DETAILED ACTION
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-3, 6, 11-12, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bi, Xiaojun (US 2017/0286395 A1).
As in Claim 1, Bi teaches an electronic device comprising (FIGS. 1-2, pars. 14, 36, a computing device 110 of FIG. 1 or a computing device 210 of FIG. 2):
a display (FIGS. 1-2, pars. 15, 37, a presence-sensitive display (PSD) 112 of FIG. 1 or 212 of FIG. 2);
a memory configured to store instructions (FIG. 2, pars. 37, 45-47, storage components 248 or memory stores program instructions and/or information (e.g., data)) ; and
a processor (FIG. 2, par. 37, processors 240), when the instructions are executed, configured to:
receive a touch input with a point of contact on a first key among a plurality of keys in a virtual keyboard displayed via the display (FIGS. 4A-4E, pars. 77, 87, the device receives a first touch input 432A (“Z” key) and a second touch input 432B corresponding to key 434D (“D” key) in a graphical keyboard 416B that comprises a plurality of keys; further see pars. 22-24, 41, 76-77, 91);
identify, based on a first character indicated by the first key, a second character indicated by a second key adjacent to the first key among the plurality of keys (FIGS. 4B-4C, pars. 81, 84, 87, the touch input 432B corresponding to 434D (“D” key) and adjacent keys 434A (“W” key), 434B (“E” key), or 434C (“S” key) to the 434D(“D” key) , can be identified), and at least one third character that has been displayed in a text input portion displayed with the virtual keyboard before the touch input is received (FIGS. 4B-4C, pars. 77- 78, an edit region 416A displays previously inputted characters, “There are z”), a character from the first character and the second character (FIGS. 4B-4C, pars. 81, 84, 87), in response to the touch input; and
display the identified character in the text input portion via the display (FIG. 4C, par. 87, UI module 220 output ““There are ze” based on the touched key 434D with adjacent keys 434A-434C with previously inputted phrases “There are z”).
As in Claim 2, Bi teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Bi further teaches that the processor is, when the instructions are executed, configured to:
identify at least one first word that includes the first character as a character following the at least one third character, among a plurality of predetermined words including at least portion of the at least one third character (FIGS. 4B-4E, pars. 82, 88, 92, suggested words 438A-438C);
identify at least one second word that includes, the second character as a character following the at least one third character (FIGS. 4B-4E, pars. 82, 88, 92, suggested words 438A-438C); and
identify the character from the first character and the second character, based on a first relation between context derived from the at least one third character and the at least one first word and a second relation between the context and the at least one second word (FIGS. 4B-4E, pars. 82, 88, 92, suggested words 438A-438C).
As in Claim 3, Bi teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Bi further teaches that the processor is, when the instructions are executed, configured to identify the character from the first character and the second character, further based on a position of the point of the contact (FIGS. 4A-4E, pars. 77- 87).
As in Claim 6, Bi teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Bi further teaches that the processor is, when the instructions are executed, configured to:
identify, as the second key, a key corresponding to the context among keys surrounding the first key, in response to the touch input (FIGS. 4A-4E, pars. 77- 87).
As in Claim 11, Bi teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Bi further teaches that the processor is, when the instructions are executed, configured to identify the character from the first character and the second character, further based on a relative position relation between a position of the first key and a position of a hand of a user causing the touch input (FIGS. 4A-4E, pars. 77- 87).
As in Claim 12, Bi teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Bi further teach that the processor is, when the instructions are executed, configured to identify the character from the first character and the second character, further based on time between a timing at which another touch input immediately before the touch input has been received with respect to a key among the plurality of keys and a timing at which the touch input has been received (par. 22, a time component (e.g., when the user input was received)).
Claims 14 and 20 are substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to Claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claim 3 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to Claim 6 and 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.
3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi, Xiaojun (US 2017/0286395 A1) in view of Rendahl, Randy Allan (US 2011/0181522 A1) and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2008/0096610 A1).
As in Claim 7, Bi teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Bi does not teach that
the processor is, when the instructions are executed, further configured to: display the first key with enlarged size and the second key with enlarged size, on a condition that a character from among the first character and the second character is not capable of being identified based on the first character, the second character, and the at least one third character; display another touch input on a key from among the first key with the enlarged size and the second key with the enlarged size; and display, via the display, a character indicated by the key from which the other touch input is received, in the text input portion.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Rendahl teach that the processor is, when the instructions are executed, further configured to:
display the first key with enlarged size and the second key with enlarged size, on a condition that a character from among the first character and the second character is not capable of being identified based on the first character, the second character, and the at least one third character (see FIGS. 3D-3F, pars. 42-45, when a user’s touch falls within a predefined ambiguous zone that overlaps multiple keys, the system enlarged a group of nearby keys surrounding the touched location).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for providing predicted input based on touched key, adjacent keys, and inputted text, as taught by Bi, and to provide keys in enlarged size when the touch input falls within the ambiguous zone, as taught by Rendahl. The motivation is to improve character selection in ambiguous touch regions by enlarging the touched key and nearby candidate keys, allowing the user to accurately confirm or adjust the intended key.
Bi and Rendahl do not teach displaying another touch input on a key from among the first key with the enlarged size and the second key with the enlarged size; and displaying, via the display, a character indicated by the key from which the other touch input is received, in the text input portion.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Shin teaches displaying another touch input on a key from among the first key with the enlarged size and the second key with the enlarged size; and displaying, via the display, a character indicated by the key from which the other touch input is received, in the text input portion (FIGS. 3-4. pars. 32-34, 36-40, after a receiving touch-down event on a soft keypad, the system enlarges both the touch key and the nearby keys, and the user can select an intended key).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for providing predicted input based on touched key, adjacent keys, and inputted text, as taught by Bi, in view of Rendahl’s teachings, and to provide keys in enlarged size, as taught by Shin. The motivation is to improve touch accuracy by enlarging the touch key and nearby keys, allowing users to easily identify and select the intended key.
4. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi, Xiaojun (US 2017/0286395 A1) in view of Hagiwara, Tatsuo (US 2005/0206730 A1)
As in Claim 8, Bi teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Bi does not teach that the processor is, when the instructions are executed, further configured to adjust information regarding usage history of the virtual keyboard stored in the electronic device based on whether an input for deleting the character displayed in the text input portion from the text input portion is received via the virtual keyboard before another character is displayed in the text input portion.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Hagiwara teach that the processor is, when the instructions are executed, further configured to adjust information regarding usage history of the virtual keyboard stored in the electronic device based on whether an input for deleting the character displayed in the text input portion from the text input portion is received via the virtual keyboard before another character is displayed in the text input portion (pars. 65-68, 71-76, 78-83, the system records/tracks/updates a user’s usage history on a keyboard, including correction operations, such as pressing a correction key (e.g., delete, backspace, insert, arrow, etc.)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for providing predicted input based on touched key, adjacent keys, and inputted text, as taught by Bi, and to update the user’s usage history of correction operations, as taught by Hagiwara. The motivation is to adapt the keyboard layout based on the user’s correction history and delete frequency, thereby reducing repeated input errors and improving typing accuracy.
5. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi, Xiaojun (US 2017/0286395 A1) in view of Lee at al. (US 2012/0306927 A1)
As in Claim 9, Bi teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Bi does not teach that the instructions are executed, configured to: identify a type of an input means causing the touch input; and identify the character from the first character and the second character, further based on whether the identified type is a finger of a user or a stylus.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Lee teach that the instructions are executed, configured to: identify a type of an input means causing the touch input; and identify the character from the first character and the second character, further based on whether the identified type is a finger of a user or a stylus (pars. 14-17, 119-128, 134-138, the mobile terminal identifies whether the received input is from a user finger or a touch pen based on characteristic such as touch size, touch pressure, electrostatic variation temperature variation, etc.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for providing predicted input based on touched key, adjacent keys, and inputted text, as taught by Bi, and to distinguish between finger touch input and pen input provide, as taught by Lee. The motivation is to identify whether the input is from a finger or a touch pen so that the device can provide an input method, interface, or function appropriate to the detected input type.
6. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi, Xiaojun (US 2017/0286395 A1) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2013/0135212 A1).
As in Claim 10, Bi teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Bi does not teach that the processor is, when the instructions are executed, configured to identify the character from the first character and the second character, further based on whether a mode of the electronic device is a portrait mode or a landscape mode.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Cheng teach that the processor is, when the instructions are executed, configured to identify the character from the first character and the second character, further based on whether a mode of the electronic device is a portrait mode or a landscape mode (par. 18, a target key on the virtual keyboard may be selected based on the location of a touch input, wherein the location of the touch is associated with the orientation of the portable device (e.g., landscape or portrait)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for providing predicted input based on touched key, adjacent keys, and inputted text, as taught by Bi, and to determine the target key related to the orientation of the device, as taught by Cheng. The motivation is to associate touch input locations with the device orientation so that the correct target key is selected.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 4 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in an independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 is dependent of claim 4 and the references are not provided for claim 5.
Claims 17 and 18 are is substantially similar to Claims 4and 5, respectively, and rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights