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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 1/15/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the objection and rejections under 112(b) noted in the previous Office Action. Claims 1-2, 4, 10-12, 14-19, and 23-26 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with the Amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
While Fukunaga may temporarily save word-level data during a word extraction or matching process, such saving is intermediate and incidental, intended solely to facilitate later concatenation and matching operations. Ultimately, the recognition output in Fukunaga is stored as a single, unified text data object (e.g., meeting information), rather than as distinct, persistently stored word trajectories corresponding to individual words from an intermediate recognition result.
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. First, there is nothing in the claim that recites that the word trajectory cannot be ultimately stored in some other form. Second, it is not clear that the “retained words” of Fukunaga are no longer retained after the words are “connected” “to generate the second text data” (Fukunaga, Fig. 14 with ¶0183). Fukunaga does not appear to recite a “unified text data object” as argued above, and does not appear to recite that the “retained words” are somehow lost at any part of the process. Fukunaga recites that the words are recognized and retained.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that Sugiura discloses maintaining a recognition of text in the form of “word units” for the purpose of erasure (Sugiura, at least ¶0061).
Applicant argues that:
Sugiura discloses large-scale erasure operations based on the size and pressure of an erasure stroke. When the erasure stroke is relatively small, only strokes intersecting the erasure gesture are erased. When the erasure stroke is relatively large, Sugiura determines-based on pressure-whether to erase multiple lines or an entire paragraph.
As illustrated in FIGS. 12 and 13 of Sugiura, the scope of erasure is dynamically inferred from physical erasure gesture characteristics, such as stroke span and applied pressure. The system identifies stroke groups to be erased based on spatial coverage and pressure thresholds, not based on pre-associated labels. Fig. 12 has been reproduced below for convenience:
…
As shown in FIG.13, the erasure action performed by the user also spans two lines
of characters, and the pressure applied during the erasure action exceeds the threshold pressure. In this case, an erasure area larger than the one shown on the right side of FIG.12, for example three lines of characters, will be identified, and all the stroke groups associated with this erasure area can be erased. Fig. 13 is reproduced below for convenience:
…
In contrast, the subject matter of claim 1 associates word trajectories with explicit labels, such as row information, paragraph information, or batch information. During an erasure operation, the system directly erases:
- a first word trajectory intersected by the erasure gesture, and
- a second word trajectory having the same label as the first word trajectory.
This label-based erasure occurs regardless of the size or pressure of the erasure stroke, enabling consistent erasure of full rows, full paragraphs, or full batches.
Moreover, Sugiura does not disclose or suggest batch-based deletion of word trajectories, as Sugiura's stroke groups do not involve batch associations. Accordingly, Sugiura cannot achieve batch-level deletion as required by amended claim 1.
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. The pressure of the stroke does not determine where the erasure stroke is located, it determines the grouping applied to the erasure stroke. For example, at Sugiura states (emphasis added):
[0075] It is furthermore possible to dynamically determine whether stokes should be collectively erased per character unit, word unit, phrase unit (plurality of words), sentence unit, line unit, paragraph unit, or page unit with the use of at least one of the moving speed of the stylus, the moving range (distance) of the stylus, and the pressure exerted when the erasing stroke is given (the pressure of the erasing stroke). For instance, the longer the moving range (distance) of the stylus is, the larger unit may be selected. Similarly, the higher the pressure of the erasing stroke is, the larger unit may be selected.
The increased pressure of the stroke determines how large a batch is selected for batch deletion. Which batch gets selected is based on the erasure stroke location. In the examples shown in Fig. 9, the characters intersected by the erasure stroke are the ones selected for erasure. With pressure, Sugiura is simply disclosing that group the characters belong to (word, sentence, paragraph, page, etc.) can be selected. Sugiura states (emphasis added):
[0079] It should be noted that, when an erasing stroke is given and when the given erasing stroke extends over some handwritten characters, then a technique of erasing not only several handwritten characters that touch the erasing stroke but also some of the rest handwritten characters that do not touch the erasing stroke but are constituents of the words to which the characters touching the erasing stroke belong may be included in a means of determining an object to be erased for a wide-range erasure. Alternatively, when an erasing stroke is given and when the given erasing stroke extends over some words, then it is possible to include in an object to be erased all strokes that constitute a sentence to which the words concerned belong or a line of words to which the words concerned belong. Furthermore, when an erasing stroke is given and when the given erasing stroke extends over some lines, then it is possible to include all the lines that touch the erasing stroke in an object to be erased.
Each of the characters are labeled as belonging to words, lines, paragraphs, etc. When the erasing stroke “touches” one of the characters, the batches that the characters belong to are also selected. Pressure can adjust which labels are selected.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments filed with the Amendment, with respect to rejections under prior art have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, as outlined below.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Fukunaga (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0129800), referred to as Fukunaga herein [previously cited].
Akitomo et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0142952), referred to as Akitomo herein [previously cited].
Sugiura (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0098186), referred to as Sugiura herein [previously cited].
Kumar et a. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0379048), referred to as Kumar herein.
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 14, and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga in view of Sugiura in further view of Kumar.
Regarding claim 1, Fukunaga discloses a handwriting recognition method (Fukunaga, Abstract),
comprising: detecting information of a plurality of trajectory points corresponding to a handwritten trajectory of a user on a handwriting screen, the information comprising a coordinate, the plurality of trajectory points comprising a starting trajectory point and a current trajectory point (Fukunaga, Fig. 10 S1001-S1003, ¶0089-¶090 – coordinate points for stroke information includes currently received points, a starting point (when the finger or device touches the panel) and an end point (when the finger or device lifts off. Timing of each point can also be recorded. ¶0126 – latest stroke information);
determining whether the current trajectory point is an ending trajectory point of the handwritten trajectory written in succession by the user according to a determining condition (Fukunaga, S1003, ¶0155-¶0156 – word extraction unit extracts recognized words from the analyzed text data. Each received current point can be determined to be an end point, and an ending point of a recognized word),
if the current trajectory point meets the determining condition, taking the current trajectory point as the ending trajectory point, and taking trajectory points between the starting trajectory point and the ending trajectory point as first to-be-recognized trajectory points (Fukunaga, S1003, ¶0155-¶0156 – word extraction unit extracts recognized words from the analyzed text data);
recognizing the first to-be-recognized trajectory points
displaying the first text recognition result
comprising storing a plurality of words comprised in the first text recognition result as word trajectories, wherein each word of the plurality of words is separately stored as one word trajectory (Fukunaga, ¶0119-¶0120 – stroke batch information is used to assemble characters. ¶0158 – character batch information is used to assemble words. ¶0183 – retained words can be connected in batch. ¶0156-¶0157 - stroke information is included in stored words. See also ¶0204-¶0205); and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sugiura discloses processing handwriting input (Suguira, Abstract), including
receiving an erasure operation of the user on a target text in the first text recognition result (Sugiura, Abstract – erasure gesture),
receiving an erasure operation of the user on a target text in the first text recognition result, and erasing the target text, wherein the erasure operation comprises an erasure gesture, and the erasing the target text comprises erasing a first word trajectory intersected with the trajectory of the erasure gesture and erasing a second word trajectory having a same label as the first word trajectory, the label comprises row information, paragraph information, or batch information of a word trajectory (Sugiura, ¶0061-¶0066, ¶0075, ¶0095-¶0098, ¶0116, ¶0138-¶0139 – erasure gestures correspond to units (labels) corresponding to individual characters, words, phrases, sentences, lines (rows), paragraph, or page).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the handwriting recognition of Fukunaga to include unit erasure gestures based on the teachings of Sugiura. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to quickly and easily delete desired blocks of text (Sugiura, ¶0004-¶0005).
However, Fukunaga as modified appears not to expressly disclose real-time. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kumar discloses converting and displaying handwritten text (Kumar, Abstract), including
recognizing the first to-be-recognized trajectory points in real time and displaying the first text recognition result in real time (Kumar, Fig. 4 with ¶0029-¶0031, ¶0063, ¶0097 – real-time conversation of received handwriting to the machine text based on identification of association of original text with the corresponding font characters as the original text is being created).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the handwriting recognition of Fukunaga to include real time conversion based on the teachings of Kumar. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to scribble notes quickly without concern for legibility while quickly providing a clean legible result, minimizing the burden on the user and improving responsiveness (Kumar, ¶0097).
Regarding claim 2, Fukunaga as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the information further comprises a user writing state, which comprises pen-starting, pen-moving or pen-lifting, the determining condition is that no new trajectory point is detected within a preset duration after a pen-lifting moment of the current trajectory point, and the starting trajectory point is a next trajectory point of a last trajectory point inputted to the text recognition model last time, or a first trajectory point of the handwriting screen (Fukunaga, ¶0118-¶0119 – time period from the pointer device leaving and touching the panel is recorded. When the time period exceeds a preset duration, the stroke input is completed. ¶0120 – multiple characters are input).
Regarding claim 4, Fukunaga as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the displaying the first text recognition result in a form of print in a first display area of the handwriting screen comprises: separately drawing each word comprised in the first text recognition result (Fukunaga, ¶0155-¶0159 – word extraction unit extracts recognized words from the analyzed text data and outputs the recognized word).
Regarding claim 14, Fukunaga as modified discloses the handwriting recognition method according to claim 1, further comprising: detecting information of second to-be-recognized trajectory points corresponding to a handwritten trajectory of the user on the handwriting screen, the information comprising a coordinate, the second to-be-recognized trajectory points comprising a starting trajectory point and an ending trajectory point; determining whether a current trajectory point is the ending trajectory point of the second to-be-recognized trajectory points according to the determining condition, if the current trajectory point meets the determining condition, taking the current trajectory point as the ending trajectory point of the second to-be-recognized trajectory points, and taking trajectory points between the starting trajectory point and the ending trajectory point as the second to-be-recognized trajectory points (Fukunaga, Fig. 10 S1001-S1003, ¶0089-¶0090 – coordinate points for stroke information includes currently received points, a starting point (when the finger or device touches the panel) and an end point (when the finger or device lifts off. Timing of each point can also be recorded). Fig. 10 with ¶0138-¶0139– loop is repeated);
recognizing the second to-be-recognized trajectory points by using the text recognition model to obtain a second text recognition result; and displaying the second text recognition result in a form of print in a second display area (Fukunaga, ¶0042 – displaying the recognized handwritten text with improved legibility).
Regarding claim 23, Fukunaga as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses an interactive display, comprising a display, a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions stored on the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the program or instructions, when executed by the processor, implement the steps of the handwriting recognition method according to claim 1 (Fukunaga, Fig. 3 with ¶0032, ¶0042, ¶0051-¶0056 – touch screen display and processor executing program instructions stored in hardware memory).
Regarding claim 24, Fukunaga as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses a non-transitory readable storage medium, wherein the readable storage medium has thereon stored a program or instructions, wherein the program or instructions, when executed by a processor, implement the steps of the handwriting recognition method according to claim 1 (Fukunaga, Fig. 3 with ¶0032, ¶0042, ¶0051-¶0056 – touch screen display and processor executing program instructions stored in hardware memory).
Regarding claim 25, Fukunaga as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses a handwriting recognition apparatus, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to perform, based on instructions stored in the memory, one or more steps of the handwriting recognition method according to claim 1 (Fukunaga, Fig. 3 with ¶0032, ¶0042, ¶0051-¶0056 – touch screen display and processor executing program instructions stored in hardware memory).
Regarding claim 26, Fukunaga as modified discloses the elements of claim 25 above, and further discloses a handwriting recognition system, comprising the handwriting recognition apparatus according to claim 25, wherein the processor comprises: a first processor located on a server side and configured to recognize the first to-be-recognized trajectory points by using the text recognition model to obtain the first text recognition result; and a second processor located on a terminal side and configured to draw words comprised in the first text recognition result one by one and store each word as one word trajectory (Fukunaga, Abstract with Figs. 2-3 with ¶0048-¶0056 – processor executing program instructions stored in hardware memory at the board and server to process handwriting inputs. Fig. 10 with ¶0137 -¶0137 – electronic information board receives screen drawing data at the touch display, data is transferred to the server. ¶0074, ¶0079, ¶0167-¶0169 – server converts drawing information into text data. ¶0033-¶0035 – electronic information board. ¶0042 – displaying the recognized handwritten text with improved legibility. ¶0155 – word extraction unit extracts recognized words from the analyzed text data.).
Claim(s) 10-12, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga in view of Sugiura in further view of Kumar in further view of Akitomo.
Regarding claim 10, Fukunaga as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above. However, Fukunaga appears not to expressly disclose wherein the displaying the first text recognition result in a form of print in a first display area of the handwriting screen comprises: performing row division on the first to-be-recognized trajectory points;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Akitomo discloses handwriting recognition (Akitomo, Abstract), including
performing row division on the first to-be-recognized trajectory points; and separately drawing the plurality of words comprised in the first text recognition result row by row according to a result of the row division (Akitomo, Figs. 8-9 with S202 and ¶0068-¶0076 – text is determined to be within the same row if the vertical center based on the height dimensions of the text is within range of the height dimensions of other text. If it is within the same row, alignment adjustment is performed. Figs. 11-14 with ¶0067-¶0079 – when text objects are not within range of each other, they are not aligned. When the vertical center of the text is not without the bounds of another text object, but the object is within range, it is arranged in a column. If the vertical center is within bounds and the object is within range, the objects are aligned in a row).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the handwriting recognition of Fukunaga to include adjustment based on height based on the teachings of Akitomo. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve display quality of handwritten objects while preserving the intended layout (Akitomo, ¶0009).
Regarding claim 11, Fukunaga as modified discloses the elements of claim 10 above, and further discloses wherein the performing row division on the first to-be-recognized trajectory points comprises: dividing the first to-be-recognized trajectory points into the plurality of words according to the information of the trajectory points in the first to-be-recognized trajectory points; and
Regarding claim 12, Fukunaga as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the determining whether two adjacent words are in a same row comprises: determining whether the two adjacent words are in the same row according to a height and a position coordinate of the second word and a height and a position coordinate of the first word (Akitomo, Figs. 8-9 with S202 and ¶0068-¶0076 – text is determined to be within the same row if the vertical center based on the height dimensions of the text is within range of the height dimensions of other text. If it is within the same row, alignment adjustment is performed).
Regarding claim 15, Fukunaga as modified discloses the elements of claim 14 above. However, Fukunaga appears not to expressly disclose wherein the displaying the second text recognition result in a form of print in a second display area comprises: acquiring display information of the first display area, the display information comprising a size of a font and a coordinate; determining the second display area according to the display information; and displaying the second text recognition result in the form of print in the second display area, a size of a font in the second text recognition result being the same as the size of the font in the first text recognition result, a word in the second text recognition result being aligned with a word in the first text recognition result.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Akitomo discloses handwriting recognition (Akitomo, Abstract), including
acquiring display information of the first display area, the display information comprising a size of a font and a coordinate; determining the second display area according to the display information; and displaying the second text recognition result in the form of print in the second display area, a size of a font in the second text recognition result being the same as the size of the font in the first text recognition result, a word in the second text recognition result being aligned with a word in the first text recognition result (Akitomo, Abstract with Figs. 7-9 with S202 and ¶0057-¶0058, ¶0063-¶0064, ¶0068-¶0076 – text is determined to be within the same row if the vertical center based on the height dimensions of the text is within range of the height dimensions of other text. If it is within the same row, alignment adjustment is performed. Font size is determined to be the same as previous inputs depending on whether the characteristics of additional input is within a threshold of the previous input).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the handwriting recognition of Fukunaga to include font and position alignment based on the teachings of Akitomo. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve display quality of handwritten objects while preserving the intended layout (Akitomo, ¶0009).
Regarding claim 16, Fukunaga as modified discloses the elements of claim 15 above, and further discloses wherein the displaying the second text recognition result in a form of print in a second display area comprises: determining whether the word in the second text recognition result is in the same row as the word in the first text recognition result; and if the determining result is yes, displaying the word in the second text recognition result in the same row as the word in the first text recognition result (Akitomo, Figs. 8-9 with S202 and ¶0068-¶0076 – text is determined to be within the same row if the vertical center based on the height dimensions of the text is within range of the height dimensions of other text. If it is within the same row, alignment adjustment is performed).
Regarding claim 17, Fukunaga as modified discloses the elements of claim 16 above, and further discloses wherein the determining whether the word in the second text recognition result is in the same row as the word in the first text recognition result comprises: determining whether the word in the second text recognition result is in the same row as the word in the first text recognition result according to a position coordinate of the word in the second text recognition result and a position coordinate of the word in the first text recognition result (Akitomo, Figs. 8-9 with S202 and ¶0068-¶0076 – text is determined to be within the same row if the vertical center based on the height dimensions of the text is within range of the height dimensions of other text. If it is within the same row, alignment adjustment is performed).
Regarding claim 18, Fukunaga as modified discloses the elements of claim 17 above, and further discloses wherein the determining whether the word in the second text recognition result is in the same row as the word in the first text recognition result comprises: determining whether a first space between the word in the second text recognition result and the word in the first text recognition result in a row direction of the text is less than a first threshold and whether a second space between the word in the second text recognition result and the word in the first text recognition result in a column direction of the text is less than a second threshold, according to the position coordinate of the word in the second text recognition result and the position coordinate of the word in the first text recognition result; and determining that the word in the second text recognition result is in the same row as the word in the first text recognition result in the case where the first space is less than the first threshold and the second space is less than the second threshold (Akitomo, Figs. 8-9 with S202 and ¶0068-¶0076 – text is determined to be within the same row if the vertical center based on the height dimensions of the text is within range of the height dimensions of other text. If it is within the same row, alignment adjustment is performed. Figs. 11-14 with ¶0067-¶0079 – when text objects are not within range of each other, they are not aligned. When the vertical center of the text is not without the bounds of another text object, but the object is within range, it is arranged in a column. If the vertical center is within bounds and the object is within range, the objects are aligned in a row).
Regarding claim 19, Fukunaga as modified discloses the elements of claim 18 above, and further discloses wherein: the first threshold is in positive correlation with a width of the word in the second text recognition result; and/or the second threshold is in positive correlation with a height of the word in the first text recognition result (Akitomo, Figs. 8-9 with S202 and ¶0068-¶0076 – text is determined to be within the same row if the vertical center based on the height dimensions of the text is within range of the height dimensions of other text. If it is within the same row, alignment adjustment is performed. Figs. 11-14 with ¶0067-¶0079 – when text objects are not within range of each other, they are not aligned. When the vertical center of the text is not without the bounds of another text object, but the object is within range, it is arranged in a column. If the vertical center is within bounds and the object is within range, the objects are aligned in a row).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain 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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights