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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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, 9-10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyers (Non-Patent Literature “Your iPhone's Weather App Has a Crazy Number of Customization Options You Probably Didn't Know About”).
As per claims 1, 9 and 17, Meyers discloses:
A method comprising:
receiving, by a processor of an electronic device that comprises a display, source content comprising convertible information of one or more language-based expressions or region- dependent information for presenting on the electronic device;
determining, in part based on user profile data associated with a user of the electronic device and a locale established for the electronic device, whether presentation characteristics of the convertible information matches local device presentation preferences for outputting the convertible information on the electronic device:
in response to the presentation characteristics not matching the local device presentation preferences: replacing convertible information with renderable presentation alternatives that match the local device presentation preferences for the convertible information; and
presenting, via the at least one output device, a modified version of the received source content with the convertible information replaced by the renderable presentation alternative (Section 3 – the displayed temperature for the location is converted into the users preferred unit and displayed by the weather app, either by using the default location for the iPhone or by the preferred temperature unit set in the weather app. Thus temperatures that are locally reported in one unit are converted and displayed in the other unit if the user has set that as their preferred unit. iPhone inherently have a display, processor and memory).
Claim 1 is directed to the device to implement the method of claim 9, so is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 17 is directed to a computer readable medium containing instructions to cause a processor to execute the method of claim 9, so is rejected for similar reasons.
As per claims 2 and 10, Meyers discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 above. Randall et al. further discloses:
identify a measurement and unit of measurement in the received source content; determine a default unit of measurement based on the user profile data; and in response to the default unit of measurement not matching the unit of measurement in the received source content, convert the measurement to the default unit of measurement within the modified version of the received source content(Section 3 – the displayed temperature for the location is converted into the users preferred unit and displayed by the weather app, either by using the default location for the iPhone or by the preferred temperature unit set in the weather app. Thus temperatures that are locally reported in one unit are converted and displayed in the other unit if the user has set that as their preferred unit. Units of Temperature and units of measurement).
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, 5, 11, 13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (Non-Patent Literature “Your iPhone's Weather App Has a Crazy Number of Customization Options You Probably Didn't Know About”) in view of Randall et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0072490).
As per claims 3, 11 and 18, Meyers discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 17 above. Meyers fails to disclose but Randall et al. in same field of endeavor discloses:
identify a currency amount and currency type in the source content; determine a default currency type based on the user profile data; and in response to the default currency type not matching the currency type in the source content, convert the currency amount to the default currency type within the modified version of the source content (Paragraphs [0020-0022] – content is converted to the desired currency type).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device, method and computer readable medium of Meyer with the currency localization of Randall et al. because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined elements by known methods to provide predictable result
As per claims 5, 13 and 19, Meyers discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 17 above. Meyers fails to disclose but Randall et al. in same field of endeavor discloses:
identify an idiomatic expression in the source content; obtain a corresponding idiomatic expression based on the user profile data; and replace the idiomatic expression in the source content with the corresponding idiomatic expression within the modified version of the source content (Paragraphs [0020-0022] – content is converted to European spelling).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device, method and computer readable medium of Meyer with the idiomatic localization of Randall et al. because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined elements by known methods to provide predictable result
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (Non-Patent Literature “Your iPhone's Weather App Has a Crazy Number of Customization Options You Probably Didn't Know About”) in view of Hung (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0020651)
As per claims 4 and 12, Meyers teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 above. Meyers fails to explicitly disclose, but Hung in the same field of endeavor teaches:
identify a time and corresponding time zone in the source content; determine a default time zone based on the user profile data; and in response to the default time zone not matching the time zone in the source content, convert the time to the default time zone within the modified version of the source content (Abstract).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device, method and computer readable medium of Meyers with the time zone localization of Hung because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined elements by known methods to provide predictable result
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Non-Patent Literature “Your iPhone's Weather App Has a Crazy Number of Customization Options You Probably Didn't Know About”) in view of non-patent literature “How to change number format in Windows 10” .
As per claims 6 and 14, Randall et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 above. Meyers fails to explicitly disclose, but “How to change number format in Windows 10” in the same field of endeavor teaches:
identify a numeric value and a numeric delimiting scheme in the source content; determine a default numeric delimiting scheme based on the user profile data; and in response to the default numeric delimiting scheme not matching the numeric delimiting scheme in the source content, apply the default numeric delimiting scheme to the numeric value (The NPL teaches how to change the numeric delimiter in Windows 10).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device, method and computer readable medium of Meyers with the numeric formatting of Windows 10 because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined elements by known methods to provide predictable results.
Claims 8, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Non-Patent Literature “Your iPhone's Weather App Has a Crazy Number of Customization Options You Probably Didn't Know About”) in view of Jethwa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0428014) .
As per claims 8, 16 and 20, Meyers teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 17 above. Meyers fails to explicitly disclose, but Jethwa et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches:
identify convertible audio information comprising a voice audio clip for each of one or more convertible audio information; and generate modified voice audio data comprising a substitution of each of the one or more items of convertible audio information in the source content with a corresponding AI-generated voice audio clip for use within the modified version of the source content (Abstract and Paragraph [0049]).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device, method and computer readable medium of Randall et al. with the audio swapping of Jethwa et al. because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined elements by known methods to provide predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 15 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 9-10 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 7/2/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 3-6, 8, 11-14, 16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Meyers.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
