DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 03/17/2024. Claims 1-15 are pending in the case.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202111120215.3, filed on 09/24/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/09/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-7] = 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 1-15] = 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 Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
Line 7 improperly reintroduces the limitation “text content” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established earlier in line 7 of the same claim).
Claim 2:
Line 1 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a first input” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 2 of parent claim 1).
Claim 3:
Lines 2-3 improperly reintroduce the limitation “a target display parameter” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 4 of parent claim 1).
Claim 4:
Line 1 improperly reintroduces the limitation “a first input” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 2 of parent claim 1).
Claim 6:
Line 2 improperly reintroduces the limitation “text” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 3 of parent claim 4).
Lines 2-3 improperly reintroduce the limitation “at least two parts of text” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 4 of parent claim 4).
Claim 7:
The numbering of claim 7 is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126. The presented claims must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented. A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n) and 37 CFR 1.75(g): “(t)he least restrictive claim should be presented as claim number 1, and all dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer…”
Lines 1-2 improperly reintroduce the limitation “character input box controls” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 5 of parent claim 4).
Claim 8:
Line 9 improperly reintroduces the limitation “text content” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established earlier in line 9 of the same claim).
Claim 9:
Lines 1-2 improperly reintroduce the limitation “a first input” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 4 of parent claim 8).
Claim 10:
Lines 2-3 improperly reintroduce the limitation “a target display parameter” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 6 of parent claim 8).
Claim 11:
Lines 1-2 improperly reintroduce the limitation “a first input” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 4 of parent claim 8).
Claim 13:
Line 2 improperly reintroduces the limitation “text” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 3 of parent claim 11).
Line 3 improperly reintroduces the limitation “at least two parts of text” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 4 of parent claim 11).
Claim 14:
The numbering of claim 14 is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126. The presented claims must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented. A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n) and 37 CFR 1.75(g): “(t)he least restrictive claim should be presented as claim number 1, and all dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer…”
Lines 1-2 improperly reintroduce the limitation “character input box controls” (antecedent basis for this limitation had already been established in line 5 of parent claim 11).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim 15 recites a “readable storage medium” which is not comprehensively defined by the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium covers forms of transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. Transitory propagating signals are non-statutory subject matter. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1495, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). See also Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Dependent claims 4 and 11 recite “displaying character input box controls in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two parts of text.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear if the “character input box controls in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two parts of text” intended to display a character input box control for each individual part of text of “the at least two parts of text” (especially when taking into consideration Applicant’s use of the “one-to-one correspondence” language) or if “displaying character input box controls in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two parts of text” should be taken literally as recited to instead mean the one single character input box control should correspond to the two or more parts of text.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grieves et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2015/0089428, hereinafter “Grieves”).
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 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)].
As to dependent claims 2 and 9, Grieves further shows:
wherein before the receiving a 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 further shows:
wherein in a case that the target character is pre-associated with at least two candidate display parameters, the determining a 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)].
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 4-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Grieves in view of Zhang et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2015/0193140, hereinafter “Zhang”).
As to dependent claims 4 and 11, Grieves further 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 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)].
As shown above, Grieves shows at least one single control for the at least two parts of text. In case Applicant meant by the “one-to-one correspondence” language to mean that each part of text should have its own control (a point that is currently unclear, as explained in the USC 112(b) rejection above), Grieves does not appear to explicitly recite that alternative 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 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 4 and 11.
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)].
As to dependent claims 6 and 13, Grieves-Zhang further shows:
wherein the 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 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 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Grieves in view of Zhang, in further view of Shaw et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0220424, hereinafter “Shaw”).
As to dependent claims 7 and 14, Grieves-Zhang further shows:
wherein the displaying character input box controls in one-to-one correspondence with 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 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 7 and 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Inventor
Document ID
Relevance
CHAKRABARTI; DEEPAYAN et al.
US 20090177959 A1
“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 text content selected before the target character is received”
Wurtz; David Adam et al.
US 20150193386 A1
“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 text content selected before the target character is received”
Yoon; Joohyun
US 20160034178 A1
“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 text content selected before the target character is received”
Lenfant-Engelmann; Jeremie et al.
US 20150193385 A1
“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 text content selected before the target character is received”
Prasad; Rithesh R.
US 20140040730 A1
“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 text content selected before the target character is received”
Dye; Amani Ahmed et al.
US 20160188171 A1
“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 text content selected before the target character is received”
Mitnick; Victor et al.
US 20140250369 A1
“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 text content selected before the target character is received”
Pedersen; Andreas Haugstrup et al.
US 20200151388 A1
“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 text content selected before the target character is received”
Peck, David K. et al.
US 20020188636 A1
“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 text content selected before the target character is received”
Helfand; Russ et al.
US 8181104 B1
“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 text content selected before the target character is received”
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 - 5pm).
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