DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 9/8/2023.
Claims 1-15 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 15 are independent claims.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)’s submitted on 9/8/2023 and 2/3/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 8, 9, and 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2, replace … to designated content … with … to the designated content …
Claim 8, last line, remove “and provide the pinned clip data”
Claim 9, for each of the 2nd and 3rd limitations, replace … technique … with … policy …
Claim 13, 2nd limitation, replace … information of selected clip … with … information of the selected clip …
Claim 14, 2nd limitation, replace … movement area in which a user input is moved … with … movement area to which the clip data is moved …
Claim 14, 3rd limitation, replace … an area in which the clip data is moved … with … the area to which the clip data is moved …
Claim 14, last limitation, replace … … the area in which the clip data is moved … with … the area to which the clip data is moved …
Claim 15, last limitation, replace … providing a clipboard … with … providing the clipboard … for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner Comments
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tao et al., US PGPUB 2020/0167068 Al (hereinafter as Tao).
Regarding independent claim 1, Tao discloses an electronic device [see e.g. fig. 1] comprising: a display; a memory; and a processor operatively connected to the display and the memory [see processor 101, memory 103 and display 104-2 in fig. 1], wherein the processor is configured to [see e.g. [0061]]:
detect a first user input for a clip comprising designated content while displaying an execution screen of an application [note e.g. the touch input on 506 following the user selection of the highlighted string shown in fig. 5B and described in [0127]; note that the execution screen of a messaging application is being displayed];
generate clip data comprising a clip object and contextual information related to the content based on the first user input and store the generated clip data in the memory [note from [0127] that the selected data is stored in the clipboard based on the detected user input; note from fig. 6 the storage of contextual information specifying the associated application “Messages” with the clipped string];
detect a second user input related to calling a clipboard [again, note in [0127] the user pasting input in 517 of fig. 5D that initiates a call to a to-be-pasted list 219; see e.g. in [0150] the user interaction with an input box];
analyze a task being performed in the electronic device based on detection of the second user input [note that the detection of the pasting user input in fig. 5D is associated with a texting task in the “WeChat” app; see also [0031] and [0118]];
call the clipboard based on detection of the second user input; extract clip data corresponding to the task from a plurality of pieces of clip data of the clipboard; and provide the clipboard based on the clip data corresponding to the task via the display [note in fig. 5D the display of the to-be-pasted list 519 with data items 515 and 516 included and distinguished (with stars next to them) because of the correspondence of the “WeChat” app in the contextual data; see also [0119]-[0120] and [0131]; again, see [0031]].
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tao further discloses that:
the clip data comprises the clip object related to the designated content and contextual information related to the clip object [note in figs. 6 and 7a that the clip data for each object comprises the clip object and the application from which the object has been clipped (and within which it is to be shared); see also fig. 3 and the related description], and
the contextual information comprises at least one of: a type of the clip object [note the type of the clip object shown in fig. 3 and described in [0075]], identification information of an application [note the identification of the application in figs. 6 and 7a], a task being performed by the application, and/or contextual information related to a user at the time of clip operation.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tao further discloses that analyzing the context of the task is based on at least one of: recent contents of a current execution screen [see e.g. [0118] and note determining an App corresponding to a currently displayed GUI], a currently focused execution screen among multiple execution screens based on multiple windows, and/or contextual information of the user.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tao further discloses collectively or individually providing settings of at least one of: a public-based first policy, a login account-based second policy, or a third policy that is limited to a user account generating clip data, with respect to a plurality of pieces of clip data of the clipboard [note the public queue setting provided to a plurality of pieces of clip data of the clipboard, as can be seen in fig. 6].
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tao further discloses designating a sharing target of the clip data in the clipboard [note e.g. from [0104]-[0151] the designation of public queue and private queue pertaining to the clip data stored in the clipboard, as can be seen in fig. 6; note that public designation is indicating of sharing with any application whereas private designation specifies a certain source application with which sole sharing is allowed].
Regarding independent claim 15, it is analogously rejected. Tao further discloses a method [see title and exemplary figs. 4 and 8]. Refer to the rejection of claim 1.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (as applied to claim 2 above) in view of Hofrichter et al., US Patent No. 7,890,989 Bl (hereinafter as Hofrichter).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Tao further teaches storing the clip object in a clipboard of the memory [see fig. 3 showing the clip objects stored in a memory clipboard as described in [0095]].
Tao also teaches storing and managing contextual information linked to the clip object in the memory [again, see fig. 3 showing the clip-related metadata also stored in the memory clipboard as described in [0095]].
Tao, however, does not explicitly teach managing the contextual information linked to the clip object in a database of the memory via a lookup table.
Hofrichter teaches managing contextual information linked to a clip object in a database via a lookup table [note e.g. in col. 7, lines 12-19 indicating tying content clip data and context clip data via a database link or lookup table; see also fig. 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Tao and Hofrichter before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tao’s clipboard memory operation by applying explicitly Hofrichter’s memory management method to explicitly specify managing the contextual information linked to the clip object in a database of the memory via a lookup table, as per the teachings of Hofrichter. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to facilitate the tying of the two portions of data together, as suggested by Hofrichter [again see e col. 7, lines 12-19 and fig. 3].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (as applied to claim 1 above) in view of Patterson et al., US PGPUB 2013/0346347 A1 (hereinafter as Patterson).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tao further teaches:
analyzing a context of an application currently being executed in the electronic device and/or a task being performed in the executed application based on the detection of the second user input [note that the detection of the pasting user input in fig. 5D is associated with a texting task in the “WeChat” app; see also [0031] and [0118]];
extracting clip data based on contextual information corresponding to the context of the task; and recommending the extracted clip data corresponding to the context of the task via the clipboard [note in fig. 5D the display of the to-be-pasted list 519 with data items 515 and 516 included and distinguished (with stars next to them) because of the correspondence of the “WeChat” app in the contextual data; see also [0119]-[0120] and [0131]; again, see [0031]].
Tao, however, does not explicitly teach the analyzing of a context of an application currently being executed in the electronic device and/or a task being performed in the executed application based on user input is based on machine learning.
Patterson teaches analyzing a context of an application currently being executed in an electronic device and/or a task being performed in the executed application based on machine learning, based on the detection of user input [see e.g. fig. 7 indicating performing a machine learning operation of context-related data and application-related data; note e.g. the interaction as part of application-related data in [0182]; see also [0064]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Tao and Patterson before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tao’s clipboard operation by explicitly specifying that analyzing of the context of the application currently being executed in the electronic device and/or the task being performed in the executed application based on user input is also based on machine learning, as per the teachings of Patterson. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to utilize machine adaptation techniques to learn about user behavior of a mobile platform in order to make it easier to use and more efficient from a user’s point of view, as suggested by Patterson [see e.g. [0077] and [0064]].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (as applied to claim 1 above) in view of Ahn et al., US PGPUB 2014/0025727 A1 (hereinafter as Ahn).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tao does not explicitly teach synchronizing the clipboard in a plurality of electronic devices connected to a user device group based on a user account; or synchronizing changes in the clipboard with another electronic device connected based on the user account in real time.
Ahn teaches synchronizing a clipboard in a plurality of electronic devices connected to a user device group based on a user account; and synchronizing changes in the clipboard with another electronic device connected based on the user account in real time [note e.g. in [0024]-[0025] the synchronization of a system clipboard among a plurality of devices that share a common account; note the real-time synchronization in [0036] and [0051]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Tao and Ahn before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tao’s clipboard operation by explicitly specifying synchronizing the clipboard in a plurality of electronic devices connected to a user device group based on a user account; and synchronizing changes in the clipboard with another electronic device connected based on the user account in real time, as per the teachings of Ahn. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable automatically sharing data across different client devices that are possessed by the same individual thus facilitating exchange of data, as suggested by Ahn [again see e.g. [0005]-[0006] and [0025]].
Claim 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (as applied to claim 1 above) in view of JANG et al., US PGPUB 2014/0013258 A1 (hereinafter as Jang).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tao further teaches classifying the extracted clip data based on each corresponding contextual information [note the classification of clips based on the originating application as shown in figs. 6 and 7a].
Tao, however, does not explicitly teach providing the clipboard while comprising a corresponding sorting interface based on a result of the classification.
Jang teaches providing a clipboard (for display) while comprising a corresponding sorting interface based on a result of a classification (of the clip data based on contextual information) [see e.g. figs. 14A-C and [0119] indicating a sorting bar on a clipboard list view screen that is used to sort the clips based on object types (which is an instance of contextual information related to the objects)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Tao and Jang before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tao’s clipboard operation by explicitly specifying providing the clipboard while comprising a corresponding sorting interface based on a result of the classification, as per the teachings of Jang. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable a user to focus on specific categories of clip data as relevant to their interests and needs, as in the example provided by Jang [again, see figs. 14A-C and [0119]].
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tao does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
detecting a user input related to selection of at least one piece of clip data in the clipboard;
analyzing contextual information of the selected clip data based on the detection of the user input;
identifying and executing an application associated with the clip data based on the contextual information; and
resuming a user's task based on the clip data in the application.
Jang teaches:
detecting a user input related to selection of at least one piece of clip data in a clipboard [note user input on 1506 on fig. 15A and user input on 1706 on fig. 17A both related to the selection of object 1504 in a clipboard];
analyzing contextual information of the selected clip data based on the detection of the user input; identifying and executing an application associated with the clip data based on the contextual information; and resuming a user's task based on the clip data in the application [note in [0125] and figs. 17B the execution of a browser and using the URL in the clip data based on the selected clip including URL information; note that any further navigation on the screen 1708 of the browsing application reached based on the clip data can be interpreted as resuming a user’s task].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Tao and Jang before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tao’s clipboard operation by explicitly specifying detecting a user input related to selection of at least one piece of clip data in the clipboard; analyzing contextual information of the selected clip data based on the detection of the user input; identifying and executing an application associated with the clip data based on the contextual information; and resuming a user's task based on the clip data in the application, as per the teachings of Jang. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enhance the operation of the clipboard by enabling shifting to an executable application related to the context of the selected clip item, as in the example provided by Jang [again, see figs. 17A-B and [0125]].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (as applied to claim 1 above) in view of Singh et al., US Patent No. 11,132,104 Bl (hereinafter as Singh).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tao does not explicitly teach detecting a user input for pinning at least one piece of clip data to a designated area in the clipboard; and pinning and providing the at least one piece of clip data to the designated area in the clipboard based on the user input.
Singh teaches detecting a user input for pinning at least one piece of clip data to a designated area in a clipboard; and pinning and providing the at least one piece of clip data to the designated area in the clipboard based on the user input [note e.g. the pinnable clipboard in col. 20, lines 39-44; especially note the pinning user input e.g. in col. 21, lines 13-20 and lines 32-40; note from col. 2, lines 12-15 that the pinned UI item remains attached to a designated area, as also in col. 20, lines 50-57].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Tao and Singh before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tao’s clipboard operation by explicitly specifying detecting a user input for pinning at least one piece of clip data to a designated area in the clipboard; and pinning and providing the at least one piece of clip data to the designated area in the clipboard based on the user input, as per the teachings of Singh. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable maintaining a position/layout of certain items on the clipboard, which would result in a faster, more efficient, more intuitive and improved user experience by keeping predefined visual layouts, as suggested by Singh [see e.g. col. 29, lines 48-50 and 65-67] which would make finding specific items in the clipboard faster and easier.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (as applied to claim 1 above) in view of Margolin, US Patent No. 8,555,187 B2 (hereinafter as Margolin).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tao does not explicitly teach identifying a designated policy related to access to the clipboard in a case of calling the clipboard; extracting the clip data based on an account logged into the electronic device to provide the clipboard in a case that the designated policy is a first policy; or extracting clip data configured in a public manner to provide the clipboard in a case that the designated policy is a second policy.
Margolin teaches:
identifying a designated policy related to access to a clipboard in a case of calling the clipboard [note in col. 6, lines 45-53 indicating a request of a user to access a clipboard and an associated user ID]; and
extracting clip data based on an account logged into an electronic device to provide the clipboard in a case that the designated policy is a first policy [note again in col. 6, lines 45-53 that the clipboard is provided based on a list associated with the user’s ID or account].
Although Margolin does not explicitly teach extracting clip data configured in a public manner to provide the clipboard in a case that the designated policy is a second policy, Margolin does teach the designation of clipboard items as being public [note in col. 6, lines 54-64 indicating items made public and accessible to all users].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Tao and Margolin before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tao’s clipboard operation by explicitly specifying identifying a designated policy related to access to the clipboard in a case of calling the clipboard; extracting the clip data based on an account logged into the electronic device to provide the clipboard in a case that the designated policy is a first policy, as per the teachings of Margolin, and to further explicitly apply Margolin’s designation of clipboard items as being public, to further specify extracting clip data configured in a public manner to provide the clipboard in a case that the designated policy is a second policy (for users, such as new users, that may not have any particularly assigned items but will only have access to publicly available items). The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable guaranteeing that authorized users can securely access particular items after authentication while publicly available items are accessible to everyone, as suggested by Margolin [see e.g. col. 4, lines 6-10 and col. 6, lines 45-64].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (as applied to claim 1 above) in view of Taylor et al., US PGPUB 2019/0220539 A1 (hereinafter as Taylor).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Tao does not explicitly teach collectively hiding clip data generated based on a user account in the clipboard, within the clipboard, in a case that the electronic device detects logout of the user account.
Taylor teaches collectively hiding clip data generated based on a user account in a clipboard, within the clipboard, in a case that logout of the user account is detected [see [0050] and note the deletion of clipboard data when the user logs out; note from [0045] and [0049] the association of certain clip data with certain users and/or accounts].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Tao and Taylor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tao’s clipboard operation by explicitly specifying collectively hiding clip data generated based on a user account in the clipboard, within the clipboard, in a case that the electronic device detects logout of the user account, as per the teachings of Taylor. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to ensure that only authorized users get access to the corresponding data, as suggested by Taylor [again see e.g. [0049]].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (as applied to claim 1 above) in view of LEE et al., US PGPUB 2011/0197155 A1 (hereinafter as Lee).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tao does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
detecting a user input related to movement of clip data;
identifying a movement area to which the clip data is moved based on the detection of the user input;
executing a first function of pasting the clip data in case that the area to which the clip data is moved is a first designated area; and
executing a second function of resuming a task based on the clip data in case that the area to which the clip data is moved is a second designated area.
Lee teaches:
detecting a user input related to movement of clip data [note the user gesture on the second clip item in the clipboard area to move the item (as shown in ,1005. And <1009> of fig. 10 and as described in [0088]-[0089]];
identifying a movement area to which the clip data is moved based on the detection of the user input [note again in [0088]-[0089] the identification of the destination movement area for the gesture (whether it is display area 310 or 330];
executing a first function of pasting the clip data in case that the area to which the clip data is moved is a first designated area [note the case of moving the clip item to display area 330 and the pasting of the item, as shown in <1011> and described in [0089]]; and
executing a second function of resuming a task based on the clip data in case that the area to which the clip data is moved is a second designated area [note the case of moving the clip item to display area 310 and the attachment performed to the email-creation task based on the clip item, as shown in <1007> and described in [0088]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the Tao and Lee before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tao’s clipboard operation by explicitly specifying detecting a user input related to movement of clip data; identifying a movement area to which the clip data is moved based on the detection of the user input; executing a first function of pasting the clip data in case that the area to which the clip data is moved is a first designated area; and executing a second function of resuming a task based on the clip data in case that the area to which the clip data is moved is a second designated area, as per the teachings of Lee. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable a variety of functions according to the execution of applications and carious operations related to the clipboard functions by utilizing clip items and data corresponding to the items, as suggested by Lee [see e.g. [0041] and the example in [0088]-[0089]].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner notes from the cited art, Jin et al, US PGPUB 2015/0163672A1, which teaches displaying items in the clipboard relevant to an application being executed [see e.g. [0279] and fig. 22].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, EST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172