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 1-3, 5, 9-11, 13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Randall et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0072490).
As per claims 1, 9 and 17, Randall et al. discloses:
An electronic device (Paragraph [0013]) comprising:
at least one output device, including a display (Figure 1 and Paragraphs [0016-0017] – there are client computers that display content of the content management system, so there must be a display to display the content);
a memory having stored thereon a dynamic content adaptation (DCA) module (Paragraphs [0013] & [0016-0017]); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the display and the memory, the at least one processor executing program code of the DCA module (Paragraphs [0013] & [0016-0017]), and is configured to cause the electronic device to:
obtain source content from a source application (Paragraph [0017] – Content is accessed);
identify one or more items of convertible information within the source content (Paragraphs [0017-0022] – the content is checked);
determine, in part based on user profile data associated with a user of the electronic device, characteristics that can be correlated to device presentation preferences for one or more convertible information items outputted on the electronic device, wherein the one or more convertible information items are presented within the source content using a different presentation format than renderable presentation alternatives that match the device presentation preferences for at least one of the one or more convertible information items (Paragraphs [0017-0022] – the content is modified in accordance with applicable user preferences);
render a modified version of the source content with the at least one of the one or more items of convertible information converted to its renderable presentation alternative for presentation on the electronic device (Paragraphs [0017-0022] – the content is modified in accordance with applicable user preferences); and
present the modified version of the source content via the at least one output device (Paragraphs [0017-0022] – the modified content is displayed).
Claim 9 is directed to the method of using the device of claim 1, so is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 17 is directed to a computer readable medium containing instructions to cause a processor to act as the device of claim 1, so is rejected for similar reasons.
As per claims 2 and 10, Randall et al. 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 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 source content, convert the measurement to the default unit of measurement within the modified version of the source content (Paragraphs [0020-0022] – content is converted to the desired measurement unit).
As per claims 3, 11 and 18, Randall et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 17 above. Randall et al. further 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).
As per claims 5, 13 and 19, Randall et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 17 above. Randall et al. further 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).
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 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0072490) in view of Hung (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0020651)
As per claims 4 and 12, Randall et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 above. Randall et al. 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 Randall et al. with the timezone 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 Randall et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0072490) 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. Randall et al. 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 Randall et al. 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 Randall et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0072490) in view of Jethwa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0428014) .
As per claims 8, 16 and 20, Randall et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 17 above. Randall et al. 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.
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
Prosecution Insights