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 .
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 7-8, 10 are objected due to the following reasons:
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 ends with a semicolon. MPEP 608.01(m) states “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period”.
Regarding claims 7-8, the limitation “the source text block” in line 3 of claim 7 lacks antecedent basis. Claim 8 incorporates this deficiency of claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the target” in line 5 lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-a display area configured to display
-an input area configured to detect
-a block selection module configured to select
-a block moving module configured to move
-a mode switching module configured to display
-an insertion detection module configured to detect
-a block resizing module configured to resize
in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-
statutory subject matter.
Claim 11 recites “A computer program comprising instructions”. Claim 11 is directed to software per se. As such, claim 11 does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
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.
Claims 1, 7- 9, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran (U.S. 5880743) in view of Martinez (US 20050076300).
Regarding claim 1, Moran teaches a method for merging, on a display, a source block into a target block, comprising:
- displaying, on the display, the source block enclosing a first input text and the target block enclosing a second input text (Fig. 10(a) -Fig 10(f) display source block “Angeles” (“Los Angeles Times” and target block “USA Today”);
- detecting, with an input interface, a user selection gesture for selecting the source block (“Angeles” is selected), (col. 14: lines 36-41);
- detecting, with the input interface, a user dragging gesture for moving the source block over the target block (Fig. 10(e), col. 14: lines 44-52; line gesture 164);
- detecting an insertion position in the second input text according to the user dragging gesture (line gesture 164 extends from the selection enclosure 165 to the position between “USA” and “Today”; Fig 10(e), col. 14: lines 44-52);
- inserting the first input text in the second input text at the insertion position (“Angeles” was inserted between “USA” and “Today”, Fig. 10(f)); and
- resizing the target block to enclose the second input text and the inserted first input text (“the system creates space to fit “Angeles” (Fig 10(f), col. 14: lines 44-52).
As seen above, Moran teaches displaying a line gesture from the source block to the target block to indicate insertion position. Moran also teaches cursor in association with gesture (cursor “sticks” and moves with the stylus in a drag gesture (Fig. 5, col 8: lines 35-42)). Moran, however, does not specifically teach displaying cursor in the source block. However, this feature is taught by Martinez (see displayed endpoint markers for insertion operation, [0005], [0021], [0022], Fig, 3).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include endpoint markers of Martinez in Moran’s interface. The motivation for doing so
would have been to provide a user interface which visually indicates/distinguishes the text block/selection to be inserted (Moran, column 14, line 47 - line 52; figure 10(e): reference 164) (Martinez, [0022]).
Regarding claims 7-8, Moran in view of Martinez teaches switching to the insertion dropping mode in response to the user dragging gesture, wherein said switching includes redisplaying the source text block according to a predefined visual representation (predefined size of the source block) (In Moran, the act of drawing line (dragging gesture) 164 triggers the insertion of “Angeles” to the location between “USA” and “Today”, and “Angeles” is redisplayed in this new location) (Moran, column 14, line 47 - line 52; figure 10(e) (Moran’s block in view of Martinez would include the end markers) (Martinez, [0005], [0021] [0022], Fig 3).
Regarding claim 9, Moran in view of Martinez further teaches wherein the user selection gesture for selecting the source block is detected in response to detecting a selection area which is defined as enclosing at least one input element of an initial text block; whereby the first input text comprises the enclosed at least one input element; and the source block comprises a portion of the initial text block, said portion comprising said enclosed at least one input element (Moran, Fig. 10(a)-10(e)).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, claims 11 and 12 are rejected on similar rationale applied to claim 1. Moran further teaches computer program and computing device for merging a source block to a target block (Fig. 1, Fig. 10(f), col 6: lines 46-47, col. 14: lines 44-52)).
Claims 2-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran (U.S. 5880743), Martinez (US 20050076300), and further in view of Nicholson (US 20170212879).
Regarding claims 2, Moran in view of Martinez teaches moving the source block from a first group of handwritten input strokes, the source block enclosing the first input text as seen above in the rejection of claim 1. Moran further teaches recognizing gestures for implementing operations (Fig. 5-6). Moran in view of Martinez does not specifically teach extracting the source block from a first group of handwritten input strokes, the source block enclosing the first input text; and recognizing the first input text. However, Nicholson discloses extracting and recognizing enclosed text input to convert recognized text input to typeset (Nicholson, Fig 3, [0041]). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of recognizing and converting text input to typeset of Nicholson to Moran’s interface. The motivation for doing so is to provide an interface where the user will be able to see the user input data in both forms (Nicholson, [0004]).
Regarding claim 3, Moran in view of Martinez and Nicholson teaches extracting the target block from a second group of handwritten input strokes, the target block enclosing the second input text; and recognizing the second input text (Nicholson, Fig 3, [0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Moran in view of Martinez and Nicholson teaches re-recognizing the first and second input text enclosed in the target block after said inserting (Nicholson, Fig 3, [0041]).
Regarding claims 5, Moran in view of Martinez does not specifically teach wherein the first input text and the second input text are converted as typeset. However, Nicholson discloses extracting and recognizing enclosed text input to convert recognized text input to typeset (Nicholson, Fig 3, [0041]). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of recognizing and converting text input to typeset of Nicholson to Moran’s interface. The motivation for doing so is to provide an interface where the user will be able to see the user input data in both forms (Nicholson, [0004]).
Regarding claim 6, Moran in view of Martinez and Nicholson teaches wherein the inserting of the first input text in the second input text generates a merged input text displayed as a mixture of handwritten and typeset text (Nicholson, Fig 3, [0041]).
Regarding claim 10, Moran in view of Martinez and Nicholson teaches wherein the source block and the target block are obtained by performing text block extraction from the first group and the second group of handwritten input strokes respectively, said block extraction comprising identifying text and non-text strokes and grouping the text strokes into the source block and the target (Nicholson, Fig 3, [0041]-[0050]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20170060406-A1
US-12197693-B2
US-20180335914-A1
US-20200356768-A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kieu Vu whose telephone number is (571) 272-4057. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday (6:30am - 4:30pm).
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.
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights