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 .
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, the claimed selective entry of text based on the portion of the text entry field to which the user’s attention is directed improves user privacy and reduces erroneous dictation input. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered. However, the arguments directed to the prior reliance on HWANG are moot because the rejection has been modified. The prior rejection relying principally on HWANG is withdrawn and replaced with a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on HWANG as the primary reference in view of Friedrich. HWANG teaches text input window 421, detecting the user’s gaze, receiving speech input, and entering text into the text input window based on the speech input. Although HWANG does not teach the amended “foregoing” limitation, Friedrich teaches activating speech recognition only when the user’s gaze is directed to a predefined area of the display. It would have been obvious to apply Friedrich’s predefined gaze sensitive area as a first portion of HWANG’s text input window 421. Under the combined teachings, speech is entered as text when the user’s attention is directed to the designated first portion, whereas speech recognition is not activated and text entry is therefore forgone when the user’s attention remains directed to another portion of the text entry field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HWANG et al. (US Pub. 2019/0324279 A1, hereinafter “HWANG”) in view of Friedrich et al. (US Pub. 2003/0040914 A1, hereinafter “Friedrich”).
Claim 1: HWANG teaches A method comprising:
at a computer system in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices (“HWANG”, Fig. 1, [0038], an electronic device 100):
displaying, via the display generation component, a user interface that includes a text entry field (“HWANG”, Figs. 4A-4C, [0069], display text entry input field 421);
while displaying the user interface that includes the text entry field, detecting, via the one or more input devices, attention of a user directed to the text entry field (“HWANG”, Figs. 4A-4C, [0069], display text entry input field 421);
while detecting the attention of the user directed to the text entry field, detecting a voice input (“HWANG”, Figs. 4A-4C, [0069]-[0072], user gazes to text entry field 421 and receives speech input); and in response to detecting the voice input while detecting the attention of the user directed to the text entry field:
in accordance with a determination that the attention of the user is directed to the text entry field and meets a first set of one or more criteria, wherein the first set of one or more criteria require that the attention of the user was directed to a first portion of the text entry field in order for the first set of one or more criteria to be met, entering text into the text entry field based on the voice input (“HWANG”, Figs. 4A-4C, [0069]-[0072], speech input text entry to the text entry field 421 is entered if the gaze of the user directed to the first object e.g., text entry field); and
HWANG, however, does not expressly teach requiring the user’s gaze to be directed to a particular portion of the text input window or forgoing text entry when gaze remains within the text input window but outside that portion.
Friedrich teaches in accordance with a determination that the attention of the user is directed to a particular portion of a display interface and does not meet the first set of one or more criteria, forgoing entering the text into the text entry field based on the voice input (“Friedrich”, [0005], [0007], [0018], [0028], activates speech recognition only when attention relates to the required predefined area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's subject matter to modify HWANG’s text input window to include a predefined gaze portion, as taught by Friedrich, and to enable HWANG’s speech-to-text operation only when the user’s gaze is directed to that portion. The modification would have predicted reduced unintended dictation and accidental processing of speech not intended for text entry, which is the express benefit identified by Friedrich.
Claim 2: HWANG and Friedrich teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to detecting the voice input: in accordance with the determination that the attention of the user directed to the text entry field and meets the first set of one or more criteria, providing an output indicating that subsequent voice inputs will be entered as text in the text entry field (“HWANG”, Figs. 4A-4C, [0069]-[0072], speech input text entry to the text entry field 421 is entered if the gaze of the user directed to the first object e.g., text entry field); and
in accordance with the determination that the attention of the user directed to the text entry field and does not meet the first set of one or more criteria, forgoing providing the output indicating that the subsequent voice inputs will be entered as text in the text entry field (“HWANG”, Figs. 4A-4C, [0069]-[0070], speech input text entry to the text entry field 421 is not entered if the gaze of the user directed to a position other than the first object (equivalent to the criteria does not meet).
Claim 23: Claim 23 is directed to a computer system for implementing the method steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 24: Claim 24 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for implementing the method steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub 2021/0074277 A1 (LEWIS et al.) — Disclose transcription revision interface for speech recognition system.
US Pub 2015/0348550 (ZHANG et al.) — Disclose speech to text input and method and system combining gaze tracking technology.
US Patent 6,415,258 (Reynar et al.) — Disclose background audio recovery.
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 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.
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/PHUONG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights