DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka et al. (US 2014/0115521; hereinafter Kataoka) in view of Peterson (US 2010/0293497) as applied in the last Office Action.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka in
view of Peterson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US2011/0093820; hereinafter Zhang) as applied in the last Office Action.
Claim(s) 12-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka in view of Peterson and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2011/0093820; hereinafter Zhang) as applied in the last Office Action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7, 8, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would 8. be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argues that “Neither Kataoka nor Peterson discloses a virtual keyboard in which spatial location relative to a user’s anatomy are mapped to keystrokes”. However, nowhere in the claim 1 specifies “a virtual keyboard in which spatial location relative to a user’s anatomy are mapped to keystrokes”. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “virtual keyboard” in claim 1 is interpreted as any keyboard that is being displayed on a screen. As such, both Kataoka and Peterson discloses a virtual keyboard.
In regards to claims 2 and 14, Applicant’s argument is persuasive. Hence, claims 2 and 14 are allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 4, Applicant argues that “the word “semantic” does not appear in Kataoka”. Hence, Applicant states that Kataoka does not discloses “using three groups of preliminary predicted next characters to predict a next character”. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The previous Office Action points to paragraph [0038]-[0039] to show that language model is used to predict the next character/word. Kataoka teaches “a candidate word may therefore represent the probability of the candidate word based on a language context and the accuracy of a gesture given a set of keys”. As such, the term “language context” is being construed as “based on a semantic-based”. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 4 is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In regards to claim 9, Applicant argues that “Nothing in Zhang suggests that different users are likely to have a different user keyboard trajectories when typing words”. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhang teaches identifying the gesture style (which includes the trajectories of finger when typing words) of user and building a user’s gesture profile in order to improve the gesture recognition of a particular gesture movement. As such, the combination of Kataoka, Peterson, and Zhang discloses all the features in claim 9.
In regards to claim 10, and 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 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In regards to claim 12, Applicant argues “Kataoka maps a set of spatial locations relative to a user interface, not relative to a user’s anatomy”. However, nowhere in claim 12 recites “a set of spatial locations relative to a viewer’s anatomy”.
Furthermore, Applicant argues “Zhang is cited for its alleged disclosure of “determining a probability of at least one of a finger and a thumb actuating a virtual keyboard key based on the user identification information”. However, Examiner relied on Peterson to teach “determining a probability of at least one of a finger and a thumb actuating a virtual keyboard key based on the user identification information”. See last Office Action, page 9.
Applicant arguments with respect to claims 16 and 18 are not persuasive for the same reasons as discussed above in claims 4 and 9.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIXI CHOW SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-3:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 517-272-0666. 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.
/LIXI C SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625