DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed April 13, 2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, of which claims 1-6,8-9 and 11-20 are currently rejected.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 5A-5E contain numerous legibility issues regarding the content displayed. It is unclear if the Figures are blurry screenshots as well as what content is actually being shown. Black and white lined drawings would be far more legible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 is directed to a method that recites to optional limitation. The conditional nature of this claim language allow for an interpretation where any prior art meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim with only a single limitation of the claim occurring. Therefore, the prior art only needs to read on the “determining an ending event” limitation OR the “displaying at least one content operation option” limitation. See MPEP 2111.04(II); see also Ex parte Schulhauser. Examiner notes that even though the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method of claim(s) 4 requires only one of these conditions, the prior art cited below reads on the structure for performing all of the functionality in the non-method claims, and thus, in an effort to advance compact prosecution, reads on all of the method claim(s) as well.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites “or displaying at least one content operation option in response to the ending event being detected” and this language is conditional and therefore if the ending event has not been determined, then nothing will be displayed in response to it being detected. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Missig et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0356254; hereinafter, “Missig”).
As per claim 1, Missig teaches a method of displaying a text, comprising:
determining, in a process of displaying a text page, a first target position associated with a target triggering operation in response to the target triggering operation being detected, wherein the target triggering operation indicates that a text content combination is to be performed (See Missig Figs. 10II-10OO and paras. [0422-423]: cursor indicating text insertion operation location);
determining a target character content associated with the target triggering operation, in response to a text combination instruction, which is generated based on the target triggering operation, being detected (See Missig Figs. 10II-10OO and paras. [0422-425]: inserting handwritten input that is converted to font-based text at the desired location, thus combining the new text with the previous text); and
adjusting a display position of the target character content to the first target position, so as to combine the target character content with a target text corresponding to the first target position to obtain a combined target text (See Missig Figs. 10II-10OO and paras. [0422-425]: inserting handwritten input that is converted to font-based text at the desired location, thus combining the new text with the previous text while also “snapping” to align the new text into the previous text).
As per claim 2, Missig further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the target triggering operation comprises a text selecting operation and a text dragging operation generated based on the text selecting operation (See Missig Figs. 10HH-10MM and paras. [0421-423]: selecting text, such as the text after the line break, to be dragged and re-aligned with the other text above).
As per claim 3, Missig further teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein determining the first target position associated with the target triggering operation in response to the target triggering operation being detected comprises: determining a drag ending position at which the text dragging operation is ended, in response to the text dragging operation being detected; and determining a nearest character position which satisfies a preset distance threshold condition with respect to the drag ending position, as the first target position (See Missig Figs. 10II-10MM and paras. [0418-422]: user gestures for dragging text and in response to detecting a lift-off (which is an end of a drag operation), the second portion “snaps” with the handwritten input. Additionally, the user input is received at a threshold distance below the previous handwritten input, which is considered a request to insert a new line of text).
As per claim 4, Missig further teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising: determining an ending event in which the text dragging operation is ended as the text combination instruction in response to the ending event being detected; or displaying at least one content operation option in response to the ending event being detected, and determining a selection event, in which a text combination option is selected from the at least one content operation option, as the text combination instruction in response to the selection event (See Missig Figs. 10II-10MM and paras. [0418-422]: user gestures for dragging text and in response to detecting a lift-off (which is an end of a drag operation), the second portion “snaps” with the handwritten input; Figs. 14H-14O and paras. [0608-611]: selectable menu options with redo/undo in related to the text entry/insertion event).
As per claim 5, Missig further teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein determining the target character content associated with the target triggering operation, in response to the text combination instruction, which is generated based on the target triggering operation, being detected comprises: determining as the target character content a character content selected by the text selecting operation, in response to the text combination instruction, which is generated based on the text dragging operation, being detected (See Missig Figs. 10II-10OO and paras. [0422-424]: cursor appears in the location where the inserted text will appear. Furthermore, user input can be made via drag gesture to move text portions; para. [0186]: cursor movement which can adjust the location of the cursor and thus the location where the text will be inserted).
As per claim 6, Missig further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining a character position range of the target character content in a source text; determining, in the source text, a character content behind the character position range as a first candidate content; and adjusting a starting display position of the first candidate content to a starting character position of the character position range (See Missig Figs. 10II-10OO and paras. [0423-424]: cursor appears in the location where the inserted text will appear; para. [0186]: cursor movement which can adjust the location of the cursor and thus the location where the text will be inserted).
As per claim 8, Missig further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: displaying the target character content in a first display mode, and displaying the target text in a second display mode, wherein the first display mode is different from the second display mode (See Missig Figs. 10HH-10MM and paras. [0421-424]: at cursor, the inserted text is displayed as handwritten versus the existing text as font-based).
As per claim 9, Missig further teaches a method of displaying a text, comprising: determining, in a process of displaying a text page, a target character content, to which a text combination cancellation is to be performed, in a combined target text and a character position range of the target character content in a source text, in response to a text combination cancellation instruction for the combined target text being detected; and adjusting a display position of the target character content according to the character position range, so as to cancel a combination of the target character content from the combined target text, wherein the combined target text is obtained by the method according to claim 1 (See Missig Figs. 10II-10OO, 14O, and paras. [0422-424] and [0609]: user can determine target place of insertion based on cursor location and insert the text accordingly. An undo option 1422-1 is available which would “undo the most recently performed function or operation”, which includes the entry/insertion of the text string, thus undoing the entry of the text at the cursor location).
As per claim 11, Missig further teaches the method according to claim 9, further comprising: determining, according to a current position range of the target character content in the combined target text, a character content behind the current position range as a fourth candidate content; and adjusting a starting display position of the fourth candidate content to a starting character position of the current position range (See Missig Figs. 10II-10OO and paras. [0423-424]: cursor appears in the location where the inserted text will appear; para. [0186]: cursor movement which can adjust the location of the cursor and thus the location where the text will be inserted)
As per claims 12-17, the claims are directed to an electronic device that implements the same features as the method of claims 1-6, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, Missig teaches an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to implement said method(s) (See Missig paras. [0178-180]).
As per claim 18, the claim is directed to an electronic device that implements the same features as the method of claim 9, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, Missig teaches an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to implement said method (See Missig paras. [0178-180]).
As per claim 19, the claim is directed to a computer-readable storage medium that implements the same features as the method of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, Missig teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer instructions are configured to cause a computer to implement said method (See Missig paras. [0178-180]).
As per claim 20, Missig further teaches the claim is directed to a computer-readable storage medium that implements the same features as the method of claim 9, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, Missig teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer instructions are configured to cause a computer to implement said method (See Missig paras. [0178-180]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claims 7 and 10, the claims are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Specifically, while the prior art of record discloses a starting character position, such as the cursor and point of insertion of Missig, the prior art of record does not explicitly adjust the starting display position according to the starting character position and a character length of the target content (emphasis added). These features, combined with the intervening features of the claimsets, define patentability over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Griffin et al. (U.S. 2020/0326841) discloses various gestures for text selection and manipulation, including cut/copy and paste operations and other text-specific operations like editing text, as well as undoing/deleting changes to the text; and
Tan et al. (U.S. 2012/0306772) discloses gestures to highlight and cutting selected text to paste over selected text. This includes distance measurements as they relate to the starting location of the gesture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights