outputting, at a display device in communication with the processor, the machine translation user interface; and updating, at the processor, the machine translation user interface to comprise the output text element. Figures 8A & 8B and Paragraphs [0058-0060] of Kumaran teaches these limitations. It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of the patent with the user interface of Kumaran et al. because it is case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,098 in view of Kumaran et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0281578). Claim 12 of the patent and Kumaran teach all of the limitations of claim 11 above. Kumaran et al. further discloses the limitations of claim 12 in paragraphs [0015] & [0058-0060].
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,098 in view of Kumaran et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0281578). Claim 12 of the patent and Kumaran teach all of the limitations of claim 12 above. Kumaran et al. further discloses the limitations of claim 13 in paragraphs [0015] & [0058-0060].
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,098 in view of Kumaran et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0281578). Claim 12 of the patent and Kumaran teach all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Kumaran et al. further discloses the limitations of claim 14 in paragraphs [0015], [0026] & [0058-0060].
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,098 and Kumaran et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0281578) in view of Sonoo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0091177). Claim 12 of the patent and Kumaran teach all of the limitations of claim 14 above. Sonoo et al. discloses the limitations of claim 15 in Figures 6-8 and paragraphs [0043-0044].
Claims 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,098 in view of Kumaran et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0281578). Claim 12 of the patent and Kumaran teach all of the limitations of claim 11 above. Kumaran et al. further discloses the limitations of claims 18-20 in paragraphs [0021] & [0028-0032].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner Notes
The Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully considers the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant and require written authorization. Should the Applicant wish to communicate via e-mail, including the following paragraph in their response will allow the Examiner to do so:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Should e-mail communication be desired, the Examiner can be reached at Edwin.Leland@USPTO.gov
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN S LELAND III whose telephone number is (571)270-5678. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 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, Hai Phan can be reached at 571-272-6338. 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.
/EDWIN S LELAND III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654