DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is in response to Application No. 18/395,430 filed 11/22/2023 which claims priority from PCT/CN2022/110316 filed 08/04/2022 and CN202110932864.7 filed 8/13/2021. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment presented on 9/8/2025 which provides amendment to claims 1, 6, 9-11, and 16, and cancelation of claims 7, 14, and 19 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 15-17, and 20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to amended claims 1, 11, and 16 have been considered, however, they are not persuasive.
Applicant first contends “that the above features related to acquisition of recommended text items as recited in the amended claim 1 are not disclosed or suggested by the applied references.”
However, as shown below, previously cited Fatourechi suggests the features missing from the combination of Shu, Brown, and Peleg, including that a popularity threshold is used in recommending text items for tagging content. See the rejections below.
Applicant next contends “the claim 1 features ‘replacing the recommended text items with at least two first associated text items, which are associated with the edited first text, for displaying in the first target area’ are not disclosed or suggested by the combination of Shu, Brown, and Peleg.”
Applicant seems to focus on the assumption that the Examiner is equating input areas 220 and 250 to the claimed text input area. However, as headlined in the previous response from the Examiner: “In Peleg, the workspaces 210/510 is construable to be equivalent to the claimed text input area.” (See Non-Final mailed 6/6/2025). To be clear, the Examiner is not equating input area 220 or 250 to be the text input area. After all, workspaces 210/510 consist of the entire drafted email message. Recall, a user entering text “into a workspace” triggers the writing assistant (Fatourechi, [0103]). A text input cursor can be seen in at least Figures 2a, 2b, and 5a which indicates exactly where the user is editing. Specifically, the cursor in Figure 2h shows where the selected suggestion will be inserted (Figure 2i, see also Figure 2o to 2p). Figures 5a-5f (and even Figures 8a-8d) show the editing via highlighting of text in the middle (not at the least text) of the workspace. It is obvious that Figure 5a could also comprise previously selected suggestions because it is text of an email, which Figures 2a-2p depict a majority of the email being drafted via selection of suggestions. Most importantly, any highlighted content can continue to be edited by the user to update the suggestions (Peleg, [0314], Figure 17, text portion 1730 within a highlighted area 1740 can continue to be edited). All this suggests that previously selected and inserted suggestions can be edited, and subsequently replaced by further suggestions. Therefore, Peleg has many suggestions that indicate that a user can begin entering/editing text where ever the cursor is located (which can include previously selected and entered suggestions), the writing assistant becomes triggered upon the editing, new suggestions can be presented and selected to replace previously selected and entered suggestions. The Examiner maintains that Peleg suggests receiving selection of a suggestion and adding it to content, subsequently receiving edits to that selected suggestion, and receiving and displaying new updated suggestions for selection and insertion into the content. Thus, the combination of at least Shu, Brown and Peleg suggests replacing the recommended text items with at least two first associated text items, which are associated with the edited first text, for displaying in the first target area.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu et al. (US 2020/0242296 A1, from the IDS received 2/22/2024, published 7/30/2020, hereinafter referred to as “Shu”), in view of Brown et al. (US 2020/0364294 A1, hereinafter “Brown”), in view of Peleg et al. (US 2023/0153546 A1, with priority to PCT/US2021/041428 filed 7/13/2021, hereafter referred to as “Peleg”, disclosure is identical, Figures 2a-2k, 5a-5f, [0067]-[0078], [0101]-[0102], [0314]), and further in view of Fatourechi et al. (US 2014/0201180 A1, hereinafter “Fatourechi”).
Regarding claim 1, Shu teaches a text input method, wherein the method comprises: acquiring at least two recommended text items based on a video; displaying the at least two recommended text items in a first target area of an editing page for the video; and More specifically, Figure 2A and 2B depicts prompts of two or more recommended text items for selection to be added to a video (Shu, [0053]-[0056]).
in response to a first trigger operation acting on a first recommended text item of the at least two recommended text items, displaying a first text comprised in the first recommended text item in a text input area of the editing page. More specifically, once a text item is selected, it is displayed in a text input area (Shu, Figures 2A and 2B).
wherein the acquiring the at least two recommended text items based on the video comprises: performing frame extraction on the video: acquiring theme information of the video based on the extracted video frames. More specifically, video frames are extracted, a topic (theme) is determined, two or more text items are recommended pertaining to the topic (Shu, [0045]-[0048], [0053], [0061]-[0063]).
However, Shu may not explicitly teach every aspect of
wherein, the method further comprises, in response to an editing operation on the first text, [showing] at least two first associated text items, which are associated with the…first text, for displaying in the first target area.
Brown discloses a system including an authoring assistance system to: i) receive a node element selected within a content creation user interface (UI) associated with a user device, ii) receive one or more suggested annotation from a content enrichment system based on the selected node element, iii) integrate a UI tagging pane within the content creation UI (Brown abstract). Suggested content tags (recommended text items) 214, 414, 614, 714, 814, 914, and 1014, are sorted by relevance, left to right top to bottom (Brown, at least Figures 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, [0071], [0093], [0121]). The process is depicted going from Figure 4 to 8, where one of the suggested content tags “Physicians” is selected resulting in the rest of the suggested content tags (i.e., other recommended text items “Patient”, “Career”, etc.) shifting up and replacing the position of “Physicians” (Brown, [0116]). Figure 11, depicts the process where a user can manually type into the chosen tags area 1116, and multiple suggestions can be presented on top of the original suggested content tags (Brown, [0126]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Shu and Brown that a method for adding text items to content by selecting a text item from a list would include being able to manually type additional text and receive suggestions that are shown over the previous suggestions, that when selected, will be added to the first target area. With Shu and Brown both disclosing adding text items to content by selecting a text item from a list, and with Brown additionally disclosing the ability to type the text and receive new suggestions based on the typing that are shown over the previous suggestions, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for adding text items to content by selecting a text item from a list would include being able to manually type additional text and receive suggestions that are shown over the previous suggestions, that when selected, will be added to the first target area in order to allow a user to search for text that might not have appeared in the original suggestions. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for adding text items to content by selecting a text item from a list.
However, Shu and Brown may not explicitly teach every aspect of
[the showing is] replacing the recommended text items with [the at least first two associated text items] associated with the edited first text.
Peleg discloses a method including identifying at least one reviewer-generated comment in an electronic document…generating one or more text output options…; causing the one or more text output options to be displayed to a user; receiving an input from the user indicative of a selection of one of the one or more text output options; and automatically revising text implicated by the reviewer-generated comment in accordance with the selected one of the one or more text options (Peleg, abstract). At Figure 2c, the method starts by receiving text typed into field 220, At Figure 2e, suggested text items are presented for selection. The suggested text items continuously update as typing continues as shown in Figures 2f to 2g. At Figures 2h and 2i, a selection of a suggested text item is received and inserted (Peleg, [0067]-[0078]). After the selection, the user may enter additional text in the same area (“continuation of user input field 220” with the “inserted text 245”), resulting in generating new suggestions in the same area as the first suggestions (Peleg, [0077]-[0078], Figures 2j-2k), in other words, replacing the recommended text items with at least two first associated text items, which are associated with the first text, for displaying in the first target area. Additionally, Figures 2i and 2p depict the workspace after initial suggestions have been selected. It is obvious that Figure 5a could also comprise previously selected suggestions because it appears very similar. Figures 5a-5f depict portions of that content (with potentially previously selected suggestions) being highlighted as part of activating the writing assistant and presenting suggestions for selection (Peleg, [0101]-[0103]). Peleg discloses user-highlighting text can trigger the suggestions (Peleg, [0101]-[0103], [0156]-[0158]), and also suggests the highlighted text can be edited (add words, move words, or delete words) which can cause updating of the suggestions (Peleg, [0314]). This suggests a user can highlight any text in a text editor, even text that includes a previously selected suggestion, further add or delete words from the selection, and receive update suggestions for selection and insertion into the content.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Shu and Brown with Peleg that a method for adding text items to content by selecting a text item from a list would include being able to manually type additional text with the previously selected text and receive suggestions that replace the previously generated suggestions in a similar location. With Shu, Brown, and Peleg disclosing adding text items to content by selecting a text item from a list, with Brown disclosing the ability to type the text and receive new suggestions based on the typing that replace the previous suggestions, and with Peleg additionally suggesting selecting suggested text, inserting the selected text into the content, highlighting and editing the content which would include the previously inserted suggestion, receiving further edits to the inserted suggestion, and receiving new updated suggestions for insertion into the content, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for adding text items to content by selecting a text item from a list would include being able to manually type additional text with the previously selected text and receive suggestions that replace the previously generated suggestions in a similar location in order to allow a user to maintain the context of the selections so they can see how they change in response to additional editing. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for adding text items to content by selecting a text item from a list.
However, Shu and Brown with Peleg may not explicitly teach every aspect of
acquiring the at least two recommended text items based on popularity information of each candidate text item in a text library related to the theme information, wherein the at least two recommended text items are candidate text items whose popularity reaches a threshold.
Fatourechi discloses a user uploading a video for sharing on YouTube or other video sharing websites can provide the search engine with metadata relating to the video such as a title, a description, a transcript of the video, and a number of tags or keywords (Fatourechi, [0019]). A user can decide to add one or more of the recommended tags to the Current Tag list for video content. When the user selects one of the Recommended Tags and pulls the selected-recommended-tag on top of a particular Current Tag, the previous current tag is replaced with the selected-recommended-tag from the recommended tag list (Fatourechi, Figure 1, [0023]). Textual information can be extracted from the video itself and using additional information from online websites, can be used in recommendations (Fatourechi, [0040]-[0041], [0043]). The keyword generation operation may utilize a search-volume tag recommendation module to recommend popular search terms (Fatourechi, [0053]). Tags that are deemed “popular” come with the implication of achieving a “threshold” of recognition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Shu, Brown, and Peleg with Fatourechi that a method for adding text items to content by selecting a text item from a list would include that the text items are suggested from a source because their popularity has reached a threshold. With Shu and Fatourechi both disclosing adding text items to content by selecting a text item from a list, and with Fatourechi additionally disclosing that the text items are suggested from a source because their popularity has reached a threshold, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for adding text items to content by selecting a text item from a list would include that the text items are suggested from a source because their popularity has reached a threshold in order to utilize text that is trendy which causes the video to appear associated with trends and have a chance at going viral. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for adding text items to content by selecting a text item from a list.
Regarding claim 2, Shu, Brown, and Peleg with Fatourechi teach the method of claim 1, wherein, the method further comprises:
in response to a second trigger operation acting on a second recommended text item of the at least two recommended text items, replacing the first text with a second text comprised in the second recommended text item, or displaying the second text at an associated position of the first text. More specifically, a user can decide to add one or more of the recommended tags to the Current Tag list for video content. When the user selects one of the Recommended Tags and pulls the selected-recommended-tag on top of a particular Current Tag, the previous current tag is replaced with the selected-recommended-tag from the recommended tag list (Fatourechi, Figure 1, [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Shu, Brown, and Peleg with Fatourechi teach the method of claim 1, wherein, the method further comprises: in response to the first trigger operation acting on the first recommended text item, replacing the first recommended text item with other recommended text items than the first recommended text item for displaying in the first target area. More specifically, the process is depicted going from Figure 4 to 8, where one of the suggested content tags (“Physicians”) is selected resulting in the rest of the suggested content tags (i.e., other recommended text items “Patient”, “Career”, etc.) shifting up and replacing the position of “Physicians” (Brown, [0116]).
Regarding claim 5, Shu, Brown, and Peleg with Fatourechi teach the method of claim 1, wherein, the method further comprises: in response to a third trigger operation acting on a target associated text item of the at least two first associated text items, displaying a third text comprised in the target associated text item in a text input area of the editing page; More specifically, Figure 11, depicts the process where a user can manually type into the chosen tags area 1116, and multiple suggestions can be presented on top of the original suggested content tags (Brown, [0126]). A user can then select one of the new suggestions to insert it in the text area (Brown, [0127]).
acquiring at least two second associated text items based on the third text; and replacing the at least two first associated text items with the at least two second associated text items for displaying in the first target area. More specifically, a user can avoid selecting the first new suggested text from the typing and continue typing further to receive second new suggested text (Brown, [0129]). Additionally, Peleg Figures 2e-2g depict how additional typing changes the suggestions (Peleg, Figures 2e-2g).
Regarding claim 6, Shu, Brown, and Peleg with Fatourechi teach the method of claim 1, wherein, the recommended text items may be sorted and displayed in the first target area based on the relevance of each associated text item to the video and/or the popularity of each recommended text item; and/or, the associated text items may be sorted and displayed in the first target area based on the relevance of each associated text item to the video and/or the popularity of each associated text item. More specifically, the list of suggested text is ordered based on the weight (e.g., a relevancy score or the like) associated with each annotation at block (Brown, at least [0054], [0057], [0071], [0121]).
Regarding claim 8, Shu, Brown, and Peleg with Fatourechi teach the method of claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein, the method further comprises:
displaying a copywriting library control at a target position of the editing page;
in response to a trigger operation acting on the copywriting library control, displaying preset copywritings in a second target area of the editing page; and
in response to a fourth trigger operation for a target preset copywriting of the preset copywritings, displaying the target preset copywriting in a text input area of the editing page.
It is worth noting that Applicant’s specification does not appear to define what a “copywriting library” contains other than to say it contains “preset copywritings”. However, “preset copywritings” are not defined either for that matter. Figure 3 depicts the initial process of entering a tagging/annotating user interface using control 308, construed as the copywriting library control, when selected shows the interface of Figure 4. The suggested content tags in pane 402 displays what is construable as preset copywritings. Selections of the suggestions enter the text in text area 416 (Brown, [0062]-[0067]). At least Figure 4 depicts two category controls 408 and 410 (copywriting category labels) to change the category of suggested texts (preset copywritings) to be applied (Brown, [0063]-[0081]).
Regarding claim 9, Shu, Brown, and Peleg with Fatourechi teach the method of claim 8, wherein, the method further comprises: displaying at least two copywriting category labels in a third target area of the editing page; and in response to a fifth triggering operation acting on the target copywriting category label of the at least two copywriting category labels, displaying preset copywritings under the target copywriting category label in the second target area. More specifically, Figure 3 depicts the initial process of entering a tagging/annotating user interface using control 308, construed as the copywriting library control, when selected shows the interface of Figure 4. The suggested content tags in pane 402 displays what is construable as preset copywritings. Selections of the suggestions enter the text in text area 416 (Brown, [0062]-[0067]). At least Figure 4 depicts two category controls 408 and 410 (copywriting category labels) to change the category of suggested texts (preset copywritings) to be applied (Brown, [0063]-[0081]).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, these claims recite the electronic device that performs the steps of the method of claims 1 and 8, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 12, Shu, Brown, and Peleg with Fatourechi teach the electronic device of claim 11, wherein, the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement: in response to a second trigger operation acting on a second recommended text item of the at least two recommended text items, replacing the first text with a second text comprised in the second recommended text item, or displaying the second text at an associated position of the first text; and/or in response to the first trigger operation acting on the first recommended text item, replacing the first recommended text item with other recommended text items than the first recommended text item for displaying in the first target area. More specifically, the process is depicted going from Figure 4 to 8, where one of the suggested content tags “Physicians” is selected resulting the display of “Physicians” in the text area 816 (displaying the second text at an associated position of the first text), and also resulting in the rest of the suggested content tags (i.e., other recommended text items “Patient”, “Career”, etc.) shifting up and replacing the position of “Physicians” (replacing the first recommended text item with other recommended text items) (Brown, [0116]).
Regarding claims 16 and 20, these claims recite the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions for performing the steps of the method of claims 1 and 8, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions for performing the steps performed by the electronic device of claim 12, therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applicable.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu, Brown, Peleg, and Fatourechi, and further in view of Johnson (US 2016/0110031 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Shu, Brown, and Peleg with Fatourechi teach the method of claim 1, however, may not explicitly teach every aspect of wherein, the method further comprises: if the operation of acquiring at least two recommended text items based on the video to be edited fails, displaying preset text items in the first target area.
Johnson discloses an apparatus includes a tag module that presents a plurality of graphical tags for a content element. The one or more graphical tags include information related to the content element. An apparatus includes an assignment module that associates one or more graphical tags with the content element in response to user input (Johnson, abstract). The content element comprises one or more of a photograph, a video, an audio file, and a document (Johnson, [0007]). The tag module 202, in one embodiment, presents one or more general-use graphical tags. General-use graphical tags may comprise default graphical tags that are not created by a user nor created based on a particular content element (Johnson, [0053], default/general use tags are interpreted as alternative preset tags).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Shu, Brown, Peleg, and Fatourechi with Johnson that a method for adding text items to content by selecting a text item from a list would include presenting default or preset items for tagging/annotating in leu of recommended text items. With Shu and Johnson both disclosing adding text items to content by selecting a text item from a list, and with Johnson additionally disclosing presenting default/general-use tags for selection in addition to any recommended tags, one of ordinary skill in the art of implementing a method for adding text items to content by selecting a text item from a list would include presenting default or preset items for tagging/annotating in leu of recommended text items in case the recommended tags fail to be satisfactory to the user. One would therefore be motivated to combine these teachings as in doing so would create this method for adding text items to content by selecting a text item from a list.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Eleftheriou (US 2015/0121285 A1) – after a suggested word correction is selected by a user and inserted into content, the user can place the cursor within the inserted word correction, continue editing (adding/deleting characters), and be presented with different suggested corrections ([0048], Figures 7-12).
Chen (US 2021/0248198 A1) – user interface that presents recommended tag lists for selection.
Navanageri (US 2016/0259862 A1) – user interface that presents tag lists for selection.
Barak (US 2013/0262588 A1) - user interface that presents tag lists for selection.
Bachman (US 2013/0275880 A1) – presenting new suggested tags after a selection of one is received.
Parande (US 10,678,402 B1) – presenting new suggested texts after a selection of one is received.
Kantor (US 2020/00250279 A1) – presenting new suggested texts as a user continues typing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F RIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm, ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Ell can be reached at (571) 270-3264. 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.
/PATRICK F RIEGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171