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
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 3/26/2025 (with Apparent priority date of 4/23/2021). Claims 1-20 are pending of which claims 1, 19 and 20 are independent. As such, claims 1-20 have been examined.
This Application was published as 20250225340.
This Application is a continuation of 17728460 issued as U.S. 12288038. A Terminal Disclaimer over the term of the parent is required as provided below.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 10-14, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12288038 (hereinafter as the ‘038 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the issued patent are narrower in scope than that of the instant application.
Claim 1 of the instant application is recited by claim 1 of ‘038 patent, and therefore are rejected under a similar rationale as claim 1.
Although claim 1 of the issued patent ‘038 is method claim and claim 1 of the instant application is a system claim, it would have been obvious to use the method claim of the issued patent in a system environment to realize the method claim and having a system version of the method claim is obvious. Similar rationale can be applied to dependent claims generated from claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3 of the instant application are rejected by claim 3 of the ‘038 patent,
Claim 4 of the instant application is rejected by claim 4 of the ‘038 patent.
Claim 5 of the instant application is rejected by claim 5 of the ‘038 patent.
Claim 6 of the instant application is rejected by claim 6 of the ‘038 patent.
Claim 7 of the instant application is rejected by claim 7 of the ‘038 patent.
Claim 10 of the instant application is rejected by claim 8 of the ‘038 patent.
Claim 11 of the instant application is rejected by claim 9 of the ‘038 patent.
Claim 12 of the instant application is rejected by claim 10 of the ‘038 patent.
Claim 13 of the instant application is rejected by claim 11 of the ‘038patent.
Claim 14 of the instant application is rejected by claim 12 of the ‘038 patent.
Claim 19 of the instant application is rejected by claim 14 of the ‘038 patent.
Claim 20 of the instant application is rejected by claim 1 of the ‘038 patent.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a system that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims limitations that cover performance of the limitations in the human mind with the assistance of physical aids (e.g., pen and paper), but for the recitation of generic or well-known or conventional computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor, and a memory storing instructions”, nothing in these claim limitations precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or organizing human activity. As a whole, claim 1 pertains to providing matching service provider for translation request, which is a mental process and/or organizing human activity that a human can do. Individually, each of the limitations also pertains to a mental process/organizing human activity, and/or insignificant extra solution activity, for example:
receiving a document comprising a keyword associated with a translation service; (e.g., obtaining a printout of a document that contains keywords regarding some topic or domain that needs to be translated.)
determining a distance along a particular semantic path in a directed graph between (i) a first node having a title matching the keyword associated with the translation service and (ii) each of one or more second nodes having a title matching a skill of a respective service provider from a plurality of service providers, wherein the directed graph includes a root node and nodes connected by edges, wherein: a semantic path is a path from the root node of the directed graph to a node having a title that at least partially matches the keyword, a distance along a particular semantic path indicates a number of nodes connected by edges between the first node and a particular second node, each second node is connected to a corresponding third node of the directed graph, the third node having a title indicating an identification (ID) of the respective service provider, (e.g., analyze diagram or graph structure contains skillset, topic/keyword, and service provider ID, where a first node is a title/topic matching a keyword from the received document, the second node is title matching skills of various potential service provider which contains various skillsets, and third node is ID of individual service provider, and evaluating the connection between the nodes.)
and the third node is connected to the corresponding second node by an edge having a title indicating a language pair for the translation service; (e.g., connection or relations between service provider and skillset, like providing English to Chinese translation)
performing a machine translation of the document using a machine translation engine to generate a translated document; (e.g., perform translation.)
and providing the translated document to a particular service provider for enhancement, the particular service provider having been selected based on a ranking of the plurality of service providers, wherein the ranking is at least in part based on the distance between the first node and each second node. (e.g., rank the translator skillset to best match the document that needs translation enhancement, and ask the best fit translator to perform the translation enhancement.)
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recites generic computing components. Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving, determining, or outputting information) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 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 limitations of using generic computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
The examiner further notes that the use of claimed generic computer components (“at least one processor, and a memory storing instructions”) to obtain, extract, and/or generate data invokes such generic computer components “merely as a tool to perform an existing process”. MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) further explains:
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim 1 recites generic computer components (“at least one processor, and a memory storing instructions”), with respect to performing tasks. MPEP 2106.05(d) and (f) further provides examples of court decisions where the courts found generic computing components to be mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and further explains “increased speed” (e.g., using a computer to increase the speed of an otherwise mental process) does not provide an inventive concept. For example:
A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added).
Performing repetitive calculations. Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.")
Claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim that corresponds to the system of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 1 above. While claim 19 further recites “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, these are merely generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, none of these limitations (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because in either case the additional limitations merely utilize generic computer components that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer function. Claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 recites a method claim that corresponds to the system of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 1 above. Claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-18 depend from independent claim 1, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 from above.
Claim 2 further comprising: the operations comprising generating the directed graph by: in a main directed graph that includes a main root node and main nodes connected by main edges, identifying one or more of the main nodes that each has a title that at least partially matches the keyword; (e.g., generating a graph, connecting node that have title that matches to keyword.)
and determining a distance along the main directed graph from the main root node to each of the identified main nodes. (e.g., determining how close the relationship are between nodes.)
Claim 3 further recite: the operations comprising: selecting one or more of the identified main nodes based on the distance from the main root node to each identified main node; (e.g., circle the connection that are closest.)
and generating the directed graph, wherein the selected one or more of the identified main nodes are a plurality of nodes of the directed graph, each of the plurality of nodes having a title that at least partially matches the keyword. (e.g., create connection between nodes that have a connection between title that match the keyword.)
Claim 4 further comprising: the operations comprising selecting a predefined number of the identified main nodes. (e.g., circle a number of main nodes.)
Claim 5 further recites: the operations comprising generating the main directed graph based on a hierarchical classification of skills. (e.g., generate a graph based on hierarchical classification skills.)
Claim 6 further recites: the operations comprising updating the main directed graph based on an update to a hierarchical classification of skills. (e.g., update the graph.)
Claim 7 further recites: the operations comprising: identifying the one or more of the main nodes using regular expressions. (e.g., locating the main node by looking at the node label and verify the pattern by reviewing a rule.)
Claim 8 further recites: wherein identifying the one or more of the main nodes comprises searching the directed graph using a parametrized number of shortest paths from the main root node of the directed graph to nodes from the main nodes that each has a title that at least partially matches the keyword. (e.g., analyzing the directed graph, compare title with keyword to determine closeness of the match, count the number of edges or connection along each path, and note the shortest path for each match node, rank the shortest path by length, select a number of top ranked paths.)
Claim 9 further recites: wherein identifying the one or more of the main nodes comprises searching the directed graph based on a union among multiple keywords for multiple nodes and identifying nodes from the main nodes that each has a title that at least partially matches the union of the multiple keywords. (e.g., analyzing the graph to look for relation between multiple keywords and find a title node/skill node that matches either keywords.)
Claim 10 further recites: the operations comprising ranking the plurality of service providers based at least in part on an indication of a capability of each service provider to provide the translation service from a first language to a second language. (e.g., review the ranking of the service providers based on their skillsets and capabilities to match the requested language.)
Claim 11 further recites: the operations comprising ranking the plurality of service providers based in part on a quality metric for each service provider. (e.g., rank the service providers based on quality metric of each service provider.)
Claim 12 further recites: the operations comprising determining the quality metric for each service provider, wherein the quality metric for each service provider is based on a record for the service provider that is stored in a blockchain. (e.g., analyze record from a log book or ledger, review the history of the service provider and determine their performance.)
Claim 13 further recites: the operations comprising anonymizing the document prior to performing the machine translation using the machine translation engine. (e.g., cross out some of the words or information in the document prior to performing the translation.)
Claim 14 further recites: wherein at least some of the plurality of service providers are content enhancers. (e.g., look for service providers that can not only translate, but also enhance or edit the content.)
Claim 15 further comprise: the operations comprising redacting the document prior to performing the machine translation using the machine translation engine. (e.g., cross out any sensitive information from the document prior to performing the translation.)
Claim 16 further comprise: wherein ranking the plurality of service providers based at least in part on weights associated with parameters, each weight from the weights associated with a respective parameter from the parameters. (e.g., figure out the most important criteria for evaluation, and assign different weights to different criteria like accuracy, speed and price, then come up with a weighted formula and rank each provider based on the weighted formula. This step also could involve some math calculation and concepts)
Claim 17 further comprise: the operations comprising transmitting data for generating a graphical user interface to display data related to the translated document. (e.g., writing out the translation on a poster and show it to the user or requester.) [GUI a generic computer component to display]
Claim 18 further comprise: the operations comprising providing the translated document to a computing device configured to identify errors in the translated document and generate a quality score representing an assignment of the translated document to the particular service provider for enhancement. (e.g., review the translated document or ask a professional translator to review the translated document for quality check and generate a quality or confidence score, based on the score, find a suitable service provider for content/translation improvement.)
In sum, claims 2-18 depend from claim 1, and further recite mental processes as explained above. None of the additional limitations recited in claims 2-18 amount to anything more than the same or a similar abstract idea as recited in claim 1. Nor do any limitations in claims 2-18: (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations of using generic computer components amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claims 2-18 are not patent eligible.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be potentially allowable if amended to overcome the pertinent rejections under section 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to Claim 1, The closest prior arts found during the search are as follows:
Rao (US 20150317602) discloses ranking of candidate talent score as it relates to matching hiring matching description. “The credentials graph may comprise a set of nodes (vertices) and a set of edges connecting nodes in the set of nodes. The credentials graph may be directed or undirected. Each node may represent one or multiple credential areas and/or credentials. An edge between two nodes indicates that the credential areas and/or credentials represented by the two nodes are related. Each edge may be associated with a weight. Accordingly, the data structure(s) representing the graph may encode the graph's vertices, edges, and weights. Any of numerous data structures for encoding graphs may be used to encode the credentials graph, as aspects of the technology described herein are not limited in this respect.” See para 0080, 00162, 0185-0186, 0191-0192, 0245 and figs. 9-10, 12, 14 and 19 for details.
Geurts US 20160147738- discloses machine translation, and providing ranked alternatives that may be matched to translation requirements of education service provider, see para 0022, 0081 and 0122 for details.
Tamir US 20150193850 – discloses network based service matching, and providing the translated linguistic document to particular service provider for enhancement. See para 0041, 0046-047, and 0076 for details.
Dabney US 10755177 – discloses voice user interface knowledge acquisition system that determines semantic meanings that are conceptually similar will be in proximity of each other, such that distance between concepts is measure by number of nodes between them. See col. 3, lines 28-34 for details.
Bastide US 20170076244 – discloses generating a recommendation regarding member of an organization, that node relationship represented as an edge and title indicating a skill corresponding to a foreign translator job title to create a custom skills map providing the objective measurement of service provider knowledge. See para 0049 and 0059 for details.
Although the combined references appears to teach bits and pieces of the claimed elements in aggregate, however it may not be obvious or reasonable to apply such combination in order to arrive at the claim as specially recited.
Notwithstanding, said aforementioned teachings of prior art cited is respectfully reconsidered and found to fail to teach or fairly suggest either individually or in a reasonable combination the presented limitations in claim 1, as specifically recited. Other independent claims 19 and 20 although in different statutory categories, they recite similar elements as claim 1, therefore similar rationale can be applied. Further, dependent claims 2-18 depend on and further limit claim 1, therefore they also contain potentially allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Palaic US 20200273064 – discloses online advertising campaign, using taxonomy as directed acyclic graph (DAG) to match service category or product. See para 0101, 0103 and figs. 5 and 6 for additional details.
Delgo US 20180232443- discloses intelligent matching system using ontology based relation extraction, see para 0031, 0036-0039, 0062-0064, 0071-0082, 0106-0117, 0147-0152, and figs 7 and 8 for additional details.
Liu US 20170235824 – discloses semantic category classification for matching listing to product category. See para 0029, 0053-0056, 0063, 0076, 0080, 0089, 0096, 0107-0110, 0125, 0129 and 0148 for additional details.
Liu, L., Yao, X., Qin, L., & Zhang, M. (2014, July). Ontology-based service matching in cloud computing. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE) (pp. 2544-2550). IEEE.- discloses using ontology for service discovery to enhance service semantic information, containing set of concepts for similarity reasoning, it further disclose service ranking by applying weighted metrics. See Abstract, and sections 3 and 4 for additional details.
Shu, G., Rana, O. F., Avis, N. J., & Dingfang, C. (2007). Ontology-based semantic matchmaking approach. Advances in engineering software, 38(1), 59-67. – discloses web service matching involving using ontology based semantic matchmaking approach that use of OWL web ontology language to represent meaning of terms in vocabularies and relationship between those terms, it also teaches description logics, such as subsumption, conjunction and disjunction. See Abstract, and sections 3-4 and figs 1 for additional details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip H Lam whose telephone number is (571)272-1721. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-2 PM Pacific time.
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 on 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.
/PHILIP H LAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights