Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received on 06/18/2026 for application number 18/429,285.
Response to Amendments
3. The Amendment filed 06/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12, 16, and 17 have been amended. Claims 18-39 have been added. Claims 1-12 and 16-39 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that applied references do not disclose or teach each and every feature as recited in independent claims 1, 11, 12. However, the argument is moot since this is a newly presented limitation, thus changes the scope of the claims. However, newly found references, Yekutieli and Shi, are applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The newly added recitation of “wherein the determination that the second input is detected the second amount of time after the first input is detected includes a determination that the second amount of time is greater than a threshold amount of time” within claim 16 appear to constitute new matter. In particular, the amended limitation requires the second amount of time to be greater than a threshold amount of time, while the specification consistently teaches the opposite relationship for whole series deletion. Specifically, the specification teaches that when the subsequent input occurs within or less than the threshold, the device deletes the entire word or series, whereas when the subsequent input occurs after or greater than the threshold, the device initially deletes only a single character.
The newly added recitation of “wherein the determination that the second input is detected the first amount of time after the first input is detected includes a determination that the first amount of time is less than a threshold amount of time” within claim 17 appear to constitute new matter. In particular, the amended limitation requires the first amount of time to be less than a threshold amount of time, while the specification consistently teaches the opposite relationship for single character deletion. Specifically, the specification teaches that when the subsequent input occurs within or less than the threshold, the device deletes the entire word or series, whereas when the subsequent input occurs after or greater than the threshold, the device initially deletes only a single character”.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 1, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 25, 27, 28, 36, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yekutieli (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 20160179214 A1) in view of Shi et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 8949731 A1).
Claim 1: Yekutieli teaches a method, comprising:
at an electronic device that includes a display and an input device (i.e. fig. 1, The inventive method may be implemented on a smartphone, a personal computer, tablet, laptop, or any other computing device having keyboard input, be it through a physical or virtual keyboard of any type; para. [0018]):
displaying, via the display, a text-input area including (1) a series of characters and (2) the last character of the series of characters (i.e. The use of ‘backspace analysis’ is illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2. In FIG. 1, a series of sentence fragments is shown at three subsequent stages during typing; para. [0021]);
while displaying the text-input area including the series of characters and the last character of the series of characters (i.e. The use of ‘backspace analysis’ is illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2. In FIG. 1, a series of sentence fragments is shown at three subsequent stages during typing; para. [0021]) and after detecting, via the input device, a first input corresponding to a request to delete (i.e. The first level of the invention involves analysis of the use of single backspace strokes, to record errors on the level of single letters. These backstrokes are used to correct single-letter mistakes caused by ‘clumsy fingers’. Alternatively, the typist may have intentionally typed objectively incorrect keystrokes such as those involved in spelling mistakes, where the typist thinks the word is spelled otherwise than it actually it is; para. [0016]), detecting, via the input device, a second input corresponding to a request to delete, the second input separate from the first input (i.e. Another embodiment involves analysis of the use of multiple backspace strokes such as those employed to erase an entire word or phrase. These will result from changes in phraseology or mistakes and/or revisions in grammar, and are thus qualitatively different from the ‘single-backspace’ mistakes referred to previously; para. [0017]); and
in response to detecting the second input: in accordance with a determination that the second input is detected after the first input is detected, displaying, via the display, the text-input area including the series of characters without the last character of the series of characters (i.e. The first level of the invention involves analysis of the use of single backspace strokes, to record errors on the level of single letters. These backstrokes are used to correct single-letter mistakes caused by ‘clumsy fingers’. Alternatively, the typist may have intentionally typed objectively incorrect keystrokes such as those involved in spelling mistakes, where the typist thinks the word is spelled otherwise than it actually it is; para. [0016, 0018]); and
in accordance with a determination that the second input is detected after the first input is detected, displaying, via the display, the text-input area without the series of characters (i.e. Another embodiment involves analysis of the use of multiple backspace strokes such as those employed to erase an entire word or phrase. These will result from changes in phraseology or mistakes and/or revisions in grammar, and are thus qualitatively different from the ‘single-backspace’ mistakes referred to previously; para. [0017, 0018]).
Yekutieli does not explicitly teach a cursor after the last character; in response to detecting the second input: in accordance with a determination that the second input is detected a first amount of time after the first input is detected; in accordance with a determination that the second input is detected a second amount of time after the first input is detected, wherein the second amount of time is different from the first amount of time.
However, Shi teaches displaying, via the display, a text-input area including (1) a series of characters and (2) a cursor after the last character of the series of characters (i.e. figs. 1, 5, backspace processing involves backspacing over the character that is to the left of the current position of the cursor; Col. 3, lines 52-57); while displaying the text-input area including the series of characters and the cursor after the last character of the series of characters and after detecting, via the input device, a first input corresponding to a request to delete, detecting, via the input device, a second input corresponding to a request to delete (i.e. different backspace processing depending on whether the BACKSPACE key was single-tapped or double-tapped; col. 5, lines 15-18), the second input separate from the first input (i.e. A single-tap gesture may be single touch on the touchscreen display 102. A double-tap gesture may be two consecutive touches on the touchscreen display, separated in time by a predetermined period of time called the double-tap delay. As will be discussed below, a user may configure a value for the double-tap delay; col. 2, lines 46-57); and in response to detecting the second input: in accordance with a determination that the second input is detected a first amount of time after the first input is detected (i.e. If the amount of time between two consecutive single touches exceeds the double-tap delay, the computing device 100 may detect two single-tap gestures; col. 6, lines 37-47), displaying, via the display, the text-input area including the series of characters without the last character of the series of characters (i.e. If, at 308, the single-tap gesture was performed on the BACKSPACE key, then at 312, the computing device 100 may determine whether the character to be backspaced over is an initial character (e.g., displayed per processing at 310) or an alternate character (e.g., displayed per processing of 322). If the displayed character is an initial character, then at 314, the computing device 100 may backspace over the initial character, as explained above; e.g., the displayed character is deleted from the touchscreen display 102; col. 4, lines 44-52); and in accordance with a determination that the second input is detected a second amount of time after the first input is detected (i.e. If the amount of time between two consecutive single touches is less than or equal to the double-tap delay, the computing device 100 may detect one double-tap gesture; col. 6, lines 37-47), displaying, via the display, the text-input area the series of characters (i.e. different backspace processing depending on whether the BACKSPACE key was single-tapped or double-tapped; col. 5, lines 15-18), wherein the second amount of time is different from the first amount of time (i.e. If the amount of time between two consecutive single touches exceeds the double-tap delay, the computing device 100 may detect two single-tap gestures. If the amount of time between two consecutive single touches is less than or equal to the double-tap delay, the computing device 100 may detect one double-tap gesture; col. 6, lines 37-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yekutieli to include the feature of Shi. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides a more efficient mechanism for distinguishing an independently actuated BACSPACE input from rapidly successive BACKSPACE inputs and selecting the corresponding deletion operation.
Claim 9: Yekutieli and Shi teach the method of claim 1. Yekutieli further teaches wherein the first input is directed to a touch-sensitive delete key that is displayed on a touch-sensitive keyboard on the display (i.e. The first level of the invention involves analysis of the use of single backspace strokes, to record errors on the level of single letters. These backstrokes are used to correct single-letter mistakes caused by ‘clumsy fingers’. Alternatively, the typist may have intentionally typed objectively incorrect keystrokes such as those involved in spelling mistakes, where the typist thinks the word is spelled otherwise than it actually it is; para. [0016]).
Shi further teaches wherein the first input is directed to a touch-sensitive delete key that is displayed on a touch-sensitive keyboard on the display (i.e. At 206, the computing device 100 may determine whether the gesture was made on a BACKSPACE key (e.g., 122 b, FIG. 1); col. 2, lines 58-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yekutieli to include the feature of Shi. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides an efficient mechanism for controlling deletion using a touch delete key on a touchscreen.
Claims 11 and 12 are similar in scope to Claim 1 and are rejected under a similar rationale.
Claim 16: Yekutieli and Shi teach the method of claim 1. Yekutieli does not explicitly teach wherein the determination that the second input is detected the second amount of time after the first input is detected includes a determination that the second amount of time is greater than a threshold amount of time.
Shi further teaches wherein the determination that the second input is detected the second amount of time after the first input is detected includes a determination that the second amount of time is greater than a threshold amount of time (i.e. If the amount of time between two consecutive single touches exceeds the double-tap delay, the computing device 100 may detect two single-tap gestures. If the amount of time between two consecutive single touches is less than or equal to the double-tap delay, the computing device 100 may detect one double-tap gesture; col. 6, lines 37-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yekutieli to include the feature of Shi. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides a more efficient mechanism for distinguishing an independently actuated BACSPACE input from rapidly successive BACKSPACE inputs and selecting the corresponding deletion operation.
Claim 17: Yekutieli and Shi teach the method of claim 1. Yekutieli does not explicitly teach wherein the determination that the second input is detected the first amount of time after the first input is detected includes a determination that the first amount of time is less than a threshold amount of time.
Shi further teaches wherein the determination that the second input is detected the first amount of time after the first input is detected includes a determination that the first amount of time is less than a threshold amount of time (i.e. If the amount of time between two consecutive single touches exceeds the double-tap delay, the computing device 100 may detect two single-tap gestures. If the amount of time between two consecutive single touches is less than or equal to the double-tap delay, the computing device 100 may detect one double-tap gesture; col. 6, lines 37-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yekutieli to include the feature of Shi. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides a more efficient mechanism for distinguishing an independently actuated BACSPACE input from rapidly successive BACKSPACE inputs and selecting the corresponding deletion operation.
Claims 25, 27, 28, 36, 38, and 39 are similar in scope to Claims 9, 16, 17 and are rejected under a similar rationale.
7. Claims 2, 18, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yekutieli in view of Shi, and further in view of Pasquero et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 20130285927 A1).
Claim 2: Yekutieli and Shi teach the method of claim 1. Yekutieli further teaches wherein the series of characters is a first series of characters, and wherein, while displaying the text-input area without the first series of characters, the text-input area includes a second series of characters separate from the first series of characters (i.e. Another embodiment involves analysis of the use of multiple backspace strokes such as those employed to erase an entire word or phrase. These will result from changes in phraseology or mistakes and/or revisions in grammar, and are thus qualitatively different from the ‘single-backspace’ mistakes referred to previously; para. [0017, 0018]), the method further comprising: detecting, via the input device, a input corresponding to a request to delete (i.e. The first level of the invention involves analysis of the use of single backspace strokes, to record errors on the level of single letters. These backstrokes are used to correct single-letter mistakes caused by ‘clumsy fingers’. Alternatively, the typist may have intentionally typed objectively incorrect keystrokes such as those involved in spelling mistakes, where the typist thinks the word is spelled otherwise than it actually it is; para. [0016]); and response to detecting the input, displaying, via the display, the text-input area without the second series of characters (i.e. Another embodiment involves analysis of the use of multiple backspace strokes such as those employed to erase an entire word or phrase. These will result from changes in phraseology or mistakes and/or revisions in grammar, and are thus qualitatively different from the ‘single-backspace’ mistakes referred to previously; para. [0017, 0018]).
Yekutieli does not explicitly teach detecting, via the input device, a swipe input corresponding to a request to delete, the swipe input being separate from the first input and the second input; and response to detecting the swipe input, displaying, via the display, the text-input area without the second series of characters.
However, Pasquero teaches wherein the series of characters is a first series of characters (i.e. The text input in the input field 1330 may include a number of set of characters; para. [0111]), and wherein, while displaying the text-input area without the first series of characters, the text-input area includes a second series of characters separate from the first series of characters (i.e. words are separated by a delimiter character, such as a <SPACE> character … At 1230, the electronic device 100 and/or touchscreen 118 monitors to detect touch inputs or touch events, in particular a designated delete touch gesture, for deleting a previous set of characters; para. [0110, 0111, 0112]), the method further comprising: detecting, via the input device, a swipe input corresponding to a request to delete (i.e. in particular a designated delete touch gesture, for deleting a previous set of characters … The delete touch gesture, in at least some examples, is a directional or moving touch gesture. In some examples, the delete touch gesture is associated with a designated key in the virtual keyboard 1320. In shown example of FIGS. 13A to 14L, the designated key is the “Backspace” key 1334 … The delete touch gesture, in some examples, is a back swipe which moves left from the “Backspace” key; para. [0112, 0118, 0119]), the swipe input being separate from the first input and the second input; and response to detecting the swipe input (i.e. The delete touch gesture, in some examples, is a back swipe which moves left from the “Backspace” key; para. [0119]), displaying, via the display, the text-input area without the second series of characters (i.e. As best shown in FIG. 14A to 14G, in some examples, characters in the previous set of characters which is deleted are sequentially removed from the input field 1330. In the shown example, the <SPACE> character (“ ”) followed by the letters “E”, “K”, “A”, “C”, “P”, “U” and “C” are sequentially removed from the input field 1330. In other examples, the previous set of characters may be removed all at once; para. [0130]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yekutieli and Shi to include the feature of Pasquero. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides an efficient alternative for deleting a remaining series of characters, thereby reducing repeated deletion inputs and improving text editing efficiency.
Claims 18 and 29 are similar in scope to Claim 2 and are rejected under a similar rationale.
8. Claims 3, 4, 19, 20, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yekutieli in view of Shi, Pasquero, and further in view of Ball (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 20100259482 A1).
Claim 3: Yekutieli, Shi, and Pasquero teach the method of claim 2. Yekutieli does not explicitly teach wherein displaying the text-input area without the second series of characters is in accordance with a determination that the swipe input is detected within a predetermined amount of time after a lift-off of a contact associated with the swipe input.
Pasquero further teaches wherein displaying the text-input area without the second series of characters is in accordance with a determination that the swipe input is detected within a predetermined amount of time, a lift-off of a contact associated with the swipe input (i.e. At 1260, a delete animation is optionally displayed following detection of the delete touch gesture. The deletion animation may be displayed when the user's lifts his or her finger from the touchscreen 118 after completing the delete touch gesture. In some examples, the animation has a duration of less than 1 second (e.g., 800 milliseconds); para. [0124, 0128]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yekutieli and Shi to include the feature of Pasquero. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides an efficient alternative for deleting a remaining series of characters, thereby reducing repeated deletion inputs and improving text editing efficiency.
However, Ball teaches wherein displaying the text-input area without the second series of characters is in accordance with a determination that the swipe input is detected within a predetermined amount of time after a lift-off of a contact associated with the swipe input (i.e. FIG. 7 shows another exemplary gesture of a slide in a leftward direction on the backspace key. In such a case, the gesture begins at time t0 with a finger touch on backspace key 700. At time t1, the touch gesture continues as the finger slides leftward. At time t2, the finger touch lifts, and the leftward gesture on the backspace key is recognized as corresponding to selecting a backspace editing command. Such a backspace editing command may correspond to, for example, selection of a preceding word or preceding sentence to be deleted upon actuation of the backspace key, whereas a traditional actuation of the backspace key deletes only one character. At time t3, backspace key 700 is actuated to select the backspace editing command; para. [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yekutieli, Shi, and Pasquero to include the feature of Ball. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides reliable recognition and execution of the intended deletion command while distinguishing the completed gesture form unrelated touch inputs.
Claim 4: Yekutieli, Shi, Pasquero, and Ball teach the method of claim 3. Yekutieli does not explicitly teach in response to detecting the swipe input and in accordance with a determination that the swipe input is detected after the predetermined amount of time from the lift-off of the contact associated with the swipe input, displaying, via the display, the text-input area including the second series of characters without the last character of the second series of characters.
Pasquero further teaches in response to detecting the swipe input and in accordance with a determination that the swipe input is detected after the predetermined amount of time the lift-off of the contact associated with the swipe input, displaying, via the display, the text-input area including the second series of characters without the last character of the second series of characters (i.e. At 1260, a delete animation is optionally displayed following detection of the delete touch gesture. The deletion animation may be displayed when the user's lifts his or her finger from the touchscreen 118 after completing the delete touch gesture. In some examples, the animation has a duration of less than 1 second (e.g., 800 milliseconds); para. [0124, 0128]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yekutieli and Shi to include the feature of Pasquero. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides an efficient alternative for deleting a remaining series of characters, thereby reducing repeated deletion inputs and improving text editing efficiency.
Ball further teaches in response to detecting the swipe input and in accordance with a determination that the swipe input is detected after the predetermined amount of time from the lift-off of the contact associated with the swipe input, displaying, via the display, the text-input area including the second series of characters without the last character of the second series of characters (i.e. FIG. 7 shows another exemplary gesture of a slide in a leftward direction on the backspace key. In such a case, the gesture begins at time t0 with a finger touch on backspace key 700. At time t1, the touch gesture continues as the finger slides leftward. At time t2, the finger touch lifts, and the leftward gesture on the backspace key is recognized as corresponding to selecting a backspace editing command. Such a backspace editing command may correspond to, for example, selection of a preceding word or preceding sentence to be deleted upon actuation of the backspace key, whereas a traditional actuation of the backspace key deletes only one character. At time t3, backspace key 700 is actuated to select the backspace editing command; para. [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yekutieli, Shi, and Pasquero to include the feature of Ball. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides reliable recognition and execution of the intended deletion command while distinguishing the completed gesture form unrelated touch inputs.
Claims 19, 20, 30, and 31 are similar in scope to Claims 3, 4 and are rejected under a similar rationale.
9. Claims 5, 21, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yekutieli in view of Shi, Pasquero, and further in view of Yamasaki (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 20150212726 A1).
Claim 5: Yekutieli, Shi, and Pasquero teach the method of claim 2. Yekutieli does not explicitly teach while detecting the swipe input, displaying, via the display, a visual indicator around the second series of characters to provide an indication that the second series of characters would be deleted from the text-input area after detecting the input.
Pasquero further teaches while detecting the swipe input, displaying, via the display, a visual indicator to provide an indication that the second series of characters would be deleted from the text-input area after detecting the input (i.e. At 1260, a delete animation is optionally displayed following detection of the delete touch gesture. The deletion animation may be displayed when the user's lifts his or her finger from the touchscreen 118 after completing the delete touch gesture. In some examples, the animation has a duration of less than 1 second (e.g., 800 milliseconds); para. [0124, 0128]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yekutieli and Shi to include the feature of Pasquero. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides an efficient alternative for deleting a remaining series of characters, thereby reducing repeated deletion inputs and improving text editing efficiency.
Yamasaki teaches while detecting the swipe input, displaying, via the display, a visual indicator around the second series of characters to provide an indication that the second series of characters would be deleted from the text-input area after detecting the input (i.e. figs. 5A-5D, the last characters "imq" from among the characters "Good mornimq" displayed in the character representation area 32 are selected as the target for deletion by the user's sliding operation as described above; para. [0042-0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yekutieli, Shi, and Pasquero to include the feature of Yamasaki. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides immediate feedback regarding the scope of the deletion and reduce unintended deletion of text.
Claims 21 and 32 are similar in scope to Claim 5 and are rejected under a similar rationale.
10. Claims 6, 8, 22, 24, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yekutieli in view of Shi, and further in view of Clements et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 20150317069 A1).
Claim 6: Yekutieli and Shi teach the method of claim 1. Yekutieli further teaches wherein the series of characters is a first series of characters, and wherein, while displaying the text-input area without the first series of characters, the text-input area includes a third series of characters separate from the first series of characters (i.e. Another embodiment involves analysis of the use of multiple backspace strokes such as those employed to erase an entire word or phrase. These will result from changes in phraseology or mistakes and/or revisions in grammar, and are thus qualitatively different from the ‘single-backspace’ mistakes referred to previously; para. [0017, 0018]).
Yekutieli does not explicitly teach detecting, via the input device, a press-and-hold input corresponding to a request to delete, the press-and-hold input being separate from the first input and the second input; and in response to detecting the press-and-hold input, displaying, via the display, the text-input area without the third series of characters.
However, Clements teaches wherein the series of characters is a first series of characters, and wherein, while displaying the text-input area without the first series of characters, the text-input area includes a third series of characters separate from the first series of characters, the method further comprising: detecting, via the input device, a press-and-hold input corresponding to a request to delete, the press-and-hold input being separate from the first input and the second input; and in response to detecting the press-and-hold input, displaying, via the display, the text-input area without the third series of characters (i.e. a delete button to delete individual characters when singularly pressed or repeatedly delete characters or words when held; para. [0195]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yekutieli and Shi to include the feature of Clements. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides an alternative and efficient mechanism for deleting a series of characters without requiring repeated individual deletion inputs.
Claim 8: Yekutieli, Shi, and Clements teach the method of claim 6. Yekutieli further teaches wherein the first series of characters and the third series of characters were added to the text-input area based on tap gestures over respective keys of a touch-sensitive keyboard (i.e. fig. 1, The inventive method may be implemented on a smartphone, a personal computer, tablet, laptop, or any other computing device having keyboard input, be it through a physical or virtual keyboard of any type; para. [0018]).
Shi further teaches wherein the first series of characters and the third series of characters were added to the text-input area based on tap gestures over respective keys of a touch-sensitive keyboard (i.e. The touchscreen display 102 may be used for receiving input to the computing device 100 and for displaying output from the computing device. The touchscreen display 102 may display a soft (virtual) keyboard 112 a and a display area 112 b, for example, to receive text input from a user. The soft keyboard 112 a may comprise softkeys 122, such as letter keys for inputting letters of the alphabet. So-called “white space” keys may be included such as a SPACE bar, a RETURN key, and the like. The soft keyboard 112 a may include a selector key 122 a that allows the user to display an alternate soft keyboard. In FIG. 1A, for example, the touchscreen display 102 displays a soft keyboard 112 a comprising largely of letter keys. If the user taps on the selector key 122 a, then the touchscreen display 102 may re-display the soft keyboard 112 a to present a soft keyboard having numeric and other character keys, such as illustrated in FIG. 1B for example; col. 2, lines 13-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yekutieli to include the feature of Shi. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides an efficient mechanism for inputting texts on a touchscreen.
Claims 22, 24, 33, and 35 are similar in scope to Claims 6, 8 and are rejected under a similar rationale.
11. Claims 7, 23, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yekutieli in view of Shi, Clements, and further in view of Bi (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 20160266790 A1).
Claim 7: Yekutieli, Shi, and Clements teach the method of claim 6. Yekutieli does not explicitly teach wherein the first series of characters and the third series of characters were added to the text-input area based on a continuous- path gesture in which a continuous contact moves across multiple keys of a touch-sensitive keyboard.
However, Bi teaches wherein the first series of characters and the third series of characters were added to the text-input area based on a continuous- path gesture in which a continuous contact moves across multiple keys of a touch-sensitive keyboard (i.e. FIGS. 1A, 1B, based on the sequence of motion events indicating locations 22A, 22B, 22C, and 22D, keyboard module 10 may determine a first candidate string, “thus,” a second candidate string, “this,” and a third candidate string, “this′d.” In other words, responsive to receiving gesture portion 20A, computing device 2 may determine that the user intended to input one or more of “thus,” “this,” or “this'd.”; para. [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yekutieli, Shi, and Clements to include the feature of Bi. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the continuous-path-gesture can improve typing speed and user convenience, especially on touch-sensitive devices.
Claims 23 and 34 are similar in scope to Claim 7 and are rejected under a similar rationale.
12. Claims 10, 26, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yekutieli in view of Shi, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 20190042066 A1).
Claim 10: Yekutieli and Shi teach the method of claim 1. Yekutieli further teaches wherein the first input is directed to a touch-sensitive delete key that is displayed on a touch-sensitive of the electronic device (i.e. The first level of the invention involves analysis of the use of single backspace strokes, to record errors on the level of single letters. These backstrokes are used to correct single-letter mistakes caused by ‘clumsy fingers’. Alternatively, the typist may have intentionally typed objectively incorrect keystrokes such as those involved in spelling mistakes, where the typist thinks the word is spelled otherwise than it actually it is; para. [0016]).
Yekutieli does not explicitly teach wherein the first input is directed to a touch-sensitive delete key that is displayed on a touch-sensitive secondary display that is separate from the display of the electronic device.
Shi further teaches wherein the first input is directed to a touch-sensitive delete key that is displayed on a touch-sensitive display of the electronic device (i.e. At 206, the computing device 100 may determine whether the gesture was made on a BACKSPACE key (e.g., 122 b, FIG. 1); col. 2, lines 58-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yekutieli to include the feature of Shi. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it provides an efficient mechanism for controlling deletion using a touch delete key on a touchscreen.
However, Kim teaches wherein the first input is directed to a touch-sensitive delete key that is displayed on a touch-sensitive secondary display that is separate from the display of the electronic device. (i.e. fig. 5, the electronic device 501 may display, through at least a portion (e.g., the display area 514) of the second display 512, a virtual input tool (e.g., a virtual keyboard 520 or gamepad 540) for an application (e.g., a chat program 510 or game 530) or function displayed through, e.g., the first display 502; para. [0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yekutieli and Shi to include the feature of Kim. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it improves user interaction by providing dedicated space for specific functions like the delete key.
Claims 26 and 37 are similar in scope to Claim 10 and are rejected under a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Ghasabian et al. (Pub. No. US 20070182595 A1), pressing a key with a specific finger or a portion of a finger (using a finger recognition system) a single tap (e.g. press) on a key or a double tap (e.g. two consecutive presses with short time interval) on a key
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAN TRAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4266. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday - 8:00 am - 5:00 pm MT.
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, Matt Ell can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141
Prosecution Insights