DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communication: The Preliminary Amendment filed on 09/11/2024. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-15 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 13 are independent claims.
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 Objections
Claims 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 7-8 are objected to because each claim does not end with a period (.).
Claim 9 is objected to because they depend on claim 8 which depends on claim 7.
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.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to claims 13-15, a “computing device” is recited. However, all that included in the body of the claims are software display area, software input area and modules. In accordance with the instant specification, it appears that the computing device would reasonably be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as software, per se (e.g., see PGPub 2025/0190099 [0040]; the these modules may be implemented in hardware, in software, or a combination of the two. When implemented in hardware, the modules may be implemented as one or more hardware modules, such as one or more application specific integrated circuits. When implemented in software, the modules may be implemented as one or more computer programs that are executed on one or more processors). As such, it believed that the computing device of claims 13-15 is reasonably interpreted as functional descriptive material, per se. The functional descriptive material are nonstatutory when claimed as descriptive material per se, 33 F.3d at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran et al. (USPN 5880743; hereinafter Moran) in view of Rucine et al. (US 2017/0060819 A1; hereinafter Rucine).
As to claim 1, Moran teaches:
A computer implemented method for creating, on a display, a new text block section (see Figs. 8A-8m and Col. 3, lines 1-21), said method comprising:
- displaying, on the display, an initial text block section (e.g., see Figs. 2, 8a-8m);
- detecting, with an input interface, a user selection gesture defining a selection area enclosing at least one input element of the initial text block section (see Fig. 2 and Col. 7, lines 21-22; the user has selected these objects by drawing a freeform loop 32 around them. Col. 8, lines 29-34; a selection made by freeform loop 56 however is a selection of items for future operation having no regard for specifying and/or organizing such information according to any structural model. In order to move the selection made, the user may use the (unstructured) move gesture 68. See Col. 20, lines 33-40, Col. 17, line 63 through Col. 18, line 10; the selection can be a freeform and/or structured);
- selecting the at least one enclosed input element positioned at an initial location within the initial text block section (see Fig. 2 and Col. 7, lines 21-22; Fig. 2 illustrates the user has created objects 34 and has selected these objects by drawing a freeform loop 32 around them. Col. 8, lines 29-34; a selection made by freeform loop is a selection of items for future operation. Col. 16, line 51 through Col. 17, line 35; the user can select objects on the display as a node by making a rectangular-shaped gesture. The system recognizes this shape and replaces the drawn gesture with a perfectly geometric rectangle);
- moving, in response to a user dragging gesture detected with the input interface, the at least one selected input element from the initial location to a final location positioned outside the initial text block section (see Figs. 8g-8h and Col. 12, lines 47-53; to move the selected item to another position in the list, a user may draw a line gesture 156 from the selection enclosure 155 to a target position, e.g., the location just beneath the item "Los Angeles Times" in FIG. 8(g). The resulting move is shown in FIG. 8(h). See Col. 12, line 66 through Col. 13, line 15, Col. 22, lines 29-51; In order to drag a selected object, the user touches the very center of the selection region. Once the user touches the center, the selection "sticks" to the pen and the pen slides the image of the selection around until the pen is lifted, at which time space is opened and closed as appropriate and the selected item moves into its proper position. An example of the drag operation is shown in FIGS. 8(k), 8(l), and 8(m)).
Moran does not expressly teach: creating at the final location the new text block section enclosing the at least one selected input element.
However, Rucine is relied upon for teaching the deficient limitations. Specifically, Rucine teaches a method for creating at the final location the new text block section enclosing the at least one selected input element (Rucine: see Fig. 15 and ¶ 0136-0142; text blocks. See Fig. 9 and ¶ 0124; select text block. See Fig. 19A-19C and ¶ 0151; blocks can be dragged & dropped or pushed & dropped from their current position in the scroll page 400 to a new position… Besides blocks, text selected in a paragraph can itself be inserted inside another paragraph by drag & drop (or other editing mechanisms such as push, copy, cut, paste) or if dropped in or pushed to empty space, a new text block is created with that text).
Both references are related to manipulating handwriting text blocks; 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 Moran with the teachings of Rucine to provide a method that allows the user to select and move the selected block from one position to another position using a drag gesture as claimed. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Rucine of proving the user the mechanism to create new blocks using a known drag gesture; thus, enhance user experience with the user interface (Rucine: see ¶ 0151).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Moran and Rucine further teach:
wherein the at least one input element is a character, a word or a text line (Moran: see Figs. 8g-8h).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Moran and Rucine further teach:
wherein the at least one selected input element includes at least one text line whereby the at least one text line is aligned with a border of the new block section (Moran: see Figs. 8g-8h. Rucine: see Fig. 9, 15 and ¶ 0124, 0136, 0142; text block). Combining Moran and Rucine would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Moran and Rucine further teach:
- in response to the user dragging gesture, at release of the at least one selected input element, resizing the initial text block section, to enclose at least one first unselected input element of the initial text block section (Moran: see Fig. 8g-8h and Col. 22, lines 60-67, closes the space/gap from which the dragged object originated).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Moran and Rucine further teach:
creating a subsequent block section to enclose at least one second unselected input element of the initial text block section (Moran: see Fig. 8g-8h and Col. 22, lines 60-67, subsequent block section encloses unselected block “Wall street Journal” and unselected block “Los Angeles Times” closes).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Moran and Rucine further teach:
wherein the first or second unselected elements include text lines whereby the first or second unselected elements are aligned with a border of the initial and the subsequent new block section, respectively (Moran: see Fig. 8g-8h and Col. 22, lines 60-67, subsequent block section encloses unselected block “Wall street Journal” and unselected block “Los Angeles Times” closes. Rucine: see Fig. 15-17B and ¶ 0130-0134; all blocks are aligned/snapped onto the gutter edges). Combining Moran and Rucine would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Moran and Rucine further teach:
wherein the input elements enclosed in the initial text block section are handwritten input (Moran: see Fig.10a-10h and Col. 4, lines 52-53. Rucine: see ¶ 0047-0048), said method further comprising: - recognizing the handwritten input elements (Moran: see Col. 1, lines 29-37; handwriting recognition. Rucine: see ¶ 0014, 0048; recognizing the handwriting input); Combining Moran and Rucine would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Moran and Rucine further teach: wherein the selection area encloses an image (Rucine: see Fig. 19A and ¶ 0151; FIGS. 19A to 19C show an operation in which a paragraph 1900 and a non-text block 1902 (e.g., containing an image) are laid out and the non-text block 1902 is moved). Combining Moran and Rucine would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Moran and Rucine further teach: wherein the selection area encloses at least one non-text stroke (Rucine: see Fig. 19A and ¶ 0151; non-text block 1902). Combining Moran and Rucine would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Moran and Rucine further teach: wherein the at least one selected input element is a cursor (Moran: see Col. 8, lines 35-50).
As to claim 13, claim 13 is directed to a computing device for implementing the method steps similar to claim 1; therefore, is rejected under similar rational. (Moran: see Fig. 1 and Col. 6, lines 46-67).
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Moran and Rucine further teach:
- an initial block adjusting module configured to adjust the initial text block section, to enclose at least one first unselected input element of the initial text block section (Moran: see Fig. 8g-8h and Col. 22, lines 60-67, closes the space/gap from which the dragged object originated).
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Moran and Rucine further teach:
- a subsequent block creation module configured to create a subsequent block section, to enclose at least one second unselected input element of the initial text block section (Moran: see Fig. 8g-8h and Col. 22, lines 60-67, subsequent block section encloses unselected block “Wall street Journal” and unselected block “Los Angeles Times” closes)
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran and Rucine further in view of Bednarowicz et al. (US 2017/0109578 A1; hereinafter Bednarowicz).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Moran and Rucine do not appear to teach, but Bednarowicz is relied upon for teaching the limitations:
in response to the creating of the new text block section: - re-recognizing the handwritten input elements including the at least one selected input element and the at least first and second unselected input element (see ¶ 0120; previously recognized objects may be re-recognized based on new input causing new groupings and hypotheses);
The references, each is related to handwritten input recognition; 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 Moran/Rucine with the teachings of Bednarowicz to provide a method that allows the user to input handwritting as claimed. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because of the overlapping subject matter, and the advantages described in Bednarowicz of proving the user the disambiguation technique; thus, enhance the user experience with handwriting input (Bednarowicz: see ¶ 0120).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Moran/Rucine/Bednarowicz further teach: wherein the at least one selected input element and the at least first and second unselected input element are converted as typeset (Rucine: see Fig. 25 and ¶ 0058, 0206-0207). Combining Moran/Rucine/Bednarowicz would meet the claimed limitations for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1 and 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this 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 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYETLIEN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1033. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 8:00 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, Irete (Fred) Ehichioya can be reached on 571-272-4034. 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.
/TUYETLIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights