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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on August 19, 2024.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 19, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-15 are drawn to methods. As such, claims 1-15 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 1 recites the following steps:
A method of providing, translated content, the method comprising:
receiving, one or more original sentences and one or more translated sentences, wherein the one or more translated sentences are results of translating the one or more original sentences
displaying the one or more original sentences and the one or more translated sentences to correspond to one another.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) translating content and presenting the translated content to correspond to one another (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
a computing device,
an editing interface
a server
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of "by a first translation engine" serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “by using a first translation engine; and ” serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more5' (see MPEP 2106.05(g, h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 2-4, 9, fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as
identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 5-8 and 10-15 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
a server,
cells
an interface
a computer
The additional elements are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
by using a first translation engine
by each of one or more second translation engines
These additional elements of the dependent claims in claims 6-8 and 10 of the dependent claims, cited above, serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more5' (see MPEP 2106.05(g, h)).
Regarding claim 15 the claims are directed to a computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed cause a machine to perform operations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer useable or storage medium covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se. Applicant's specification does preclude non-transitory tangible media or transitory propagating signals per se; therefore, the claim must be rejected under 35 USC 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F. 3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO a claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non- transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 USC 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" before "computer useable medium." Such an amendment would not raise an issue of new matter in this case, because Applicant has support for both embodiments in the disclosure paragraph [0169].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rosart (2008/0082317).
Claim 1
Rosart discloses systems and methods for translating documents and/or text from a first source language to a second target language.
A method of providing, by a computing device, an editing interface for translated content, the method comprising (Rosart [0025]):
receiving, from a server, one or more original sentences and one or more translated sentences, wherein the one or more translated sentences are results of translating, by the server, the one or more original sentences by using a first translation engine (Rosart [0006]); See “received text to be translated from a first language text to a second language text is received within a user interface.” See Figure 1 for translation engine user interface.
displaying the one or more original sentences and the one or more translated sentences to correspond to one another (Rosart [0004][Figure 10]). See “Access to the text of the original resource in the first language text is provided within the same interface that is displaying the translated version of the resource.”
Claim 2
Rosart discloses:
wherein the one or more original sentences comprise a first original sentence, and the one or more translated sentences comprise a first translated sentence that is a result of translating the first original sentence by using the first translation engine (Rosart [0007]); See “a user interface is provided having an input section for receiving a location of a resource to be translated from a first language text to a second language text, and a presentation area for displaying a translated resource.
the displaying comprises displaying a table on which the one or more original sentences and the one or more translated sentences are sequentially presented such that the first original sentence and the first translated sentence are located in a same row or a same column (Rosart [0004][Figure 10]). See “Access to the text of the original resource in the first language text is provided within the same interface that is displaying the translated version of the resource.”
Claim 4
Rosart discloses:
after the displaying, updating display of the table according to a user's modification input with respect to the table (Rosart [0042]). See at least “In some implementations, formatting of the original text 114 can be preserved in the translated text 122. For example, font attributes, new lines, tabs, and other formatting features can be applied to the translated text 122.”
Claim 7
Rosart discloses:
after the displaying, providing an alternative translated sentence as a result of translating a user-selected sentence by using one or more different translation engines and modifying the one or more translated sentences based on a user's selection with respect to the provided alternative translated sentence (Rosart [0041]). See at least “In some implementations, JavaScript code instructs the browser to display a selection mechanism to chose between multiple translation language pair candidates.”
Claim 8
Rosart discloses:
wherein the modifying of the one or more translated sentences comprises displaying, by each of one or more second translation engines, an alternative translated sentence as a result of translating an original sentence related to the user- selected sentence in response to a user's input to select any one of displayed sentences, wherein the one or more second translation engines comprise a translation engine that is different from the first translation engine (Rosart [0041]). See at least “In some implementations, alternative translations for a phrase entered by a user are provided by the translation engine and displayed in the panel. In some implementations, JavaScript code instructs the browser to display a feedback mechanism in the panel allowing the user to rate the quality of the translation. In some implementations, JavaScript code instructs the browser to display a selection mechanism to chose between multiple translation language pair candidates.”
Claim 9
Rosart discloses:
replacing, according to a user's input to select any one of displayed one or more alternative translated sentences, the translated sentence related to the user-selected sentence with the selected alternative translated sentence; and displaying the selected alternative translated sentence as a translated sentence of the original sentence related to the user-selected sentence (Rosart [0041]). See at least “In some implementations, alternative translations for a phrase entered by a user are provided by the translation engine and displayed in the panel. In some implementations, JavaScript code instructs the browser to display a feedback mechanism in the panel allowing the user to rate the quality of the translation. In some implementations, JavaScript code instructs the browser to display a selection mechanism to chose between multiple translation language pair candidates.”
Claim 11
Rosart discloses:
wherein, after the displaying, transmitting, to the server, a request for generating translated content comprising the one or more translated sentences, in response to obtaining a user's documentation request for the displayed one or more translated sentences (Rosart [0006]); See “received text to be translated from a first language text to a second language text is received within a user interface.” See Figure 1 for translation engine user interface.
Claim 12
Rosart discloses:
wherein the server determines positions of the one or more translated sentences, styles of the one or more translated sentences, and attributes of the one or more translated sentences in the translated content by referring to positions of the one or more original sentences, styles of the one or more original sentences, and attributes of the one or more original sentences in original content (Rosart [0034]). See “In the example translated web page 300, the second language (e.g., Arabic) is read from right-to-left, whereas the first language (e.g., English) is read from left-to-right. Accordingly, the structure of the translated page 300 is reformatted to be read from right-to-left. In some implementations where the original text is left-to-right, the style attribute of elements in the translated web page are set to "direction: rt!; align: right" to affect the direction and alignment of text and tables.”
Claim 13
Rosart discloses:
comprising, before the receiving, providing an interface for receiving a user's translation request for original content (Rosart [0007]); See “a user interface is provided having an input section for receiving a location of a resource to be translated from a first language text to a second language text…” See Figure 1 for translation engine user interface.
Claim 14
Rosart discloses:
wherein the interface comprises at least one of an interface for uploading the original content, an interface for selecting a category of the original content, and an interface for selecting a translation target language of the original content (Rosart [Figure 11]). Where the interface is display in Fig 11; the category is either “translate to text” or “Translate a Web Page” and Fig 11, 106 is provided for selecting the target language.
Claim 15
Rosart discloses:
A computer program stored in a medium to execute the method of claim 1,by using a computer (Rosart [0045]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosart (2008/0082317) in view of MPEP 2144.04 VI. C: Rearrangement of Parts.
Claim 3
Rosart discloses systems and methods for translating documents and/or text from a first source language to a second target language but does not disclose a table.
wherein the displaying comprises determining, in the table, a size of the row or the column where the first original sentence and the first translated sentence are located, based on a greater length between a length of the first original sentence and a length of the first translated sentence (Rosart [Figure 10]).
Examiner Note: While the reference does not expressly teach a table, Examiner notes that this step is a mere Rearrangement of Parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. C: Rearrangement of Parts. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
The reference cited teaches a text box that allows the user to scroll too adjust viewing. Therefore adjusting the view box to accommodate the length of translated sentences does not modify the operation of the interface used to display translated text. As such this is considered to be a design choice.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosart (2008/0082317) in view of MPEP 2144.04 VI. B: Duplication of Parts
Claim 6
Rosart discloses systems and methods for translating documents and/or text from a first source language to a second target language but does not explicitly disclose a fourth and fifth original sentence.
wherein, in the updating of the display of the table, the one or more original sentences comprise a fourth original sentence and a fifth original sentence, and the one or more translated sentences comprise a fourth translated sentence and a fifth translated sentence which are results of respectively translating the fourth original sentence and the fifth original sentence by using the first translation engine, and the updating of the display of the table comprises: obtaining a user's input to merge the fourth original sentence and the fifth original sentence in the table; displaying, in the table, a first merged sentence as a result of merging the fourth original sentence and the fifth original sentence in place of existing display in a cell where the fourth original sentence is displayed;
displaying, in the table, a second merged sentence as a result of merging the fourth translated sentence and the fifth translated sentence in place of an existing display in a cell where the fourth translated sentence is displayed; and deleting, from the table, cells where the fifth original sentence and the fifth translated sentence are displayed (Rosart [0035][0041]). See [0035] “the translation engine delimits two or more sentence fragments with span tags. For example, "This is a sentence. This is another." can is surrounded by span tags to provide access to the untranslated text of both sentences at the same time.”
Examiner Note: While the reference does not expressly teach fourth and fifth sentence translation, as claimed, Examiner notes that this step is a mere Duplication of Parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B: Duplication of Parts
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Rosart discloses translating multiple sentences, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that translating a fourth and fifth sentence would not have any unexpected result. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate in addition to the first sentence translation, translating additionally sentences that results in a multiple or paragraph style translation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated under MPEP 2144.04.VI.B rationale directed to common practices considered routine expedients that support an obviousness rationale, such as duplication of parts, which improve translation techniques in the system of Rosart to provide multiple translation sentence requests from a user.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosart (2008/0082317) in view of MPEP 2144.04 VI. C: Rearrangement of Parts and MPEP 2144.04 VI. B: Duplication of Parts.
Claim 5
Rosart discloses systems and methods for translating documents and/or text from a first source language to a second target language but does not explicitly disclose a table nor first or second sentence translation.
wherein the one or more original sentences comprise a second original sentence, and the updating of the display of the table comprises: obtaining a user's input to segment the second original sentence in the table into a first original segmented sentence and a second original segmented sentence; receiving, from the server, a first translated segmented sentence and a second translated segmented sentence which are translated sentences respectively of the first original segmented sentence and the second original segmented sentence (Rosart [0035]); See at least “In some implementations, the translation engine delimits two or more sentence fragments with span tags. For example, "This is a sentence. This is another." can is surrounded by span tags to provide access to the untranslated text of both sentences at the same time.”
displaying, in the table, the first original segmented sentence and the second original segmented sentence in place of an existing display, in cells where the second original sentence and a second translated sentence, which is a translated sentence of the second original sentence, are displayed;
Examiner Note: While the reference does not expressly teach first or second sentence translation, as claimed, Examiner notes that this step is a mere Duplication of Parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B: Duplication of Parts
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Rosart discloses translating multiple sentences, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that translating a first and second sentence would not have any unexpected result. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate in addition to the first sentence translation, translating additionally sentences that results in a multiple or paragraph style translation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated under MPEP 2144.04.VI.B rationale directed to common practices considered routine expedients that support an obviousness rationale, such as duplication of parts, which improve translation techniques in the system of Rosart to provide multiple translation sentence requests from a user.
generating, in the table, new cells adjacent to the cells where the second original sentence and a second translated sentence, which is a translated sentence of the second original sentence, are displayed, and displaying the second original segmented sentence and the second translated segmented sentence in the new cells, wherein the new cells are located between the cells where the second original sentence and the second translated sentence are displayed and cells where a third original sentence, which is a next sentence of the second original sentence, and a translation result thereof are displayed, in the table.
Examiner Note: While the reference does not expressly teach a table, Examiner notes that this step is a mere Rearrangement of Parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. C: Rearrangement of Parts. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
The reference cited teaches a text box that allows the user to scroll to adjust viewing and can accommodate multiple lines of text.. Therefore presenting the multiple lines of text in separate boxes or cells does not modify the operation of the interface used to display translated text. As such this is considered to be a design choice.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosart (2008/0082317) in view of Best (2009/0070094).
Claim 10
Rosart discloses systems and methods for translating documents and/or text from a first source language to a second target language but does not explicitly disclose a rate of replacement for selecting alternative translated text. Best teaches:
wherein the modifying of the one or more translated sentences comprises, when a rate of replacement of the one or more translated sentences with an alternative translated sentence generated by a specific second translation engine exceeds a predetermined threshold rate, displaying an interface for determining whether to replace the first translation engine with the specific second translation engine (Best [0042]). See at least “The selection analyzer module 304 may provide additional functionality by analyzing the selections by a plurality of users to determine the frequency of requests for a particular selection and, in response to determining that the frequency of requests for a particular selection exceeds a threshold, performing a remedial action for the particular selection. Remedial actions may include requesting new translations of the original language, replacing a translation with a user translation or machine translation, or other action.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of translating documents and/or text from a first source language to a second target language, as taught by Rosart, the method of replacing text with an alternative translation after a threshold number of selections for that alternative text, to increase accuracy of translated text.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626