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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 08/27/2025 has been considered and entered. Accordingly, claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 12-22 are pending in this application. Claims 8 and 11 are cancelled; claims 12-22 are new; claims 7, 9, and 10 are currently amended; claims 1-6 are original.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/28/2025 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 7 and 17, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the search field generated by the user.” Parent claims 1 and 9 recite “generating a search field,” but are silent with respect to it being generated by a user as is specifically required in claims 7 and 17. It is unclear whether another search field is intended to be referred to that is generated by a user, or if Applicant intended the search field of parent claims 1 and 9 to be generated by a user. The scope of the claims can not be properly ascertained, rendering them indefinite.
As to claims 7 and 17, at lines and 11 each, the claim ends with “the search field.” It is unclear what “search field” is being referred to. Claims 7 and 17 each previously make multiple references to “the search field generated by the user.” In addition, parent claims 1 and 9 each refer to a “search field.” Given the lack of clarity previously discussed, it is unclear what search field is being referred to, or if it is intended to be the same search field. Accordingly, the scope of the claims can not be properly ascertained, rendering them indefinite.
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 10 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claim 10 is directed to a “computer-readable storage medium”. Paragraph [0140] describes a machine-readable medium as on that can “store” a program. Furthermore, while the paragraph does recite separate “machine-readable signal medium” and “machine-readable storage medium”, neither the paragraph nor rest of the specification describe any structural difference between the two, nor does the specification explicitly prohibit a machine-readable storage medium from including a machine-readable signal medium. Additionally, since both are a machine-readable medium which can store program code, the disclosed machine-readable signal medium can also store code making it analogous to a machine-readable storage medium. Accordingly, claim 10, and by extension dependent claims 18-22, are reasonably interpreted as embodying transitory media and thus not statutory under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (US 8,639,701 B1), hereinafter Lim.
As to claim 1, Lim discloses a content search method, comprising:
acquiring search information input by a user in response to a search operation triggered by the user (Figs. 6-7; Col. 4, Lines 24-31; Col. 5, Lines 22-34; Col. 9, Lines 49-61, E.g. A user selects “translated foreign pages” as a search operation trigger. In response, search information input by the user is acquired from search field 604.);
generating a search field based on the search information (Figs. 2 and 7, #206; Col. 4, Lines 42-55; A search field, e.g. a translated query, is generated based on the user supplied search information, e.g. the query in 604.);
searching for data information matched with the search field to obtain a search result (Figs. 2 and 7, #208; Col. 4, Lines 56-67; Information in databases maintained by a search system for each language is searched for data matching the translated queries.);
determining a system language corresponding to a terminal device of the user (Fig. 7; Col. 5, Lines 15-23; Col. 10, Lines 11-18, The input language of the user provided via the terminal device of the user providing the inputs, and thus corresponding to a terminal device of the user, is determined for translating results back into said input language.); and
displaying the search result matched with the system language in a display interface (Figs. 2 and 7, #210 and 702; Col. 5, Lines 1-23; Col. 10, Lines 1-18, The matching results are displayed in area 702, translated to match with the system language.).
As to claim 9, Lim discloses an electronic device, comprising at least one processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store computer-executable instructions (Col. 12, Lines 35-55); and
the at least one processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions stored in the memory so as to perform a content search method (Col. 12, Lines 35-55), comprising:
acquiring search information input by a user in response to a search operation triggered by the user (Figs. 6-7; Col. 4, Lines 24-31; Col. 5, Lines 22-34; Col. 9, Lines 49-61, E.g. A user selects “translated foreign pages” as a search operation trigger. In response, search information input by the user is acquired from search field 604.);
generating a search field based on the search information (Figs. 2 and 7, #206; Col. 4, Lines 42-55; A search field, e.g. a translated query, is generated based on the user supplied search information, e.g. the query in 604.);
searching for data information matched with the search field to obtain a search result (Figs. 2 and 7, #208; Col. 4, Lines 56-67; Information in databases maintained by a search system for each language is searched for data matching the translated queries.);
determining a system language corresponding to a terminal device of the user (Fig. 7; Col. 5, Lines 15-23; Col. 10, Lines 11-18, The input language of the user provided via the terminal device of the user providing the inputs, and thus corresponding to a terminal device of the user, is determined for translating results back into said input language.); and
displaying the search result matched with the system language in a display interface (Figs. 2 and 7, #210 and 702; Col. 5, Lines 1-23; Col. 10, Lines 1-18, The matching results are displayed in area 702, translated to match with the system language.).
As to claim 10, Lim discloses a computer-readable storage medium having computer- executable instructions stored therein, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by at least one processor, are configured to implement a content search method (Col. 12, Lines 35-67), comprising:
acquiring search information input by a user in response to a search operation triggered by the user (Figs. 6-7; Col. 4, Lines 24-31; Col. 5, Lines 22-34; Col. 9, Lines 49-61, E.g. A user selects “translated foreign pages” as a search operation trigger. In response, search information input by the user is acquired from search field 604.);
generating a search field based on the search information(Figs. 2 and 7, #206; Col. 4, Lines 42-55; A search field, e.g. a translated query, is generated based on the user supplied search information, e.g. the query in 604.);
searching for data information matched with the search field to obtain a search result (Figs. 2 and 7, #208; Col. 4, Lines 56-67; Information in databases maintained by a search system for each language is searched for data matching the translated queries.);
determining a system language corresponding to a terminal device of the user (Fig. 7; Col. 5, Lines 15-23; Col. 10, Lines 11-18, The input language of the user provided via the terminal device of the user providing the inputs, and thus corresponding to a terminal device of the user, is determined for translating results back into said input language.); and
displaying the search result matched with the system language in a display interface (Figs. 2 and 7, #210 and 702; Col. 5, Lines 1-23; Col. 10, Lines 1-18, The matching results are displayed in area 702, translated to match with the system language.).
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 2-7 and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as applied above, and further in view of Cencini (cited in IDS filed 08/28/2025)(US 2006/0277189 A1).
As to claims 2, 12, and 18, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, 9, and 10 above. In addition, Lim discloses wherein the displaying the search result matched with the system language in a display interface comprises:
in response to the language information corresponding to the search result is not matched with the system language, performing a translation operation on the search result according to the system language to obtain a translation result (Fig. 7; Col. 5, Lines 15-22; Col. 10, Lines 11-28, Results that are not in the system language are translated into the system language and displayed.); and
displaying the translation result in the display interface (Fig. 7, #702; Col. 10, Lines 11-28).
Lim does not explicitly disclose detecting whether language information corresponding to the search result is matched with the system language; and in response to the detecting resulting in a search result not matching, performing the translation.
Although it is noted that Lim does enable the system language to be selected as an additional language in the translated foreign pages page (Fig. 10, #1002; Col. 11, Lines 11-21; English is selected which matched the “My Language” selection.), thus enabling documents of the same language to be provided with the search results of other languages. Additionally, Lim discloses that the results of multiple languages can be interleaved into a single tanked list based on respective scores of the results (Col. 5, Lines 9-14). Thus, Lim provides for a single interface presenting both results of the system language as well as other languages.
However, Cencini discloses detecting whether language information corresponding to the search result is matched with the system language (Fig. 5B, #510; [0045], [0047]; Results are determined from a search query, and each result is analyzed to determine if it’s language is that of the system language (e.g. as part of the query inputted by the user and/or other information from the user’s computer [0039], [0044]).);
in response to detecting that the language information corresponding to the search result is not matched with the system language, performing a translation operation on the search result according to the system language to obtain a translation result (Fig. 5B, #514; [0048], If the languages do not match, the result is translated into the user’s language.); and
displaying the translation result in the display interface (Fig. 5B, #518; [0049]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lim with the teachings of Cencini by modifying Lim such that when the user selects documents to be searched in the language of the user’s system in addition to other languages, then the system of Lim detects for each results if it matches the user’s language before attempting to translate them, and then upon determining the language is different, then translate like is done by Cencini. Said artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the unified search results of Lim while attempting to save translation processing resources by determining to only translate results not in the system language.
As to claims 3, 13, and 19, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2, 12, and 18 above. In addition, Lim, as previously modified with Cencini, discloses wherein the performing a translation operation on the search result according to the system language to obtain a translation result comprises:
in response to the system language being a pre-set first language (Lim, Fig. 7 “My Language”; Cencini, [0044], The system language is at least preset by the user.), detecting whether the search result comprises a target keyword (Lim, Col. 8, Lines 2-19, E.g. categories classifying documents; Cencini, [0028], [0039], E.g. metadata of a result document specifying its language, i.e. a keyword, is detected.); and
in response to the search result comprising the target keyword, translating a field, in the search result, other than the target keyword into the first language to obtain the translation result (Cencini, Fig. 5B; [0030], [0048]; Portions of the result document itself, i.e. one or more other fields than the target keyword, are translated. Likewise, this is done with the results of Lim (Lim, Figs. 2 and 7, #210 and 702; Col. 5, Lines 1-23; Col. 10, Lines 1-18).).
As to claims 4, 14, and 20, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2, 12, and 18 above. In addition, Lim, as previously modified with Cencini, discloses wherein after the performing a translation operation on the search result according to the system language to obtain a translation result, the method further comprises:
performing a splicing operation on the translation result and the search result by a pre-set target character to obtain a splicing result (Lim, Figs. 7-8; Col. 10, Lines 28-52, Upon user selection, the original search result and the translation can be spliced together by a pre-set target character, e.g. at least those of “HIDE ORIGINAL TEXT” and/or the character represented by the blank new line separating them, for simultaneous display);
wherein the displaying the search result matched with the system language in a display interface comprises:
displaying the splicing result in the display interface, wherein the splicing result comprises the search result matched with the system language (Lim, Figs. 7-8; Col. 10, Lines 28-52, Upon user selection, the original search result and the translation can be spliced together by a pre-set target character, e.g. at least those of “HIDE ORIGINAL TEXT” and/or the character represented by the blank new line separating them, for simultaneous display as the search result (not translated) matched with the system language result translation.).
As to claims 5, 15, and 21, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 4, 14, and 20 above. In addition, Lim, as previously modified with Cencini, does not explicitly disclose the performing a splicing operation on the translation result and the search result by a pre-set target character to obtain a splicing result comprises:
splicing the translation result at a rear side of the search result by a pre-set first target character to obtain the splicing result;
or splicing the translation result at a lower side of the search result by a pre-set second target character to obtain the splicing result.
Rather Lim discloses splicing the translation result at a higher side of the search result by a pre-set second target character to obtain the splicing result (Lim, Fig. 8; The translation result is below the ).
However, Lim also discloses that the target language search result can be presented in multiple locations, i.e. “inline below the translated search result, without changing any other search results, or can be presented in a separate portion of a user interface presenting the search results” (Lim, Col. 5, Lines 40-44).
Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the placement of the translation could be moved in any location while remaining proximate to the non-translation; e.g. above, below, before, or rear side; without undue experimentation and a reasonable expectation of success by merely adjusting display position code in the web page of Lim, with the motivation to maintain and show the user relevance of the results to each other as is already performed in the exemplary orientation of Lim, e.g. in Fig. 8.
As to claims 6, 16, and 22, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 4, 14, and 20 above. In addition, Lim, as previously modified with Cencini, discloses after the performing a splicing operation on the translation result and the search result by a pre-set target character to obtain a splicing result, the method further comprises:
in response to an editing request triggered by the user for the search result, acquiring the search result in the splicing result according to the target character in the splicing result (Lim, Figs. 9-10; Col. 5, Lines 23-34; Col. 10, Line 43-Col. 11, Line 10; Any time after results are obtained, which includes a user splicing as previously discussed, the user can edit search results by refining the query used to obtain them. E.g. by modifying the translation query using a pre-set trigger to select the translation for editing; or by modifying the languages by using a pre-set trigger to add/remove languages.); and
performing an editing operation on the search result according to a pre-set trigger operation of the user for the search result (Lim, Figs. 9-10; Col. 5, Lines 23-34; Col. 10, Line 43-Col. 11, Line 10; Any time after results are obtained, which includes a user splicing as previously discussed, the user can edit search results by refining the query used to obtain them. E.g. by modifying the translation query using a pre-set trigger to select the translation for editing; or by modifying the languages by using a pre-set trigger to add/remove languages.).
As to claims 7 and 17, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 above. In addition, Lim, as previously modified with Cencini, discloses acquiring the search field generated by the user based on a pre-set content input control in response to a trigger operation of the user for a pre-set translation control (Lim, Figs. 2, 7, and 9, #206; Col. 4, Lines 42-55; Col. 10, Line 53-Col. 11, Line 3; A search field, e.g. a translated query, is generated based on the user supplied search information, e.g. the query in 604. This acquired search field is can be generated by the user via editing the translation as in Fig. 9 #902, and is acquired in response to the user selecting a pre-set content input control, e.g. the search button 904.);
wherein the acquiring the search field generated by the user based on a pre-set content input control in response to a trigger operation of the user for a pre-set translation control comprises:
acquiring an input content generated by the user in response to a content input operation triggered by the user (Lim, Figs. 2, 7, and 9, #206; Col. 4, Lines 42-55; Col. 10, Line 53-Col. 11, Line 3; The edited translated query originates as an input content typed by the user in 902 in response to the user triggering input operation via the edit button 712.);
storing the input content in a pre-set storage path in response to a pre-set trigger operation of the user in a display page (Lim, Fig. 9, The input content is stored in box 902, i.e. a pre-set storage path.); and
acquiring the input content from the pre-set storage path in response to the trigger operation of the user for the translation control, and determining the input content as the search field (Lim, Fig. 9; Col. 10, Line 53-Col. 11, Line 3; The input content is acquired from the box, and processed into a search field for matching results as previously discussed.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 2009/0204389 A1) discloses a search term is translated into at least one foreign language using automatic translation software ("ATS") according to specifications listed with the search request. After the search term is translated, a search with the search term in both native and foreign languages is performed. Once receipt of the outcome of the search, search results are displayed, wherein each entry or document of the search results also includes a brief description presented in the native language.
Zhu (US 2013/0318118 A1) discloses generating a search field based on analysis of a user information input for translation (Figs. 2, 9, and 10).
Kim et al. (US 2022/0327293 A1) discloses translation results next to a system language being separated vertically by a preset character (Fig. 11).
Cuthbert et al. (US 10,496,759 B2) discloses translation results next to a system language being separated vertically by a preset character (Figs. 4-6).
Chin et al. (US 8,799,307 B2) discloses translation results next to a system language being separated horizontally by a preset character (Figs. 3-4A)
Lin (US 2007/0271231 A1) discloses translating a received query to match the languages of different search engines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E RICHARDSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at (571) 272-9782. 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.
/James E Richardson/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights