DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/11/2026.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention (as originally submitted, and as amended on 3/11/2026) is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Providing a Secondary, Larger Text Input Area When Needed.
Claims Status
Claims 1-15 and 19-20 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1, 6 and 11 are independent, and newly amended.
Claims 16-18 are newly canceled.
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) 1, 6, 11 and 19 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) or alternatively 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) and Shu; Zhi-Long (Hereinafter Shu – US 20100022275 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Van Dok teaches:
A content editing method, wherein the method comprises:
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 method 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 method by making contracting the expanded region to make visible regions that where covered or otherwise rendered invisible by the expansion, Missig ¶ 279.
Van Dok-Missig 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 instant specification 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)
Alternatively, assuming arguendo that Van Dok-Missig 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 method 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.
Independent Claims 6 and 11 and Dependent Claim 19:
Claims 6, 11, 19 are directed to an electronic device, readable storage medium, and chip for accomplishing performing the steps in the method of claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 2, 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 1, 6 and 11 above, and further in view of Leigh; Yan Zhong et al. (hereinafter Leigh – US 20220109651 A1).
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Van Dok, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Leigh 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:
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-Missig-Leigh 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)
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 method of Van Dok to include 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: 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, as taught by Leigh.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the functionalities and versatility of the method by allowing users to enter different types of interactive component types to the inputted data, as they wish, Leigh ¶ 60 and fig. 4.
Claims 7, 12 and 20:
The rejection of claims 6 and 11 is incorporated. Claims 7, 12 and 20 are directed to an electronic device, readable storage medium, and chip for accomplishing performing the steps in the method of claim 2, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 3-5, 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) or alternatively also in view of Shu (US 20100022275 A1), as applied to claims 1, 6 and 11 above, and further in view of Joo; Sihyun et al. (hereinafter Joo – US 20190180127 A1).
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Van Dok further teaches:
after the displaying, in the first edit box, the content displayed in the target window, the method further comprises: 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-Missig 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-Missig 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 method 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 method by providing the user with more control of activation/deactivation of input modes, Joo ¶ 55.
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Van Dok-Missig 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 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Van Dok-Missig 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 method 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 method by providing the user with more control of activation/deactivation of input modes, Joo ¶ 55.
Claims 8 and 13:
The rejection of claims 6 and 11 is incorporated. Claims 8 and 13 are directed to an electronic device and readable storage medium for accomplishing performing the steps in the method of claim 3, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claims 9 and 14:
The rejection of claims 8 and 13 is incorporated. Claims 9 and 14 are directed to an electronic device and readable storage medium for accomplishing performing the steps in the method of claim 4, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claims 10 and 15:
The rejection of claims 6 and 11 is incorporated. Claims 10 and 15 are directed to an electronic device and readable storage medium for accomplishing performing the steps in the method of claim 5, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's 103 arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or are otherwise moot in view of the new ground of rejection presented above.
First, the applicant alleges patentability of claim 1 by attacking Van Dok and Missig for not teaching the newly added limitation of “and the target window is an edit window different from the first edit box”. Remarks Pg(s) 10-14.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in 103 rejection above, this limitation is not effective to sufficiently differentiate from the prior art(s) mentioned above, because the instant specification 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)
Alternatively, even assuming arguendo that Van Dok-Missig 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 method 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.
As such, these arguments are moot in view of Shu.
Second, the applicant relies on the argument(s) above to allege patentability of remaining claim(s). Remarks Pg(s) 14.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for similar reasons.
Conclusion
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.
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