DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, and 17 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
3. Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 11, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2019/0065441 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Kim discloses a text editing method, comprising (Paragraph 0008 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0033, and Paragraph 0102):
in response to enablement of a first text editing function, receiving a first input performed on to-be-edited text by a user, wherein the first input is used for text selection (Figs. 4A-4D, Fig. 8 elements S200-S500, Fig. 9, Paragraph 0041, Paragraph 0042, Paragraph 0043, Paragraph 0070 lines 1-2, Paragraph 0071, and Paragraph 0092 lines 1-11: desired editing mode (e.g. change color of characters to red) is first selected and then an input is provided for selecting characters of text to apply the selected editing mode to);
and controlling, in response to the first input, text selected based on the first input to perform a text editing operation associated with a target text editing function (Figs. 4A-4D, Fig. 8 element S600, Fig. 9, Paragraph 0045, Paragraph 0070, and Paragraph 0092 lines 11-14: the text characters selected by the input are edited (e.g. changed to color red) according to the selected editing mode);
wherein while receiving the first input, the method further comprises: receiving a second input; and in response to the second input, disabling the first text editing function and enabling a second text editing function; or wherein while receiving the first input, the method further comprises: receiving a third input; displaying, in response to the third input, a function selection control, wherein the function selection control comprises a control corresponding to a second text editing function: receiving a fourth input performed on the control corresponding to the second text editing function; and in response to the fourth input, disabling the first text editing function and enabling the second text editing function (Figs. 5A-5D, Fig. 8 elements S700-S800, Fig. 9 elements S700-S900, Paragraph 0073, and Paragraph 0074: while the touch input is maintained (S900) a second touch gesture (e.g. second input) is received which changes (e.g. disables one function and enables another) the desired editing mode (e.g. change color of characters to red) to a different editing mode (e.g. change color of characters to black).
In regard to claim 5, Kim discloses wherein, the controlling, in response to the first input, text selected based on the first input to perform a text editing operation associated with a target text editing function comprises: performing, in response to the first input, a text editing operation associated with the second text editing function on the text selected based on the first input (Figs. 5A-5D, Paragraph 0073, and Paragraph 0074: the characters are changed from the color red to the color black).
In regard to claims 7 and 11, device claims 7 and 11 correspond generally to method claims 1 and 5, respectively, and recite similar features in device form and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claims 13 and 17, medium claims 13 and 17 correspond generally to method claims 1 and 5, respectively, and recite similar features in medium form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
4. Claim(s) 2, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0065441 A1) and further in view of Tan et al. (US 2012/0306772 A1).
In regard to claim 2, while Kim teaches receiving a first input performed on to-be-edited text by a user, wherein the first input is used for text selection, they fail to show the wherein the receiving a first input performed on to-be-edited text by a user comprises: receiving a first touch sub-input performed on a first position in the to-be-edited text by a first finger of the user, and in response to a determination that the first finger is stationary, receiving a second touch sub-input performed on a second position in the to-be-edited text by a second finger of the user, wherein text between the first position and the second position is used as the selected text, as recited in the claims. Tan teaches input used for text selection similar to that of Kim. In addition, Tan further teaches
receiving a first touch sub-input performed on a first position in text by a first finger of a user, and in response to a determination that the first finger is stationary, receiving a second touch sub-input performed on a second position in the text by a second finger of the user, wherein text between the first position and the second position is used as selected text (Paragraphs 0053-0056: first fixed touch and hold input with first finger, second touch input with the second finger, and text between the first touch and second touch is selected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kim and Tan before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first input performed on to-be-edited text by a user, wherein the first input is used for text selection taught by Kim to include the receiving a first touch sub-input performed on a first position in text by a first finger of a user, and in response to a determination that the first finger is stationary, receiving a second touch sub-input performed on a second position in the text by a second finger of the user, wherein text between the first position and the second position is used as selected text of Tan, in order to obtain wherein the receiving a first input performed on to-be-edited text by a user comprises: receiving a first touch sub-input performed on a first position in the to-be-edited text by a first finger of the user, and in response to a determination that the first finger is stationary, receiving a second touch sub-input performed on a second position in the to-be-edited text by a second finger of the user, wherein text between the first position and the second position is used as the selected text. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as a user may be able to quickly select text while minimizing unintentional selections, as suggested by Tan (Paragraph 0028).
In regard to claim 8, device claim 8 corresponds generally to method claim 2 and recites similar features in device form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claim 14, medium claim 14 corresponds generally to method claim 2 and recites similar features in medium form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
5. The amendments to claims 1-6 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as the amended claims are no longer indefinite for the reasons provided. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are withdrawn.
6. The arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the pending claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the claim amendments and the new grounds of rejection.
While the claims remain rejected over 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2019/0065441 A1), the amendments to the claims changed the scope of claims which necessitated modification of the rejection over Kim (US 2019/0065441 A1), causing new grounds of rejection, as additional and different citations of Kim (US 2019/0065441 A1) are now relied on in the above rejections.
It is argued that Kim does not teach the amended independent claims 1, 7, and 13 because Kim is silent about changing the enabled text editing function while receiving the input for text selection. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The cited portions of Kim in the above rejections teach that while the user maintains contact for selecting text, the user can first provide a first touch gesture for editing selected text according to a first text editing function (e.g. change text color to red) and then provide a second touch gesture to change the first text editing function to a second text editing function (e.g. change text color to black) and editing selected text according the second text editing function. Accordingly, Kim is not silent about changing the enabled text editing function while receiving the input for text selection and teaches the amended independent claims 1, 7, and 13 for the detailed reasons provided in the above rejections.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al. (US 2019/0332659 A1), see at least Fig. 4E and Paragraphs 0254-0259.
Seong et al. (US 2017/0329428 A1), see at least Fig. 5B and Paragraph 0174.
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
10. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights