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
This non-final office action is in response to the Application filed on 09/30/2024, with priority to CN 202311459847.1Filing Date11/03/2023.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are independent claim(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-14, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han; Jongwoo et al. US Pub. No. 20190377489 (Han) in view of Shin; Sunghee et al. US Pub. No. 20220179618 (Shin).
Claim 1:
Han teaches:
A voice control method adapted to an electronic device comprising a touch screen and a voice input device [¶ 0011] (registering a voice macro corresponding to the touch input pattern group), comprising:
recording historical touch data of a plurality of historical touch operations performed on a user interface [¶ 0066] (collect history information) [¶ 0149-150] (detects a touch input pattern);
determining a plurality of habitual touch areas on the user interface according to the historical touch data of the user interface [¶ 0162-181] (FIGS. 6 and 7 are views illustrating a process of classifying a touch input pattern into a specific touch input pattern group through a touch input pattern classification model);
…
receiving a voice command through the voice input device [¶ 0190] (receive voice command); and
determining an input operation according to a first area marker in the voice command to perform the input operation on the user interface [¶ 0191-194] (generates and stores the voice macro in the memory by matching the received voice command to the touch input pattern group).
Han does not appear to explicitly disclose “displaying a plurality of area markers”.
However, the disclosure of Shin teaches:
in response to the user interface being displayed through the touch screen, displaying a plurality of area markers of the plurality of habitual touch areas on the user interface [¶ 0156-157] (Fig. 12, display a virtual movement map including two cells, to each of which 1 or 2 is allocated, or a virtual movement map including various numbers of cells having various sizes);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of voice commands for touch patterns in Han and the method of voice commands in Shin, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The known technique of area markers in Shin could be applied to the voice commands in Han. Shin and Han are similar devices because each control a user interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for “improving the reliability of cursor control” [Shin: ¶ 0141].
Claim 2:
Han teaches:
The voice control method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the user interface comprises a desktop user interface or an application program interface of an application program [¶ 0043-45] (desktop).
Claim 3:
Han teaches:
The voice control method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the user interface comprises a first user interface and a second user interface, and determining the plurality of habitual touch areas on the user interface according to the historical touch data of the user interface comprises:
determining a plurality of first habitual touch areas on the first user interface according to the historical touch data of the first user interface [¶ 0170-172] (FIG. 7, a first touch input pattern group 651 may include touch input patterns used when a user displays an execution screen 710 of a gallery application); and
determining a plurality of second habitual touch areas on the second user interface according to the historical touch data of the second user interface, wherein the plurality of first habitual touch areas are at least partially different from the plurality of second habitual touch areas [¶ 173-181] (Fig. 7, second touch input pattern group 652 may include touch input patterns used when a user displays an execution screen 720 of an Internet application).
Claim 4:
The combination of Han and Shin discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Shin, which teaches:
The voice control method as claimed in claim 1, wherein in response to the user interface being displayed through the touch screen, displaying the plurality of area markers of the plurality of habitual touch areas on the user interface comprises:
generating a designated number marker for each of the plurality of habitual touch areas [¶ 0159-160] (create a virtual movement map); and
displaying a plurality of designated number markers of the plurality of habitual touch areas respectively on the user interface [¶ 0156-157] (Fig. 12, display a virtual movement map including two cells, to each of which 1 or 2 is allocated, or a virtual movement map including various numbers of cells having various sizes).
Claim 9:
Han teaches:
The voice control method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
performing a voice recognition processing on the voice command and obtaining the first area marker and an operation action of the input operation [¶ 0190] (voice recognition, voice command).
Claim 10:
Han teaches:
The voice control method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the input operation comprises a clicking operation, a swiping operation, or a dragging operation [¶ 0150] (count of touch input or a type of an item selected through touch input).
Zhang also teaches: [¶ 0083-84] (click through rates).
Claim(s) 5-8, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han; Jongwoo et al. US Pub. No. 20190377489 (Han) in view of Shin; Sunghee et al. US Pub. No. 20220179618 (Shin) in view of Zhang; Xuan US Pub. No. 20200218410 (Zhang).
Claim 5:
Han and Shin teach all the elements of the claims as shown above.
Shin also teaches: [¶ 0008-09] (virtual coordinate system is mapped onto the screen)
Han does not appear to explicitly disclose “coordinate component markers”.
However, the disclosure of Zhang teaches:
The voice control method as claimed in claim 1, wherein in response to the user interface being displayed through the touch screen, displaying the plurality of area markers of the plurality of habitual touch areas on the user interface according to positions of the plurality of habitual touch areas comprises:
generating a plurality of first coordinate component markers in a first direction and a plurality of second coordinate component markers in a second direction according to distribution positions of the plurality of habitual touch areas [¶ 0026-32] (historical touch behavior data comprises touch coordinate points); and
displaying the plurality of first coordinate component markers and the plurality of second coordinate component markers on the user interface [¶ 0099, 105, 107] (analyzing the touch behavior data set) [see also ¶ 109-124] (Figs 6-8) [¶ 0091] (displays the recommended information in the target display position).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of voice commands for touch patterns in Han and the method of voice commands in Shin and the method of historical touch information in Zhang, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The known technique of coordinates for historical touch in Zhang could be applied to the area markers in Shin and the voice commands in Han. Zhang, Shin and Han are similar devices because each controls a user interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for helping “users acquire information more efficiently” [Zhang: ¶ 0003].
Claim 6:
The combination of Han, Zhang and Shin discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Zhang, which teaches:
The voice control method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining the plurality of habitual touch areas on the user interface according to the historical touch data of the user interface comprises:
dividing the user interface into a plurality of grid units [¶ 0116] (FIG. 7 is a diagram of an example of a grid);
computing touch parameters of each of the plurality of grid units according to the historical touch data of the user interface [¶ 0117-122] (computing hot zones); and
identifying a portion of the grid units as the plurality of habitual touch areas by comparing the touch parameters with threshold values of each of the grid units [¶ 0105-107, 125, 168] (volume threshold) [¶ 0145] (weight threshold).
Claim 7:
The combination of Han, Zhang and Shin discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Zhang, which teaches:
The voice control method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the plurality of grid units comprise a plurality of adjacent first grid units, and identifying the portion of the grid units as the plurality of habitual touch areas by comparing the touch parameters with threshold values of each of the grid units further comprises:
merging the plurality of adjacent first grid units into one of the plurality of habitual touch areas [¶ 0122-124] (Fig. 8, cells merged into circles).
Claim 8:
The combination of Han, Zhang and Shin discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Zhang, which teaches:
The voice control method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the touch parameters of each of the grid unit comprise a quantity of touches, a frequency of touches, or a density of touches [¶ 0150] (touch hot zone can be used to indicate the touch zone characterized by habitual operations of the user, high-frequency operations of the user, or both and can reflect the operating patterns of the user regarding the touch zone).
Claims 11-20:
Claim(s) 11 is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim 1 is a “method” claim, claim 11 is a “device” claim, but the steps or elements of each claim are essentially the same.
Claim(s) 12 is/are substantially similar to claim 2 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 13 is/are substantially similar to claim 3 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 14 is/are substantially similar to claim 4 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 15 is/are substantially similar to claim 5 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 16 is/are substantially similar to claim 6 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 17 is/are substantially similar to claim 7 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 18 is/are substantially similar to claim 8 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 19 is/are substantially similar to claim 9 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 20 is/are substantially similar to claim 10 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 1:
Letsu-Dake; Emmanuel et al. US 20190147858 teaches: speech recognition, probable inputs 510 may be determined based on historic data of touch predictions.
VELZY; Allan et al. US 20140184566 teaches: a touch pattern with respect to the sensed touch areas based on a number of the sensed touch areas, perform event.
JUN HYUN SU et al. KR 20120040047 teaches: touch history or touch pattern may be a method of dividing a front surface of a touch screen to partition a plurality of virtual divided regions and counting the number of user touches in each divided region for a predetermined time.
Citations to Prior Art
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. 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". In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323,75 USPQ2d 1213,1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807,10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,1390,163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:30 EST.
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, ADAM QUELER can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/Benjamin Smith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Direct Phone: 571-270-3825
Direct Fax: 571-270-4825
Email: benjamin.smith@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights