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
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/17/25.
The applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims were considered and results as
follow: THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been added. As a result, claims 1-21 now pending in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 12/17/25 and 01/16/26 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used.
Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-27 of Patent No. 12, 254, 032.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from
each other because claims 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-27 of Patent No. 12, 254, 032 contains every element of claim 1-21 of the instant application no. 18/990,446 and as such anticipates claim 1-21 of the instant application No. 18/990,446.
Both claim features of the instant application No. 18/990,446 and Patent No.
12, 254, 032 can be compared as follows:
Instant Application No. 18/990,446
Patent No. 12, 254, 032
1. A system, comprising: a processor; and a computer readable medium storing instructions translatable by the processor to implement a multilingual search engine, comprising instructions for:
receiving a set of multilingual objects; determining a set of fragments associated with each multilingual object, wherein each of the set of fragments comprises a portion of the multilingual object; determining an index language associated with each fragment of the determined set of fragments of the object; and based on the index language, indexing each fragment in a single multilingual index in association with the multilingual object.
1. A system, comprising: a processor; and a computer readable medium storing instructions translatable by the processor to implement a multilingual search engine, comprising instructions for: receiving a multilingual document; determining a set of fragments of a content of the multilingual document, wherein each of the set of fragments comprises a portion of the content of the multilingual document; determining an index language associated with each fragment of the determined set of fragments of the multilingual document; based on the index language, indexing each fragment in a multilingual object index in association with the multilingual document, wherein the multilingual object index includes tokens from the multilingual document in multiple languages determined according to their respective index language; receiving a search query; and performing the search query by: determining a set of search fragments of the search query, wherein each of the set of search fragments comprises a portion of the search query; determining a search language associated with each search fragment of the determined set of search fragments; and based on the search language associated with each search fragment, indexing each search fragment in a multilingual search index in association
7. The system of claim 3, wherein determining the set of tokens according to the index language is done using a language specific model for the index language.
4. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 1, wherein indexing each fragment is performed using a language specific model for the index language.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §103
4. 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 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 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US 2013/0339378 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2017/0364510 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng teaches a system, comprising:
a processor, (See Zheng paragraph [0024], a processor); and
a computer readable medium storing instructions translatable by the processor to implement a multilingual search engine, comprising instructions for, (See Zheng paragraph [0024], a computer readable storage medium; and/or a processor, such
as a processor configured to execute instructions stored on and/or provided by a
memory coupled to the processor):
receiving a set of multilingual objects, (See Zheng Abstract A multilingual mixed searching method is provided. The method includes receiving a query word entered by a user and identifying source language of the query word);
determining an index language associated with each fragment of the determined set of fragments of the multilingual object, (See Zheng paragraph [0026], each language, an index is established for the web page information in that language alone. Query words of a user, which are in a certain language); and
based on the index language, (See Zheng paragraph [0034], the index
corresponding to the each target language), indexing each fragment in a single multilingual index in association with the multilingual object, (See Zheng paragraph [0026], for multilingual mixed search platforms for achieving mixed searching and mixed ranking of different data objects. By simplifying indexing architecture, the
simplified index architecture reduces the hardware equipment needed to build a
system).
Zheng does not explicitly disclose determining a set of fragments associated with each multilingual object, wherein each of the set of fragments comprises a portion of the object.
However, Huang teaches determining a set of fragments associated with each object, wherein each of the set of fragments comprises a portion of the object, (See Huang paragraph [0006], the multi-language text including contents in a plurality of languages; split the multi-language text into a plurality of parts based on the Unicode of the multi-language text, contents of the plurality of parts having different languages; and process the multi-language text based on the plurality of parts).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify determining a set of fragments associated with each object, wherein each of the set of fragments comprises a portion of the object of Huang in order to improve linguistic processing quality of the multi-language text and enhances hit-rate of searching.
Claims 8 and 15 recite the same limitations as claim 1 above. Therefore, claims
and 15 rejected based on the same reasoning.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US 2013/0339378 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2017/0364510 A1) and further in view of Shikha (US 2011/0131212 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Zheng together with Huang taught the system according to claim 1 as described above.
Zheng together with Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein indexing each fragment comprises determining a set of tokens according to the index language associated with the fragment.
However, Shikha teaches wherein indexing each fragment comprises determining a set of tokens according to the index language associated with the fragment, (See Shikha paragraph [0035], The document fragmenter 310 divides or breaks the document into different fragments or sections based on information given in the document header for the document fragments. The document fragmenter 310 provides a set of multiple smaller documents 312-316 as output. The language identifier 318 iterates over each of the set of multiple documents 312-316 and identifies the primary language for each of them. The indexer 306 carries out character set encoding, conversions, tokenization and generating indexing information).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify wherein indexing each fragment comprises determining a set of tokens according to the index language associated with the fragment of Shikha in order to facilitate the retrieval of appropriate documents, (See Shikha paragraph [0002]).
Claims 9 and 16 recite the same limitations as claim 2 above. Therefore, claims
and 16 rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 3, Zheng together with Huang taught the system according to claim 2 as described above.
Zheng together with Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the multilingual index comprises tokens determined for each fragment.
However, Shikha teaches wherein the multilingual index comprises tokens determined for each fragment, (See Shikha paragraph [0035], The document fragmenter 310 provides a set of multiple smaller documents…The indexer 306 carries out character set encoding, conversions, tokenization and generating indexing information).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify wherein the multilingual index comprises tokens determined for each fragment of Shikha in order to facilitate the retrieval of appropriate documents, (See Shikha paragraph [0002]).
Claims 10 and 17 recite the same limitations as claim 3 above. Therefore, claims
and 17 rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 4, Zheng taught the system according to claim 3 as
described above. Zheng further teaches the instructions further for:
receiving a search query, (See Zheng Abstract, receiving a query word entered by a user and identifying source language of the query word);
determining a search language associated with the search query; (See Zheng paragraph [0031], a query word of each target language as a basis for searching an index corresponding to web page information in the each target language and obtains web page information in the each corresponding language)
performing a search of the multilingual index based on the search query and the determined search language, (See Zheng paragraph [0026], The multilingual mixed search method lays a foundation for multilingual mixed search platforms for achieving mixed searching and mixed ranking of different data objects).
Claims 11 and 18 recite the same limitations as claim 4 above. Therefore, claims
and 18 rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 5, Zheng taught the system according to claim 4 as
described above. Zheng further teaches the instructions further for: determining a set of search fragments of the search query, (See Zheng paragraph [0004], the search results are obtained and returned. When there are Spanish language query words, the Spanish query words are searched in the indices corresponding to Spanish, and the search results are obtained), wherein determining the search language associated with the search query comprises, (See Zheng paragraph [0004], the search results are obtained and returned. When there are Spanish language query words, the Spanish query words are searched in the indices corresponding to Spanish, and the search results are obtained), determining the search language associated with each search fragment of the determined set of search fragments, (See Zheng paragraph [0026], each language, an index is established for the web page information in that language alone. Query words of a user, which are in a certain language); and wherein performing a search of the multilingual index for the search query based on the determined search language, (See Zheng Abstract A multilingual mixed searching method is provided. The method includes receiving a query word entered by a user and identifying source language of the query word); comprises performing the search of the multilingual index based on the set of search fragments and associated search language, (See Zheng paragraph [0026], for multilingual mixed search platforms for achieving mixed searching and mixed ranking of different data objects. By simplifying indexing architecture, the simplified index architecture reduces the hardware equipment needed to build a system).
Claims 12 and 19 recite the same limitations as claim 5 above. Therefore, claims
and 19 rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 6, Zheng together with Huang taught the system according to claim 5 as described above.
Zheng together with Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein performing the search comprises determining a set of search tokens according to the search language associated with each search fragment and searching the multilingual index based on the set of search tokens.
However, Shikha teaches wherein performing the search comprises determining a set of search tokens according to the search language associated with each search fragment, (See Shikha paragraph [0035], The document fragmenter 310 divides or breaks the document into different fragments or sections based on information given in the document header for the document fragments. The document fragmenter 310 provides a set of multiple smaller documents), and searching the multilingual index based on the set of search tokens, (See Shikha paragraph [0035], The language identifier 318 iterates over each of the set of multiple documents 312-316 and identifies the primary language for each of them. The indexer 306 carries out character set encoding, conversions, tokenization and generating indexing information. The indexer 306 also uses language information to build language-sensitive indexing information as per a specific language's rules. The indexer 306 component responsible for tokenization (tokenizer),
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify wherein performing the search comprises determining a set of search tokens according to the search language associated with each search fragment and searching the multilingual index based on the set of search tokens of Shikha in order to facilitate the retrieval of appropriate documents, (See Shikha paragraph [0002]).
Claims 13 and 20 recite the same limitations as claim 6 above. Therefore, claims
and 20 rejected based on the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 7, Zheng together with Huang taught the system according to claim 3 as described above.
Zheng together with Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the set of tokens according to the index language is done using a language specific model for the index language.
However, Shikha teaches wherein determining the set of tokens according to the index language is done using a language specific model for the index language, (See Shikha paragraph [0035], The indexer 306 carries out character set encoding, conversions, tokenization and generating indexing information. The indexer 306 also uses language information to build language-sensitive indexing information as per a specific language's rules).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to modify wherein determining the set of tokens according to the index language is done using a language specific model for the index language of Shikha in order to facilitate the retrieval of appropriate documents, (See Shikha paragraph [0002]).
Claims 14 and 21 recite the same limitations as claim 7 above. Therefore, claims
and 21 rejected based on the same reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusions/Points of Contacts
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 MULUEMEBET GURMU whose telephone number is (571)270-7095. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 5712724078. 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.
/MULUEMEBET GURMU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163