DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 5/10/2024, which claims priority to Chinese Patent Application 202310533384.2, filed 5/11/2023.
Claims 1-20 have been submitted for examination.
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 .
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a “storage medium” which may be interpreted as being a carrier wave holding instructions. While Applicant describes the storage medium in paragraph [0159] as the medium “may be any tangible medium”, this description leaves open the interpretation that the medium may also not be a tangible medium.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11, 12, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Donohue (US 2017/0147202).
As per claim 1, Donohue teaches the following:
a text processing method, (see abstract), comprising:
acquiring and displaying a text to be processed, wherein the text to be processed comprises a plurality of words, and each of the plurality of words comprises at least one character. As Donohue teaches in paragraph [0098], the method includes receiving text input from a user at 402. The to-be-processed text is shown in Fig. 3A as words and characters in input box at 316;
determining a spacing adjustment object corresponding to the text to be processed in response to a spacing adjustment triggering operation for the text to be processed, wherein the spacing adjustment object comprises a word spacing and a character spacing that make up the text to be processed. As Donohue teaches in paragraph [0083], and corresponding Fig. 3B, the spacing of the text may be adjusted based on input speed. Donohue further teaches in paragraph [0104], and corresponding Fig. 4, 406, that a formatting of a message is selected (spacing adjustment trigger); and
adjusting the spacing adjustment object, updating the text to be processed based on an adjustment result, and displaying the text to be processed after the updating. Donohue teaches in paragraph [0105], and corresponding Fig. 4, 408, that the text message is formatted.
Regarding claim 2, Donohue teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Donohue further teaches the following:
the determining the spacing adjustment object corresponding to the text to be processed in response to the spacing adjustment triggering operation for the text to be processed, comprises:
in response to a selection triggering operation for a character and/or a word in the text to be processed, determining the spacing adjustment object corresponding to the text to be processed based on a word to which a selected character belongs and/or a selected word. As Donohue teaches in paragraph [0086], the system may determine spacing parameter based upon keywords, where the occurrence of such keywords is interpreted as encompassing a “selection triggering operation” and is based upon said word, such as in the example given where “ASAP” signifies a user in a hurry.
Regarding claim 3, Donohue teaches the method of claim 2 as described above. Donohue further teaches the following:
wherein the determining the spacing adjustment object corresponding to the text to be processed based on the word to which the selected character belongs and/or the selected word, comprises:
taking the word to which the selected character belongs and/or the selected word as at least one trigger word and determining an amount of the at least one trigger word; and determining the spacing adjustment object corresponding to the text to be processed based on the amount of the at least one trigger word. As Donohue teaches in paragraph [0089], different words may have different formatting, where these individual words are interpreted as “trigger words”. As Donohue teaches in paragraph [0090], a spacing adjustment may be based on a type speed (amount) of a “trigger word”.
Regarding claim 4, Donohue teaches the method of claim 3 as described above. Donohue further teaches the following:
wherein the determining the spacing adjustment object corresponding to the text to be processed based on the amount of the at least one trigger word comprises at least one of the following operations:
in response to the amount of the at least one trigger word being one, taking the character spacing as the spacing adjustment object;
in response to the amount of the at least one trigger word being plural, taking the word spacing as the spacing adjustment object;
in response to the amount of the at least one trigger word being plural and at least part of the at least one trigger word being not adjacent in the text to be processed, taking the character spacing as the spacing adjustment object; and
in response to the amount of the at least one trigger word is plural and at least part of the at least one trigger word being adjacent in the text to be processed, taking the word spacing as the spacing adjustment object.
As Donohue teaches in paragraph [0090], the system may compare a first typing speed to a second typing speed. This is interpreted as encompassing Applicant’s claim in that the word considered (“contrarian” in the example) is made of a plurality of characters and is adjacent to the text to be processed (“Why does Kevin always….” In the example).
Regarding claim 5, Donohue teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Donohue further teaches the following:
wherein the adjusting the spacing adjustment object comprises: determining a target word corresponding to the spacing adjustment object based on the spacing adjustment triggering operation, and adjusting the spacing adjustment object based on the target word. As Donohue teaches in paragraph [0090], a spacing adjustment may be based upon a type speed of a specific word (“contrarian” in the example).
Regarding claim 6, Donohue teaches the method of claim 5 as described above. Donohue further teaches the following:
wherein the determining the target word corresponding to the spacing adjustment object based on the spacing adjustment triggering operation, comprises: determining a trigger word in the text to be processed based on the spacing adjustment triggering operation, and determining the target word corresponding to the spacing adjustment object based on the trigger word. As Donohue teaches in paragraph [0089], different words may have different formatting, where these individual words are interpreted as “trigger words”. As Donohue teaches in paragraph [0090], spacing may be set based upon a comparison between type speed of different words. Therefor, the spacing of a second word (target word) may be based upon a comparison between the second word and a first word (trigger word).
Regarding claim 7, Donohue teaches the method of claim 6 as described above. Donohue further teaches the following:
wherein the determining the target word corresponding to the spacing adjustment object based on the trigger word, comprises:
taking the trigger word as the target word corresponding to the spacing adjustment object. As Donohue teaches in paragraph [0090], the spacing may be set based upon the type speed of a selected word, where the selected word is interpreted to encompass both a trigger word and target word; or
determining an associated word corresponding to the trigger word in the text to be processed based on first display information corresponding to the trigger word, and taking the trigger word and the associated word as the target word corresponding to the spacing adjustment object, wherein the first display information comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of: a language type corresponding to the trigger word, a font style corresponding to the trigger word, a color corresponding to the trigger word, a size corresponding to the trigger word, and combination structure information between adjacent trigger words. As the two limitations are separated by a Boolean “or”, the examiner interprets the second limitation as not being required.
Regarding claim 11, Donohue teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Donohue further teaches the following:
wherein the adjusting the spacing adjustment object comprises: in response to the spacing adjustment object being the word spacing, determining a current word to be adjusted and a previous word of the current word to be adjusted in the text to be processed; and adjusting position information of a first character of the current word to be adjusted based on position information of a last word of the previous word, to adjust the word spacing. As Donohue teaches in paragraph [0090], and corresponding Fig. 3C (reproduced below), word spacing may be adjusted on a current word (“contrarian”) and a previous word (“a”).
PNG
media_image1.png
188
189
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Donohue teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Donohue further teaches the following:
wherein a text center position corresponding to the text to be processed after the updating is identical to a text center position corresponding to the text to be processed before the adjusting. As Donohue shows in Fig. 3, text determined to be typed as a “normal” speed is not altered, therefore identical both before and after adjusting.
Regarding claim 15, Donohue teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Donohue further teaches the following:
further comprising: in response to an information adjustment operation for second display information of a word or a character in the text to be processed, adjusting the second display information of the word or the character, wherein the second display information comprises at least one of language type information, a font style, color information, position information, and size information corresponding to the word or the character. As Donohue teaches in paragraph [0053], formatting for text may be selected such as font, size, spacing (position).
As per claim 16, Donohue teaches the following:
an electronic device, comprising:
one or more processors, (see paragraph [0106], “one or more processors”); and
a storage apparatus, configured to store one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs, (see paragraph [0106], “system memory”),
The remaining limitations of claim 16 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claims 17-19, Donohue teaches the device of claim 16 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 17-19 are substantially similar to those of claims 2-4 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 20, Donohue teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Donohue further teaches the following:
a storage medium, comprising computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by a computer processor, are configured to implement the text processing method according to claim 1, (see paragraph [0106], “system memory”).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donohue as applied to claim 1, in view of Barnes et al. (US 2006/0132812), hereinafter Barnes.
Regarding claim 8, Donohue teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Donohue does not explicitly teach of a spacing adjustment setting. In a similar field of endeavor, Barnes teaches of text editing (see abstract). Barnes further teaches the following:
wherein the determining the spacing adjustment object corresponding to the text to be processed in response to the spacing adjustment triggering operation for the text to be processed, comprises:
displaying a spacing adjustment setting item corresponding to the text to be processed, wherein the spacing adjustment setting item comprises a setting item corresponding to the spacing adjustment object and/or a setting item corresponding to a text component associated with the spacing adjustment object; and in response to an information setting triggering operation for the spacing adjustment setting item, determining the spacing adjustment object corresponding to the text to be processed based on setting information corresponding to the spacing adjustment setting item. As Barnes teaches in paragraph [0025], and corresponding Fig. 4, a kerning preview menu 400 may be displayed related to selected text which allows a user to directly select a kerning value (spacing adjustment object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the spacing adjustment of Donohue with the kerning menu of Barnes. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Barnes teaches in paragraph [0005], such settings benefit a user in seeing exactly how selected text will appear once edited.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donohue as applied to claim 1, in view of Fesbinder et al. (US 2024/0220705), hereinafter Fesbinder
Regarding claim 9, Donohue teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Donohue does not explicitly teach of utilizing word center position. Fesbinder teaches the following:
wherein the adjusting the spacing adjustment object comprises:
in response to the spacing adjustment object being the character spacing, determining a character corresponding to the character spacing to be adjusted, acquiring a word corresponding to the character, and
determining a word center position corresponding to the word; and determining a first distance from each character in the word to the word center position, and scaling the first distance to adjust the character spacing between every two characters in the word. As Fesbinder teaches in paragraph [0086], spacing between center characters is utilized to define side bearings, which Fesbinder shows in Fig. 4C as influencing the spacing between characters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the spacing adjustment of Donohue with the word centers of Fesbinder. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Fesbinder teaches in paragraph [0002], such determinations benefit users in reading two different layers of text.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-**Song et al. (US 2009/0254201), correcting word spacing. See Fig. 4A
-Kirshenbaum (US 8,539,349), splitting Chinese characters into segments.
-**Yang et al. (US 2014/0195902), typesetting multi-language text.
-Sakurai (US 2014/0351754), changing word/character spacing to aid in selection.
-Brandall et al. (US 2020/0279021), See Fig. 3
-Arora et al. (US 11,170,156), creating drop words for character spacing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 pm.
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, William Bashore can be reached at 5712424088. 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.
/GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights