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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “extraction code configured to extract …”, “translation prompt input code configured to input …”, “translation text acquisition code configured to acquire …”, “search code configured to search …”, “pre-translation term acquisition code configured to acquire …”, “fiscal year designation code configured to acquire …”, “new term acquisition code configure to …”, “completion prompt input code configured to input …”, and “search term acquisition code configured to acquire …” in claims 1-2 and 4-5, and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 11-12 recite “extracting … pre-translation terms …” and “inputting … to translate …”. These limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor”. For example, but for the “processor” language, these steps in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually extracting text from a bilingual dictionary to give to a translator to translate into text of a second language. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements - using a processor to perform these steps. The use of a processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “language model” and the step of “acquiring … a translated text …” is merely for the purpose of data gathering and/or insignificant extra-solution activity that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing these steps similar to claim 1 above. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
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)(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 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cancedda et al. (USPG 2013/0030787, hereinafter Cancedda).
Regarding claims 1 and 11-12, Cancedda discloses an information processing system, method, and non-transitory CRM configured to translate one or more source texts written in a first language into a second language using a language model, the information processing system comprising:
one or more memories that store computer program code (figure 1 and/or paragraphs 36-38); and one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to read the program code and operate as instructed by the program code (figure 1 and/or paragraphs 36-38), and the program code includes:
extraction code configured to extract, from a bilingual dictionary that includes pre-translation terms described in the first language and post-translation terms described in the second language respectively corresponding to the pre-translation terms (bilingual dictionary), one or more pre-translation terms relevant to the one or more source texts and one or more post-translation terms respectively corresponding to the one or more pre-translation terms (figure 2, step 108, retrieving/extracting bi-phrases from bi-phrase library; also see paragraphs 62-68);
translation prompt input code configured to input a translation prompt into the language model, the translation prompt including the one or more source texts, the one or more pre-translation terms, the one or more post-translation terms, and a translation instruction, and the translation instruction including an instruction for the language model to translate the one or more pre-translation terms to the one or more post-translation terms (figure 2, steps S106-108, process the source text to extract source and target terms from a bilingual dictionary to send to the translation engine; the translation instruction is an implicit instruction by providing the source text, the terms extracted from the bilingual dictionary; also see paragraphs 62-68); and
translated text acquisition code configured to acquire, from the language model, a translated text in which the one or more source texts are translated into the second language according to the translation instruction (figure 2, steps 112-122 and/or paragraphs 62-68, translating text in a source language into text in a target language).
Regarding claim 2, Cancedda further discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the bilingual dictionary includes search terms respectively corresponding to the pre-translation terms, and the program code further includes: search code configured to search the one or more source texts using the search terms; and pre-translation term acquisition code configured to acquire the one or more pre-translation terms respectively corresponding to one or more of the search terms matched in the search (process in figure 2 and/or paragraphs 62-68, in order to retrieve matched terms from bilingual dictionary, a searching/matching process must be performed).
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.
Claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cancedda in view of Liu et al. (USPG 2021/0326537, hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 6, Cancedda further discloses the bilingual dictionary including “multi-word expressions”, but fails to explicitly disclose the search terms each include one or more regular expressions. However, Liu teaches the search terms each include one or more regular expressions (paragraphs 114-115, regular expression; “number” and “date”, which can be year; also see figures 7-8); wherein the one or more regular expressions include a regular expression that represents a fiscal year, the program code further includes fiscal year designation code configured to acquire a current fiscal year or a designated fiscal year that has been input by a user, and the translation instruction includes an instruction for the language model to generate the translated text by replacing a number of a fiscal year included in the one or more source texts with the current fiscal year or the designated fiscal year (paragraphs 114-115, regular expression; “number” and “date”, which can be year; also see figures 7-8); wherein the one or more source texts include one or more texts relevant to finance, the pre-translation terms include one or more financial terms, and the translation instruction includes an instruction for the language model to translate one or more terms, other than the one or more pre-translation terms included in the one or more source texts, using the financial terms (paragraphs 89-91, detecting and treating financial terms as sensitive information before translation).
Since Cancedda and Liu are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of utilizing regular expression matching and detecting and treating financial terms as sensitive information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cancedda in view of Ajagbusi (USPG 2024/0419924, hereinafter Ajagbusi).
Regarding claims 7-9, Cancedda fails to explicitly disclose, however, Ajagbusi teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the translation prompt further includes a unit conversion instruction, and3 the unit conversion instruction includes an instruction for the language model to convert, when the one or more source texts include one or more numerical values expressed in a unit specific to a region where the first language is used, the one or more numerical values into a unit used in a region where the second language is used (figure 4, English text and cost in $ are translated/converted into German and euro); wherein the translation prompt further includes a unit conversion instruction, and the unit conversion instruction includes an instruction for the language model to convert, when the one or more source texts include one or more numerical values expressed in a unit specific to a region where the first language is used, each of the one or more numerical values into a corresponding unit included in the International System of Units (figure 4, English text and cost in $ are translated/converted into German and euro; $ and Euro are ISU); and wherein the translation prompt further includes a currency conversion instruction, and the currency conversion instruction includes an instruction for the language model to convert, when the one or more source texts include a monetary amount expressed in a currency unit in a region where the first language is used, the monetary amount into a currency unit of a region where the second language is used (figure 4, English text and cost in $ are translated/converted into German and Euro; also the cost values are also adjusted).
Since Cancedda and Ajagbusi are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of converting/translating dollar value into Euro value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cancedda in view of Ajagbusi, and further in view of Yoden et al. (USPG 2002/0007383, hereinafter Yoden).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Cancedda and Ajagbusi discloses translating English into German and converting US dollar to Euro dollar (see claim 9 above), the currency conversion instruction includes an instruction for the language model to convert the monetary amount (figure 4, Ajagbusi: English text and cost in $ are translated/converted into German and Euro; also the cost values are also adjusted; see claim 9 above). The combination still fails to explicitly disclose, however, Yoden further teaches acquiring a currency exchange rate and converting the monetary amount based on the exchange rate (figure 5 and/or paragraphs 46, 53, and 62, exchange rate; the combination of 3 references teaches acquiring and using exchange rate in the conversion).
Since the modofied Cancedda and Yoden are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of acquiring the exchange rate and converting the dollar value into Euro value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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 and resolving the 101 issue.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jeon et al. (USPG 2010/0088085) teach a statistical machine translation method that is considered pertinent to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN X VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
/HUYEN X VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights