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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This action is responsive to the Application filed on 9/24/2024. A filing date 9/24/2024 is acknowledged. The sought benefit of provisional application 63620554 (which was filed on 1/12/2024) is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 8, 15 are independent claims.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan Sloan et al (US Publication 20150378600 A1, hereinafter Sloan), and in view of David Kay et al (US Publication 20130046544 A1, hereinafter Kay).
As for independent claim 1, Sloan discloses: A method comprising: receiving, via a first input interface, a user input (Fig. 2A, receive user input in an editable region in the user interface 200); … generating a second input interface configured to execute one or more functions that modify the first input interface, wherein the one or more functions are selected based on the context (Fig. 2B, display a floating command bar 205 including some functions selected based on user input); presenting the second input interface (Fig. 2B, presenting a floating command bar 205); receiving, via the second input interface, a selection of a particular function from the one or more functions (Fig. 2B, user may select a particular function, for example, “Delete”); and modifying the first input interface by executing the particular function, wherein upon executing the particular function, the second input interface is terminated (Fig. 2B, if user selects “Delete”, the selected text would be deleted and the floating command bar is terminated).
Sloan discloses presenting a context-aware interface based on the user input, but does not clearly disclose defining a context using one or more characteristics of the first input interface, in an analogous art of context-aware input interface, Kay discloses: defining, in response to receiving the user input, a context using one or more characteristics of the first input interface (Kay: [0043], Any words that match the string of probable characters are designated and then preferably scored based on distance between characters, frequency, probability, and any number of other characteristics that may be indicative of a user intention);
Sloan and Kay are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, context-aware input interface based on user input. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Sloan using the teachings of Kay to include determining user intention using one or more characteristics data . It would provide Sloan’s method with enhanced capabilities of predicting further actions fitting user intention so user’s experience is improved.
As for claim 2, Sloan-Kay discloses: wherein the second input interface is presented in place of the first input interface (Sloan: Fig. 2, the floating command bar is presented within the first input interface).
As for claim 3, Sloan-Kay discloses: wherein the second input interface is presented on top of the first input interface (Sloan: Fig. 3C, the floating command bar is presented on top of the first input interface).
As for claim 4, Sloan-Kay discloses: wherein the user input corresponds to a timed activation of a button of a remote control (Sloan: [0061], The user also can execute a press-and-hold command to select object 208 by touching a position of the touchscreen interface corresponding to object 208 for a threshold amount of time. In response to selection of object 208, context indicator 204 is invoked and displayed to the upper-right of object 208; [0100], a remote control, a game controller; please note the user input may be a press-and-hold on a button of a remote control).
As for claim 5, Sloan-Kay discloses: wherein a characteristic of the one or more characteristics includes a portion of a password being entered via the first input interface, and wherein the particular function displays the portion of a password (Kay: [0214], receiving password character; please note the portion of the entered password may be displayed).
As for claim 6, Sloan-Kay discloses: wherein a characteristic of the one or more characteristics identifies a portion of the first input interface that is highlighted, and wherein the particular function highlights a different portion of the first input interface (Kay: [0081], Within the word choice list area, one or more default words may be highlighted (e.g., "are" as shown in FIG. 5A) and/or displayed in the output area; [0221], when a character in a particular zone is selected on the user interface, a predetermined number of adjacent keys to the left and the right and/or above and below are highlighted along with the selected key, thus comprising a zone associated with the zone output key. This highlight lets the user know the zone that has been selected).
As for claim 7, Sloan-Kay discloses: wherein a characteristic of the one or more characteristics identifies a portion of the first input interface that is selectable, and wherein the particular function selects the portion of the first input interface that is selectable (Sloan: Fig. 2A, the portion of the input interface is selectable, e.g., the text in the editing region can be selected).
As per claims 8-14, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claims 1-7, thus the rationales for rejecting claims 1-7 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 15-20, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claims 1-6, thus the rationales for rejecting claims 1-6 are incorporated herein.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Krishna (US Publication 20190050115) TRANSITIONING BETWEEN GRAPHICAL INTERFACE ELEMENT MODALITIES BASED ON COMMON DATA SETS AND CHARACTERISTIC OF USER INPUT
Ghassabian (US Publication 20180081539) IMPROVED DATA ENTRY SYSTEMS
Bi (US Publication 20140317547) DYNAMICALLY-POSITIONED CHARACTER STRING SUGGESTIONS FOR GESTURE TYPING
Griffin (US Publication 20130187868) VIRTUAL KEYBOARD DISPLAY HAVING A TICKER PROXIMATE TO THE VIRTUAL KEYBOARD
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 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300.
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.
/Hua Lu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights