DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 7/1/2026.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/1/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The new title of the invention filed on 7/1/2026 is acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites three “in a case that” conditions for the method steps, but doesn’t positively recite any of the conditions as being satisfied. Since each of the limitations of this claim is contingent upon one or more conditions that are not positively recited as being satisfied, the method steps of claim 1 are entirely optional, and only requiring the method to be “a content editing method”.
Furthermore, claims 2-5 are also entirely dependent on or otherwise required to occur after or before method steps that might never occur, so these claims are also entirely optional.
Herein, “content editing” is broadly interpreted as including entering text into a chat box. A chat box functions as an editing box because it is a text-based workspace where you draft, modify, refine, and finalize your written content through continuous, interactive feedback.
Claims Status
Claims 1-15 and 19-20 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1, 6 and 11 are independent.
Claims 16-18 are previously canceled.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 15 are newly amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Dok, Cornelis K. et al. (hereinafter Van Dok – US 20040268263 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Van Dok teaches:
A content editing method, wherein the method comprises: (a text inputting method with adaptable input space, ¶¶ 11 and 31 and figs. 2A-2B. Herein, “content editing” is broadly interpreted as including entering text into a chat box. A chat box functions as an editing box because it is a text-based workspace where you draft, modify, refine, and finalize your written content through continuous, interactive feedback. Therefore, the Van Dok teaches a “content editing method”. Furthermore, as explained in the claim interpretation section above, a “content editing method” is the only required limitation for this method claim)
in a case that a first edit box in a target interface is displayed, receiving a first input of a user;
in response to the first input, in a case that a preset condition is met, displaying a target window;
receiving a second input of the user to an input method keyboard;
and in response to the second input, displaying, in the target window, first content corresponding to the second input, and displaying, in the first edit box, content displayed in the target window, wherein a display size of the target window is greater than a display size of the first edit box;
and the target window is an edit window different from the first edit box;
wherein in a case that the first input is used to input second content to the first edit box, the preset condition comprises:
the second content comprises a preset identifier, wherein the preset identifier is used to indicate that the second content is templated text.
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Van Dok further teaches:
wherein after the displaying a target window, and before the receiving a second input of the user to an input method keyboard, the method further comprises: (a text inputting method with adaptable input space, ¶¶ 11 and 31 and figs. 2A-2B. Herein, “content editing” is broadly interpreted as including entering text into a chat box. A chat box functions as an editing box because it is a text-based workspace where you draft, modify, refine, and finalize your written content through continuous, interactive feedback. Therefore, the Van Dok teaches a “content editing method”. Furthermore, as explained in the claim interpretation section above, a “content editing method” is the only required limitation for the independent method claim. Similarly, this claim is entirely dependent on or otherwise required to occur after or before method steps that might never occur, so these claims are also entirely optional)
displaying at least one template, wherein each template in the at least one template corresponds to one edit mode;
receiving a third input of the user to a target template in the at least one template;
and in response to the third input, updating an edit mode of the target window from a first edit mode to a second edit mode corresponding to the target template;
and the displaying, in the target window, first content corresponding to the second input, and displaying, in the first edit box, the content displayed in the target window comprises:
displaying the first content in the target window in the second edit mode, and displaying, in the first edit box, the first content displayed in the second edit mode.
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Van Dok further teaches:
wherein after the displaying, in the first edit box, the content displayed in the target window, the method further comprises: (a text inputting method with adaptable input space, ¶¶ 11 and 31 and figs. 2A-2B. Herein, “content editing” is broadly interpreted as including entering text into a chat box. A chat box functions as an editing box because it is a text-based workspace where you draft, modify, refine, and finalize your written content through continuous, interactive feedback. Therefore, the Van Dok teaches a “content editing method”. Furthermore, as explained in the claim interpretation section above, a “content editing method” is the only required limitation for the independent method claim. Similarly, this claim is entirely dependent on or otherwise required to occur after or before method steps that might never occur, so these claims are also entirely optional)
receiving a fourth input of the user;
in response to the fourth input, displaying the first edit box, wherein the first content is displayed in the first edit box;
receiving a fifth input of the user;
and in response to the fifth input, sending the first content through an application corresponding to the target interface, and displaying the first content in the target interface.
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Van Dok further teaches:
wherein the target window comprises a cursor, and the cursor is located in a first area in the target window; (a text inputting method with adaptable input space, ¶¶ 11 and 31 and figs. 2A-2B. Herein, “content editing” is broadly interpreted as including entering text into a chat box. A chat box functions as an editing box because it is a text-based workspace where you draft, modify, refine, and finalize your written content through continuous, interactive feedback. Therefore, the Van Dok teaches a “content editing method”. Furthermore, as explained in the claim interpretation section above, a “content editing method” is the only required limitation for the independent method claim. Similarly, this claim is entirely dependent on or otherwise required to occur after or before method steps that might never occur, so these claims are also entirely optional)
and the displaying the first edit box comprises:
displaying the first edit box, and displaying the cursor in a second area in the first edit box, wherein content displayed in the second area is same as content displayed in the first area.
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Van Dok further teaches:
wherein the preset condition further comprises any one of following: (a text inputting method with adaptable input space, ¶¶ 11 and 31 and figs. 2A-2B. Herein, “content editing” is broadly interpreted as including entering text into a chat box. A chat box functions as an editing box because it is a text-based workspace where you draft, modify, refine, and finalize your written content through continuous, interactive feedback. Therefore, the Van Dok teaches a “content editing method”. Furthermore, as explained in the claim interpretation section above, a “content editing method” is the only required limitation for the independent method claim. Similarly, this claim is entirely dependent on or otherwise required to occur after or before method steps that might never occur, so these claims are also entirely optional)
the first input is a preset input to an input method area corresponding to the input method keyboard, and the first input is an input to a preset control;
or in a case that the first input is used to input second content to the first edit box, the preset condition further comprises:
a quantity of display rows of the second content is greater than or equal to a preset threshold of a quantity of display rows content comprises a preset identifier, wherein the preset identifier is used to indicate that the second content is templated text.
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 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.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 11, 12, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dok, Cornelis K. et al. (hereinafter Van Dok – US 20040268263 A1) in view of Missig; Julian et al. (hereinafter Missig – US 20200356254 A1), Shu; Zhi-Long (Hereinafter Shu – US 20100022275 A1), Leigh; Yan Zhong et al. (hereinafter Leigh – US 20220109651 A1) and Capps; Christopher Louis et al. (hereinafter Capps – US 6011550 A).
Independent Claim 6:
Van Dok teaches:
An electronic device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or an instruction stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the program or the instruction, when executed by the processor, causes the electronic device to perform::
in a case that a first edit box in a target interface is displayed, receiving a first input of a user; (e.g., Bryan begins entering text in text input box 270, ¶ 34 and fig. 2B)
in response to the first input, in a case that a preset condition is met, displaying a target window (enlarged text box); (if it is determined that the entered text needs more space [a preset condition is met], the text input box automatically grows, allowing Bryan more space for entering his response text, ¶ 34 and fig. 2B)
receiving a second input of the user to an input method keyboard; (as reflected in fig. 2B, Bryan continues to enter text in the enlarged text box, ¶ 34 and fig. 2B)
and in response to the second input, displaying, in the target window, first content corresponding to the second input, (as reflected in fig. 2B, as Bryan continues to enter text in the enlarged text box it is displayed in the enlarged text box, ¶ 34 and fig. 2B)
[…] wherein a display size of the target window is greater than a display size of the first edit box; (as reflected in figs. 2A-2B, the text box is enlarged [to a size…greater than a display size of the first edit box])
[…].
Van Dok does not appear to expressly teach, but Missig teaches:
and displaying, in the first edit box, content displayed in the target window. (an enlarged text entry region that will contract back to its original size after receiving text entry, ¶ 279 and figs. 6J and 6K. Herein, it is broadly interpreted that the display of the target window and the first edit box is not required to be done simultaneously.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Van Dok to include and displaying, in the first edit box, content displayed in the target window, as taught by Missig.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the device by making contracting the expanded region to make visible regions that where covered or otherwise rendered invisible by the expansion, Missig ¶ 279.
Van Dok, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach “and the target window is an edit window different from the first edit box”.
However, this limitation is not effective to sufficiently differentiate from the prior art(s) mentioned above, because the current application record fails to identify a specific, unexpected advantage or novel technical benefit of creating a new, larger input box versus merely resizing an original input box, the claimed "new box" [the target window is an edit window different from the first edit box] approach is considered an obvious, non-functional variation of the prior art's dimension-changing technique, failing to meet the requirement that relative dimensional changes must yield a distinct, non-obvious utility. Regardless of whether a target window is a different window or an enlarged version of the target window, the same effect/result occurs––more space for inputting text)
However, assuming arguendo that Van Dok, as modified, does not teach, but Shu teaches:
the target window is an edit window different from the first edit box (A new interface is created to improve user comfort and convenience, allowing for an automatic, orientation-based switch to a more suitable input layout, ¶ 12. It provides more inputting space by rotating the interface to utilize the long sides of the display, while preserving previous input for a seamless transition to the new, bigger interface, ¶¶ 12 and 13).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Van Dok to include the target window is an edit window different from the first edit box, as taught by Shu.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide an extended input region/window in a known and effective manner, Shu ¶¶ 12-13.
Van Dok, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Leigh teaches:
that “the second content is templated text” (displaying interactive component icons, interactive component types are based on templates, ¶ 42 and fig. 1, and correspond to different types of entry modes, e.g., bulleted and numbered lists, ¶ 60 and fig. 4. user may select an interactive component icon and insert of an interactive component of the selected interactive component type into a message, ¶ 60 and fig. 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Van Dok to include wherein in a case that the first input is used to input second content to the first edit box, the preset condition comprises: the second content comprises a preset identifier, wherein the preset identifier is used to indicate that the second content is templated text, as taught by Leigh.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the functionalities and versatility of the device by allowing users to enter different types of interactive component types to the inputted data, as they wish, Leigh ¶ 60 and fig. 4.
Van Dok, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Capps teaches:
wherein in a case that the first input is used to input second content to the first edit box, the preset condition comprises: the second content comprises a preset identifier, wherein the preset identifier is used to indicate that the second content is templated text (if a displayed item is a list (preset identifier), and the display state of a window is contracted, then the system enlarges the window for displaying the list of items, Abstract and cols 5:58-6:5 and fig. 4A).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Van Dok to include wherein in a case that the first input is used to input second content to the first edit box, the preset condition comprises: the second content comprises a preset identifier, wherein the preset identifier is used to indicate that the second content is templated text, as taught by Capps.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to implement the versatility of the device, as discussed above by Leigh, in a usable way by inserting different formats of information, e.g., bulleted lists, while ensuring that the area for displaying the information is large enough, Capps Abstract and cols 5:58-6:5 and fig. 4A.
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Leigh further teaches:
displaying at least one template, wherein each template in the at least one template corresponds to one edit mode; (displaying interactive component icons, interactive component types are based on templates, ¶ 42 and fig. 1, and correspond to different types of entry modes, e.g., bulleted and numbered lists, ¶ 60 and fig. 4)
receiving a third input of the user to a target template in the at least one template; (user may select an interactive component icon and insert of an interactive component of the selected interactive component type into a message, ¶ 60 and fig. 4)
and in response to the third input, updating an edit mode of the target window from a first edit mode to a second edit mode corresponding to the target template; (user may select an interactive component icon and insert of an interactive component of the selected interactive component type into a message, ¶ 60 and fig. 4)
and the displaying, in the target window, first content corresponding to the second input, and displaying, in the first edit box, the content displayed in the target window comprises: displaying the first content in the target window in the second edit mode, and displaying, in the first edit box, the first content displayed in the second edit mode. (Leigh teaches the edit mode changes, as explained above. As discussed above for claim 1, Van Dok teaches the displaying the text entered into the enlarged text box, ¶ 34 and fig. 2B, and Missig teaches that the entry box can be resize back to original size, as such, in combination, Van Dok, as modified, teach and the displaying, in the target window, first content corresponding to the second input, and displaying, in the first edit box, the content displayed in the target window comprises: displaying the first content in the target window in the second edit mode, and displaying, in the first edit box, the first content displayed in the second edit mode)
Independent Claim 11 and Dependent Claim 19:
Claims 11 and 19 are directed to a readable storage medium and chip for accomplishing performing the functions of the device of claim 6, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 7, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dok (US 20040268263 A1) in view of Missig (US 20200356254 A1) or alternatively also in view of Shu (US 20100022275 A1), as applied to claims 6 and 11 above, and further in view of Leigh; Yan Zhong et al. (hereinafter Leigh – US 20220109651 A1).
Claims 12 and 20:
The rejection of claims 6 and 11 is incorporated. Claims 12 and 20 are directed to a readable storage medium and chip for accomplishing performing the function of the device in claim 7, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 8-10 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dok (US 20040268263 A1) in view of Missig (US 20200356254 A1), Shu (US 20100022275 A1), Leigh (US 20220109651 A1) and Capps (US 6011550 A), as applied to claims 6 and 11 above, and further in view of Joo; Sihyun et al. (hereinafter Joo – US 20190180127 A1).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Van Dok further teaches:
receiving a fifth input of the user; (a user can interact with a send button, e.g., button 272, to send the inputted content to another user, fig. 2B and ¶¶ 31 and 33)
and in response to the fifth input, sending the first content through an application corresponding to the target interface, (a user can interact with a send button, e.g., button 272, to send the inputted content to another user, fig. 2B and ¶¶ 31 and 33)
and displaying the first content in the target interface. (the messages communicated is displayed, as exemplified in fig. 2B:242 and ¶ 31)
Van Dok, as modified, further teaches:
displaying the first edit box, wherein the first content is displayed in the first edit box (as reflected in the concepts explained above, of displaying entered text in the enlarged text box, see Van Dok, and displaying the text box in its original size with the inputted text, see Missig)
Van Dok, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Joo teaches:
receiving a fourth input of the user” and that the displaying the first content in the first edit box is “in response to the fourth input” (teaches the concept of a user manipulating a button in order to start and end an input mode, herein, handwritten input mode, ¶ 55)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Van Dok to include receiving a fourth input of the user” and that the displaying the first content in the first edit box is “in response to the fourth input”, as taught by Joo.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the device by providing the user with more control of activation/deactivation of input modes, Joo ¶ 55.
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Van Dok, as modified, further teaches:
wherein the target window comprises a cursor, and the cursor is located in a first area in the target window; (the user interactions with the user interface using pointing a device, Van Dok Claim 21, and the position of a text cursor is also reflected in Van Dok fig. 6:614)
and the displaying the first edit box comprises:
displaying the first edit box, and displaying the cursor in a second area in the first edit box, (the user interactions with the user interface using pointing a device, Van Dok Claim 21, and the position of a text cursor is also reflected in Van Dok fig. 6:614)
wherein content displayed in the second area is same as content displayed in the first area. (after input, the region contracts back to its original size, Missig ¶ 279)
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Van Dok, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Joo teaches:
wherein the preset condition comprises any one of following: the first input is a preset input to an input method area corresponding to the input method keyboard, and the first input is an input to a preset control; (a user manipulating a button in order to start and end an input mode, herein, handwritten input mode, Joo ¶ 55. Note that in Van Dok, A user may enter commands and information into the computer 820 through keyboard, ¶ 61, as such, it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized in implemented Joo to Van Dok, that the activating/deactivating of the input method of Joo can be accomplished via the keyboard “corresponding to the input method keyboard”)
or in a case that the first input is used to input second content to the first edit box, the preset condition comprises any one of following: a quantity of display rows of the second content is greater than or equal to a preset threshold of a quantity of display rows; and the second content comprises a preset identifier, wherein the preset identifier is used to indicate that the second content is templated text. (claim language including and succeeding “or in a case” is written in optional form)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Van Dok to include wherein the preset condition comprises any one of following: the first input is a preset input to an input method area corresponding to the input method keyboard, and the first input is an input to a preset control; or in a case that the first input is used to input second content to the first edit box, the preset condition comprises any one of following: a quantity of display rows of the second content is greater than or equal to a preset threshold of a quantity of display rows; and the second content comprises a preset identifier, wherein the preset identifier is used to indicate that the second content is templated text, as taught by Joo.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the device by providing the user with more control of activation/deactivation of input modes, Joo ¶ 55.
Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Claim 13 is directed to a readable storage medium for accomplishing performing the functions of the device in claim 8, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 14:
The rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Claim 14 is directed to a readable storage medium for accomplishing performing the functions of the device in claim 8, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 15:
The rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Claim 15 is directed to a readable storage medium for accomplishing performing the functions of the device in claim 10, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's 103 arguments have been fully considered but they are not moot in view of the new ground of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Seni, Giovanni et al. US 20030007018 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a larger input area for inputting handwriting, figs. 1-2 and ¶ 16.
Perrin; Steven Richard et al. US 20160179758 A1, is pertinent to claim 3 for disclosing that in an overlay window, e.g., presented at the bottom of the screen, the user may see the results of handwriting recognition prior to inserting text into the application. The user then must explicitly confirm that the results are correct by pressing a button to move the handwritten input from the window to the underlying application, ¶ 18 and figs. 3A-3B.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights