DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 06/16/2026. Claims 4, 7, 11, 14, and 15 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, and 13 are pending in the case. All remaining claims have been amended.
Claim Interpretations/Examiner’s Notes
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow (see In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Also, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). The following is provided to aid the reader in understanding how at least some claim elements (also commonly referred to as claim limitations), as a whole, have been considered in the rejections below:
“in a case that” [e.g. claims 1-3, 5, and 6] = Even though the prior art rejection included below does not depend on the following technicality, it is nonetheless respectfully noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Therefore, as currently claimed, functionalities that currently depend on the “in a case that” condition being true may not be narrowing the claims to the extent it may have been intended since, for purposes of prior art analysis, any prior art scenario showing at least one mappable instance wherein the contingency/triggering condition is not met/true would suffice to anticipate or teach these aspects. See “Contingent Limitations” in MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II and/or MPEP § 2143.03.
“used to” [e.g. claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, and 13] = the limitations reciting “used to” and/or “to” (like the intended uses for “the first input” and/or the performing natural language processing “to” ideally have a secondary “divide” effect) are written in a form describing an intended use. Therefore, any instance/example in the prior art that would be reasonably interpretable as being at least capable of performing/enabling the intended uses would meet each claim limitation, respectively. See, e.g., MPEP §§ 2111.04 & 2114.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language (like the “can be” language in line 2 of claim 8) that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (see MPEP §§ 2111.04 & 2143.03).
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Grieves et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2015/0089428, hereinafter “Grieves”) in view of Zhang et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2015/0193140, hereinafter “Zhang”).
As to claims 1, 8, and 15, Grieves shows a text display method, an electronic device, and a concomitant readable storage medium [¶¶ 52 & 59], comprising:
in a case that a text edit interface is displayed, receiving a first input, wherein the first input is used to input a target character [in a case that a text edit interface is displayed (fig. 4), receiving a first input to input a target character (figs. 4-5; ¶¶ 24, 28, & 41-44)];
determining a target display parameter corresponding to the target character according to the target character [determining a target display parameter (like “formatting, punctuation, symbol insertion, translations, and combinations thereof” (¶ 24)) corresponding to the target character according to the target character (¶¶ 24 & 38-39)]; and
displaying target text content according to the target display parameter, wherein the target text content is text content input after the target character is received, or the text content selected before the target character is received [displaying target text content according to the target display parameter, wherein the target text content is at least selected before the target character is received (fig. 4-7; ¶¶ 24 & 35-39)];
Grieves further shows:
wherein before the receiving the first input, the method further comprises: performing natural language processing on text in the text edit interface, to divide the text in the text edit interface into at least two parts of text; and displaying character input box controls in one-to-one correspondence with {…} the at least two parts of text, wherein the first input is used to input the target character in a target character input box control, wherein the target text content comprises some text corresponding to the target character input box control, and the character input box controls in one-to-one correspondence with {…} the at least two parts of text comprise the target character input box control [Grieves shows performing natural language processing on text in the text edit interface (¶¶ 30 & 40), which may have the intended use/result to divide the text in the text edit interface into at least two parts of text (see, for example, how the “time” related scenario selects the entire text, divides said entire text into at least two parts, and provides the at least two parts with at least one target character input box control via which the first input is used to input the target character (figs. 5-7; ¶¶ 40 & 46-49)).];
wherein the text content and the target character are displayed in different display boxes [the text content and the target character are displayed in different display boxes (the text content in its own isolated box and/or its highlighting rectangle) and the target character in its own selectable virtual keyboard box) | figs. 4-5; ¶¶ 36-39].
As shown above, Grieves shows at least one single control for the at least two parts of text (as a whole). However, Grieves does not appear to explicitly recite “displaying character input box controls in one-to-one correspondence with each part of the at least two parts of text” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Zhang shows:
wherein before the receiving a first input, the method further comprises: performing natural language processing on text in the text edit interface, to divide the text in the text edit interface into at least two parts of text; and displaying character input box controls in one-to-one correspondence with each part of the at least two parts of text {…} [Zhang shows an operability to process text to divide it into two or more parts, and displaying character input box controls in one-to-one correspondence for each one of the at least two parts of text (Zhang: fig. 7; ¶¶ 55-57)].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Grieves and Zhang before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Zhang’s operability to divide text and control each individual part into Grieves. The rationale for doing so would have been “to facilitate editing operations that are traditionally difficult to perform using an on-screen keyboard” (Grieves: ¶ 24) “more accurately and efficiently than with conventional techniques” (Zhang: ¶ 18), especially when doing so “makes editing tasks easy for user to accomplish and enhances the overall user experience” (Grieves: ¶ 31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Grieves and Zhang (hereinafter, the “Grieves and Zhang” combination) in order to obtain the invention as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15.
As to dependent claims 2 and 9, Grieves-Zhang further shows:
wherein before the receiving the first input, the method further comprises: receiving a second input; displaying a first setting interface in response to the second input; receiving a third input in the first setting interface; and associating the target character with the target display parameter in response to the third input [a user may deliberately associate, via a setting interface, a target character with a target display parameter (¶¶ 31, 38, & 49)].
As to dependent claims 3 and 10, Grieves-Zhang further shows:
wherein in a case that the target character is pre-associated with at least two candidate display parameters, the determining the target display parameter corresponding to the target character according to the target character comprises: displaying a first window control in response to the first input, wherein the first window control comprises function options in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two candidate display parameters; receiving a fourth input for a target function option, wherein the function options in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two candidate display parameters comprise the target function option; and in response to the fourth input, displaying a candidate display parameter corresponding to the target function option as the target display parameter [when the target character is pre-associated with at least two candidate display parameters, a first window control with selectable function options and corresponding candidate display parameters may be displayed (¶¶ 45-48)].
As to dependent claims 6 and 13, Grieves-Zhang further shows:
wherein the performing natural language processing on the text in the text edit interface, to divide the text in the text edit interface into the at least two parts of text comprises: displaying a natural language processing mode control; receiving a fifth input for the natural language processing mode control; and in response to the fifth input, performing first natural language processing on the text in the text edit interface, to divide the text in the text edit interface into N paragraphs, wherein N is an integer greater than 1 [Both Grieves and Zhang show the operability to display at least one control to parse/NLP the text and divide it into two or more text parts (which may happen to be and/or otherwise be reasonably interpretable as textual paragraphs) | Grieves: figs. 5-7; ¶¶ 30, 40, & 46-49 | Zhang: fig. 7; ¶¶ 55-57];
in a case that the at least two parts of text comprise at least two statements, the method further comprises: receiving a sixth input for a target paragraph, wherein the N paragraphs comprise the target paragraph; and in response to the sixth input, performing second natural language processing on the target paragraph, to divide the target paragraph into M statements, wherein M is an integer greater than 1; and in a case that the at least two parts of text comprise at least two phrases, the method further comprises: receiving a seventh input for a target statement, wherein the M statements comprise the target statement; and in response to the seventh input, performing third natural language processing on the target statement, to divide the target statement into L phrases, wherein L is an integer greater than 1 [In a case that the at least two parts of text comprise either at least two statements or at least two phrases, the method further comprises: receiving a respective input for a target part/paragraph/statement; and in response to the respective input, performing a corresponding natural language processing on the target part to divide it into two or more statements or phrases (Grieves: figs. 5-7; ¶¶ 30, 40, & 46-49 | Zhang: fig. 7; ¶¶ 55-57)].
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Grieves-Zhang in further view of Shaw et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0220424, hereinafter “Shaw”).
As to dependent claims 5 and 12, Grieves-Zhang further shows:
wherein the at least two parts of text comprise: at least two paragraphs, at least two statements, or at least two phrases [the at least two parts of text comprise: at least two paragraphs, at least two statements, or at least two phrases (Grieves: figs. 4-7 | Zhang: figs. 2-8)];
wherein the displaying character input box controls in one-to-one correspondence with each part of the at least two parts of text comprises: in a case that the at least two parts of text comprise L phrases, displaying L character input box controls in L display areas corresponding to the L phrases; and in a case that the at least two parts of text comprise X paragraphs or statements, displaying X text numbers in X display areas corresponding to the X paragraphs or statements{…} [in a case that the at least two parts of text comprise phrases, paragraphs, or statements, each and every phrase, paragraph or statement may be associated with a corresponding character input box control (which may take the non-functional form of a number). | (Grieves: figs. 5-7; ¶¶ 30, 40, & 46-49 | Zhang: fig. 7; ¶¶ 55-57)].
Grieves-Zhang does not appear to explicitly recite a “displaying a second window, wherein the second window comprises X character input box controls corresponding to the X text numbers, and X is an integer greater than 1” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Shaw shows:
wherein the displaying character input box controls in one-to-one correspondence with each part of the at least two parts of text comprises: in a case that the at least two parts of text comprise L phrases, displaying L character input box controls in L display areas corresponding to the L phrases; and in a case that the at least two parts of text comprise X paragraphs or statements, displaying X text numbers in X display areas corresponding to the X paragraphs or statements, and displaying a second window, wherein the second window comprises X character input box controls corresponding to the X text numbers, and X is an integer greater than 1 [“{…} Styles are formatting instructions, grouped together under an assigned name, that apply a number of formatting attributes simultaneously to text to manage the overall appearance of a document. Styles may be applied to format words, sentences, text blocks, paragraphs, numbers lists and tables. {…}
In Microsoft® Word, styles may for example be applied to a document from a styles pallet, such as for example the “Styles and Formatting” pane in the Windows version and from the “Styles” pane in the Formatting Palette in the Macintosh version. The styles pallet includes a listing of the predefined and user-defined styles, as well as an option to create new styles. A user may apply a style to a paragraph by positioning the cursor at or within that paragraph, and then selecting the desired style. Similarly, a user may apply a style to selected text by selecting (highlighting) a text block and then selecting the desired style from the pane. The pane may also include a window for displaying the style name applied to the text where the cursor is positioned.” (¶¶ 02-03)
“In addition to a visual indicator, each style defined within the word processing application program may also be assigned a numeric indicator, i.e., a number (step 206). {…}
The assigned visual and numeric indicators may be stored as part of or associated with a particular style (for example along with the formatting attributes for that style), so that when a style is selected and its associated formatting attributes are applied to selected text, the visual and numeric indicators are also displayed alongside that text {…}
{…} each style name in the styles pallet 402 is displayed with its assigned visual and numeric indicators. The visual and numeric indicators are also displayed along side the text, with text of a given style being displayed with the same visual and numeric indicator assigned to that style name. Thus, the visual aids on GUI 400 allow a user to quickly ascertain which styles are applied to what text. {…}” (¶¶ 33-39)
See also figs. 4-5 for illustrations of how a second window 402 comprises X character input box controls (numbers 410-416) corresponding to the X text numbers 410-416 in the first window/document.]
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Grieves, Zhang, and Shaw before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Shaw’s operability to have a second window with controls corresponding to text numbers for each paragraph or statement into the Grieves-Zhang combination. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide a “visual aid [for] determining which styles are applied to which sections” (Shaw: ¶ 05) and in doing so, “provide a rich user experience where the user can quickly and easily access a wide variety of operating system and/or application program functions” (Shaw: ¶ 01). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Grieves, Zhang, and Shaw in order to obtain the invention as recited in claims 5 and 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“As can be seen from Zhang, Zhang involves selecting text by pushing or pulling a cursor via drag-and-push gestures and further selecting text by pushing or pulling the cursor again from the selected text. All such operations are implemented by manipulating the cursor with gestures, and the text segmentation therein is achieved through gesture operations rather than inherent segmentation based on the text itself.”
In response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 U.S.P.Q. 871 (C.C.P.A. 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 U.S.P.Q. 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Moreover, in response to Applicant’s arguments that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (the “inherent segmentation based on the text itself”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In this case, even though it is not explicitly claimed, Grieves already showed the “inherent segmentation based on the text itself” when it showed the operability to divide the text in the text edit interface into at least two parts of text (see, for example, how the “time” related scenario selects the entire text, divides said entire text into at least two parts, and provides the at least two parts with at least one target character input box control via which the first input is used to input the target character (Grieves: figs. 5-7; ¶¶ 40 & 46-49)).
Zhang also showed that “the selected text can be automatically divided into a plurality of sections” (Zhang: ¶ 55) based on the characteristics of the text.
Therefore, both references in their own way show the unclaimed functionality of “inherent segmentation based on the text itself.”
“In addition, the controls disclosed in Zhang serve to receive input that indicates subsequent functions corresponding to selected segments, which differ substantially from the target character input box controls recited in the amended claim 1 and entirely distinct objects. Zhang neither involves entry of target characters nor provides dedicated target character input controls for such entry and fails to disclose, teach or suggest displaying text content and target characters in respective independent display boxes.”
The Office respectfully disagrees with their characterizations and again submits that this is another improper attack against the references individually. In other words, Grieves was already explicitly mapped for text entry purposes, and Zhang was only relied upon to teach the operability to subdivide text such that box controls are displayed in one-to-one correspondence with each part of the at least two parts of text.
“In view of the above, independent claim 1 is allowable over Grieves, Zhang and Shaw, and is in condition for allowance. {…}”
The Office respectfully disagrees, due at least to the reasons set forth above. Also, another matter that has gone by unacknowledged and unresolved by Applicant that bears reemphasis is the vast breadth in scope of independent claim 1 due to its contingent nature. In other words, after its preamble, claim recites in line 2 “in a case that a text interface is displayed,” perform the rest of the steps of the method. This leaves open the possibility that any single example/prior art scenario showing at least one mappable instance wherein the contingency/triggering condition is not met/true (e.g. any case in which a text interface is not displayed) would suffice to anticipate or teach the entirety of claim 1 (which at that point would have solely consisted of its “A text display method” preamble for purposes of prior art analysis). See “Contingent Limitations” in MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II and/or MPEP § 2143.03.
Therefore, the Office respectfully asserts that the cited art sufficiently teaches the limitations recited in the amended claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 5:00pm).
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO R. CALDERON IV/
Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights