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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Claims 1 was canceled in a preliminary amendment received on 02/10/25, claims 2-21 are added and are now pending..
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 held to claim an abstract idea, and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “receiving visual assets associated with a three dimensional (3D) virtual environment; words in the translated text are selected based on a dimension of the visual asset; rendering localized assets for the second client locale based on the adjusted visual assets.”
The limitations of:
receiving visual assets associated with a three dimensional (3D) virtual environment from a first client locale, the visual assets including initial text in a first language at the first client locale;
receiving a request for the visual assets from a client device associated with a second client locale, the second client locale associated with a second language;
converting the initial text to translated text in the second language, wherein one or more words in the translated text are selected based on a dimension of the visual asset;
adjusting the visual assets based on the translated text;
rendering localized assets for the second client locale based on the adjusted visual assets; and
transmitted the localized assets to the client device responsive to the request.
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “one or more processors” language, “receiving visual assets associated with a three dimensional (3D) virtual environment; words in the translated text are selected based on a dimension of the visual asset; rendering localized assets for the second client locale based on the adjusted visual assets.” 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 “method of organizing human activity (contents for users in different languages) / mental processes (translating text from one language to another)” grouping of abstract ideas. Such activities are abstract ideas under USPTO guidance and case law (e.g., Alice, Electric Power Group, etc.), particularly when implemented on generic computers for economic or organizational purposes.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. There is no indication of a technological improvement or a technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not recite a specific or unconventional way of receiving visual assets associated with a three dimensional (3D) virtual environment; words in the translated text are selected based on a dimension of the visual asset; rendering localized assets for the second client locale based on the adjusted visual assets. Therefore, 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 using a processor to perform both the ranking and determining steps amounts 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 recites conventional steps such as “receiving visual assets associated with a three dimensional (3D) virtual environment; words in the translated text are selected based on a dimension of the visual asset; rendering localized assets for the second client locale based on the adjusted visual assets.” No element or combination provides a technical improvement or “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible because it is directed to an abstract idea method of organizing human activity (contents for users in different languages) / mental processes (translating text from one language to another), is not integrated into a practical application, and lacks an inventive concept beyond generic computer implementation.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,207 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between the claims of this application and the patented claims is that Applicant has omitted the following limitations “storing the translated text in a database in association with the visual content; receiving a request for the visual content from a client device associated with the second client locale” and added the following “receiving a request for the visual assets from a client device associated with a second client locale, the second client locale associated with a second language.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that omitting and adding some limitations are an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
US Application Number: 19/024,662
US Patent Number: 18/111,643
A computer-implemented method of automatic localization of dynamic content, the method comprising:
A computer-implemented method of automatic localization of dynamic content, the method comprising:
receiving visual assets associated with a three dimensional (3D) virtual environment from a first client locale, the visual assets including initial text in a first language at the first client locale;
receiving visual content associated with a game from a first client locale, the visual content including text being represented at the first client locale by a first language and including visual data;
storing the translated text in a database in association with the visual content;
receiving a request for the visual assets from a client device associated with a second client locale, the second client locale associated with a second language;
converting the initial text to translated text in the second language, wherein one or more words in the translated text are selected based on a dimension of the visual asset;
converting the text to generate translated text in at least a second language associated with a second client locale;
receiving a request for the visual content from a client device associated with the second client locale;
adjusting the visual assets based on the translated text;
adjusting the visual data based on the translated text;
rendering localized assets for the second client locale based on the adjusted visual assets; and
rendering localized content for the second client locale and based on the adjusted visual data; and
transmitted the localized assets to the client device responsive to the request.
transmitting the localized content to the client device responsive to the request.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See references cited on PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD LANEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-6784. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7-5:30 ET.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/Ronald Laneau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights