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 .
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification lacks antecedent basis for the separate “keyboard labels” or “application labels” that are distinct from the separate keyboards and applications themselves. Paragraphs 123 and 165 merely say that the second dimension may be used for functionality such as “switching to other applications” or “switching to different 1D keyboards.” Performing the full switch is not the same as having an intermediate step where the labels are displayed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the labels in claims 11 and 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant’s sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claims 3–7 and 11–13 fail to comply with this rule.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The term “gentle” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gentle” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the: requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While it is acknowledged that the plain text of claim 6 requires “gentle” to be something less than the claimed “quick motion,” the boundaries of motion falling within gentle are still unclear, e.g., there is no way to know if “gentle” extends all the way from zero motion to anything short of “quick,” or if there are ranges of motion that are less than gentle but greater than zero, and/or greater than gentle but less than quick.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7–10, 15, 16, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0072143 A1 (“Assadollahi”).
Claim 1
Assadollahi discloses:
A method for user input, comprising:
Reference is made to FIGs. 2 and 3a–3g, which illustrate the operations of a “user interface 200 for the predictive data entry mechanism of the present invention.” Assadollahi ¶ 24.
displaying a received message to a user on a user interface;
Assadollahi likewise discloses a “user interface 200 [that] includes a display 208 having a text edit field 202 showing a text string entered or selected by the user.” Assadollahi ¶ 25. The underlying application displaying this arrangement may be an application for exchanging messages with other users. See Assadollahi ¶¶ 22 and 74.
Careful readers will observe that the term “received message” places no limitation on who or what sent or received the “received message.” Consequently, the disclosure of displaying the received message “Hello Jim” in FIG. 2 anticipates this step of the claimed method, regardless of whether the device received the message from the device’s user or from the remote user with which the device’s user is communicating.
displaying a plurality of characters as a one-dimensional (1D) list on the user interface;
FIG. 2 further illustrates a “main menu is displayed on [a] horizontal axis 212” consisting of individual characters. Assadollahi ¶ 57.
Please note that arguments which assert horizontal axis 212 as being one of the two dimensions of a broader “two dimensional user interface menu (212, 210)” (Assadollahi ¶ 56) will not be found persuasive, because this rejection maps the claimed 1D list to only one of the two dimensions in Assadollahi’s two dimensional user interface menu, and because this is exactly what the Applicant claims in dependent claim 7 and illustrates in FIG. 5 (i.e., that this 1D list is a “first 1D list” combined with a “second 1D list” of word suggestions presented orthogonally to the first 1D list). “By definition, an independent claim is broader than a claim that depends from it, so if a dependent claim reads on a particular embodiment of the claimed invention, the corresponding independent claim must cover that embodiment as well.” Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F. 4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
receiving, from the user through the user interface, a first scrolling selection of a first character from the 1D list;
“The user can now navigate through the menu structure by using the navigation buttons 206: By pressing left and right buttons, he can move the vertical part 216 of the cursor to navigate to the main menu items,” Assadollahi ¶ 59, each main menu item “designat[ing] the distinguishing letter.” Assadollahi ¶ 58.
providing an input to a language model, the input comprising the received message and the first character;
“Each time the user enters (or selects) a precursor, the system 10 searches the dictionary 110 for corresponding candidate words.” Assadollahi ¶ 33. To be clear, “precursor” refers to the words that are already present in the user interface via prior user input. Assadollahi ¶ 26. Additionally, with respect to the first character, “the system may refresh or update the candidate list in response to character(s) entered by the user.” Assadollahi ¶ 40.
responsive to providing the input, receiving a suggested output from the language model; and
“[T]he system responds to the user’s entry of the first letter of the desired word by displaying only those candidate words whose initial letter corresponds to the entered letter, i.e. filtering the candidate list. In this case the candidate words are selected in accordance with the precursor and the characters entered by the user.” Assadollahi ¶ 40.
displaying the suggested output on the user interface.
As the user navigates left or right to select a character corresponding to a group of results from within the dictionary, “the top k words of the candidate list are shown as a sub-menu (i.e. words arranged in a vertical fashion 210) for a first main menu item designating the best candidates for the present context.” Assadollahi ¶ 56.
Claim 2
Assadollahi discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the user interface comprises a text entry field,
“The user interface 200 includes a display 208 having a text edit field 202.” Assadollahi ¶ 25.
the method further comprising:
receiving, from the user through the user interface, a second scrolling selection of the suggested output; and
The user “can move to sub-menu items using the up-/down-buttons. The horizontal part 214 of the cursor will move accordingly. When having positioned the cursor at the desired word, the user can press the OK button to confirm his selection.” Assadollahi ¶ 59.
responsive to receiving the second scrolling selection, displaying the suggested output in the text entry field.
With the cursor positioned at the desired word, “the system knows which item to copy to the text input field 202 if the user presses the OK button 206.” Assadollahi ¶ 60. Notably, the OK button confirmation is optional, see Assadollahi ¶¶ 6 and 67, but even if it wasn’t optional—that is, even if we assume the user must press the ok button to copy the suggestion to the text input field 202—the word that the device copies to text entry field 202 is still copied to text entry field 202 “responsive to receiving the second scrolling selection,” because the word that the device copies to the text entry field 202 is chosen by scrolling the horizontal cursor 214 prior to selecting the OK button. The additional OK confirmation is simply an additional step that falls within the open-ended scope of claim 2. See MPEP § 2111.03.
Claim 7
Assadollahi discloses the method of claim 2,
wherein the suggested output comprises one or more suggested words, the 1D list is a first 1D list, displaying the suggested output on the user interface comprises displaying the one or more suggested words in a second 1D list arranged orthogonally to the first 1D list, and the second scrolling selection selects a particular suggested word from the second 1D list.
“By pressing left and right buttons, he can move the vertical part 216 of the cursor to navigate to the main menu items, while he can move to sub-menu items using the up-/down-buttons. The horizontal part 214 of the cursor will move accordingly. When having positioned the cursor at the desired word, the user can press the OK button to confirm his selection.” Assadollahi ¶ 59.
Claim 8
Assadollahi discloses the method of claim 7,
wherein the second 1D list is a 1D vertical list, the second scrolling selection is a second vertical scrolling selection, and the second scrolling selection is a vertical second scrolling selection.
“By pressing left and right buttons, he can move the vertical part 216 of the cursor to navigate to the main menu items, while he can move to sub-menu items using the up-/down-buttons. The horizontal part 214 of the cursor will move accordingly. When having positioned the cursor at the desired word, the user can press the OK button to confirm his selection.” Assadollahi ¶ 59.
Claim 9
Assadollahi discloses the method of claim 2,
wherein the suggested output comprises one or more suggested phrases,
“According to a bi-gram embodiment, each candidate word entry in the dictionary 110 includes a list of two-word phrases in which the first word is termed the index and the second word is termed the ‘candidate’ word. The precursor is the key or index used to access the ‘candidate’ word(s). It should be appreciated that a single precursor may have multiple candidate words.” Assadollahi ¶ 31. Thus, by selecting word, the user completes the phrase in the text input box.
the 1D list is a first 1D list, displaying the suggested output on the user interface comprises displaying the one or more suggested phrases in a second 1D list arranged orthogonally to the first 1D list, and the second scrolling selection selects a particular suggested phrase from the second 1D list.
“By pressing left and right buttons, he can move the vertical part 216 of the cursor to navigate to the main menu items, while he can move to sub-menu items using the up-/down-buttons. The horizontal part 214 of the cursor will move accordingly. When having positioned the cursor at the desired word, the user can press the OK button to confirm his selection.” Assadollahi ¶ 59.
Claim 10
Assadollahi discloses the method of claim 9,
wherein the second 1D list is a 1D vertical list, the second scrolling selection is a second vertical scrolling selection, and the second scrolling selection is a vertical second scrolling selection.
“By pressing left and right buttons, he can move the vertical part 216 of the cursor to navigate to the main menu items, while he can move to sub-menu items using the up-/down-buttons. The horizontal part 214 of the cursor will move accordingly. When having positioned the cursor at the desired word, the user can press the OK button to confirm his selection.” Assadollahi ¶ 59.
Claims 15, 16, and 18–20
Claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program for user input, which when executed by a computer, configures the computer to perform exactly the same method as recited in claims 1, 2, 7, and 9. Therefore, claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 are hereby rejected over the findings presented in the rejections of the corresponding method claims presented above, together with the further finding that Assadollahi explicitly discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium as well. See Assadollahi ¶ 20.
Claim 20 recites a system comprising exactly the same computer readable medium as recited in claim 16 (by virtue of claim 16’s incorporation of claim 15 by reference), but further requiring the processor that claim 16 merely intends and implies for use with its computer readable medium. The findings of the rejection of claim 16 are therefore reincorporated as applied to claim 20, with the further finding that Assadollahi explicitly discloses the processor as well. See Assadollahi ¶ 19.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
I. Ady and Yu teach claims 1–5, 15–17, and 20.
Claims 1–5, 15–17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0282211 A1 (hereafter “Ady”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0142504 A1 (hereafter “Yu”).
Claim 1
Ady teaches:
A method for user input, comprising:
“FIG. 7 illustrates prediction logic and other processing that can be used in systems and methods for predictive text entry for small touch-screen devices.” Ady ¶ 58.
displaying a received message to a user on a user interface;
The processing shown in FIG. 7 is performed in conjunction with the “two-stage text input interface 116” of device 102 shown throughout the figures. Notably, the two-stage text input interface 116 may be used with a “messaging application,” see Ady ¶¶ 18, 21, and 32, which, as shown in at least FIGS. 2 and 3, displays a message (e.g. “ARE YOU COMING TO THE MEETING”).
displaying a plurality of characters as a one-dimensional (1D) list on the user interface;
The two-stage text input interface 116 displays “a target range 128 of the set of symbolic elements 148 and/or other characters, figures, marks, and/or information.” Ady ¶ 30.
receiving, from the user through the user interface, a first scrolling selection of a first character from the 1D list;
“In 704, the two-stage input interface 116 and/or other logic, application, or service, can receive and/or display a first letter of a word in the text editing box 118. The first letter can for instance be captured from user input in the selection area 122 or similar.” Ady ¶ 58. In some cases, “the user can as shown in FIG. 4C enter a right-swipe gesture 452 on the selection area 422” as part of making the selection. Ady ¶¶ 41–42.
To the extent those reviewing this rejection are concerned that FIG. 4C involves typing a two other characters prior to performing the swipe gesture 452, the claim language does not preclude the claimed first character from mapping a first character received after other characters are received, due to the “comprising” transitional phrase. See MPEP § 2111.03. Moreover, step 704 is the first step in a loop that is executed every time a subsequent character is entered into the text editing box, meaning it may be executed after entering other characters.
providing an input to a language model, the input comprising
“In 706, the current letter(s) can be provided from the text editing box 118 to the prediction engine 160.” Ady ¶ 58.
responsive to providing the input, receiving a suggested output from the language model; and
“In 708, a determination can be made whether the prediction engine 160 can find a prediction result, based on the letters received.” Ady ¶ 59.
displaying the suggested output on the user interface.
“If the determination in 708 is yes, processing can proceed to 712, in which the prediction engine 160 can optionally generate and/or display a whole-word prediction 126 or similar in the text editing box 118, based on the current letter or letters selected by the user and displayed in the text editing box 118.” Ady ¶ 60.
Ady does not explicitly disclose providing both the received message and the first input character into prediction engine 160.
Yu, however, teaches:
A method for user input, comprising:
“FIG. 7 is a flowchart illustrating an example method of controlling an electronic apparatus according to an embodiment of the present disclosure obtaining a recommended message (e.g., a sentence).” Yu ¶ 146. The method may thus be performed in the context of the user interface shown in FIG. 1A, which will also be discussed below.
displaying a received message to a user on a user interface;
“Referring to FIGS. 1A and 1B, it can be seen that a message 10 indicating ‘Did you have a good trip yesterday?’ was received from an external electronic apparatus of a ‘friend’ and in a shown state on the screen.” Yu ¶ 43.
displaying a plurality of characters
The user interface includes a “graphic keypad 30” in which the user can type characters to respond to the message 10. Yu ¶ 44.
receiving, from the user through the user interface, a first scrolling selection of a first character
“In FIG. 1A, in the process of a user inputting a message through a touch of the graphic keypad 30 in order to respond to the message 10 received from the external electronic apparatus of a ‘friend’, a situation of a text indicating ‘Yes,’ having been input in the input window 20.” Yu ¶ 44.
providing an input to a language model, the input comprising the received message and the first character;
“The electronic apparatus according to the present disclosure, considers the contextual information of the sentence ‘did you have a good trip yesterday?’ and the currently inputted text ‘Yes,’ determines the message intended by the user.” Yu ¶ 44. The device predicts the sentence “by applying a sentence corresponding to one or more message transmitted and received prior to text input and a word corresponding to text input to [a] language model.” Yu ¶ 147.
responsive to providing the input, receiving a suggested output from the language model; and
Based on the output from the model, the device “recommends a message.” Yu ¶ 44.
displaying the suggested output on the user interface.
“Referring to FIG. 1A, since the part ‘I had a good trip’ that is not yet input is automatically displayed in a lighter color than ‘Yes,’ it can be seen that the sentence ‘Yes, I had a good trip.’ has been recommended through the input window 20.” Yu ¶ 45.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Ady’s language model 160 with Yu’s technique of providing the model with the additional context of a most recently received message in order to inform the prediction. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination because Ady specifically directs the skilled artisan to improve the prediction engine 160 with “heuristics . . . and/or other rules to generate a most likely completed word.” Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Yu’s improvement to Ady’s model because “if only the word input by the user is simply considered,” then it is often the case that “an appropriate recommended word [i]s not suggested.” Yu ¶ 5.
Claim 2
Ady and Yu teach the method of claim 1,
wherein the user interface comprises a text entry field,
“In 706, the current letter(s) can be provided from the text editing box 118 to the prediction engine 160.” Ady ¶ 58.
the method further comprising:
receiving, from the user through the user interface, a second scrolling selection of the suggested output; and
“In 718, a user input or inputs can be received via the two-stage input interface 118. The user input can include or consist of, for example . . . a swipe gesture.” Ady ¶ 62.
responsive to receiving the second scrolling selection, displaying the suggested output in the text entry field.
“In 728, a determination can be made whether the user input is a gesture to navigate the alphabet or other symbols upstream or downstream.” Ady ¶ 63. The swipe gesture is an example of such a gesture. See Ady ¶ 42. “If the determination of 728 is yes, processing can proceed to 730 in which the next most-likely letter 162 can be identified or found based on the navigation direction. After 730, processing can return to 712.” Ady ¶ 63. Upon looping back to 712, “the prediction engine 160 can optionally generate and/or display a whole-word prediction 126 or similar in the text editing box 118, based on the current letter or letters selected by the user and displayed in the text editing box 118.” Ady ¶ 60.
Claim 3
Ady and Yu teach the method of claim 2,
wherein the suggested output comprises a suggested next character, displaying the suggested output on the user interface comprises displaying the suggested next character in the 1D list, and the second scrolling selection selects the suggested next character from the 1D list.
Following the first swipe gesture 452, FIG. 4E shows that the user may inputs yet another swipe gesture 452, “[e]ntry of the right-swipe gesture 452 can cause the prediction engine 160 to determine the next most-likely letter 162 according to the direction of the swipe. In the illustrated example, that letter can be determined to be the letter ‘l,’ which, as shown in FIG. 4D, is then displayed as the next most-likely letter 162 on the selection area 422.” Ady ¶ 42.
Claim 4
Ady and Yu teach the method of claim 2,
wherein the 1D list is a 1D horizontal list,
“The seek area 120 can be configured in a linear (or bar) format.” Ady ¶ 25.
the first scrolling selection is a first horizontal scrolling selection,
“In the event the user does not wish to enter the next most-likely letter 162 (that is, the letter V), the user can as shown in FIG. 4C enter a right-swipe gesture 452 on the selection area 422.” Ady ¶ 41.
and the second scrolling selection is a second horizontal scrolling selection.
“In cases as shown, the user may choose not to select the next most-likely letter 162 ‘e,’ and instead input a left-swipe gesture 452 on the selection area 422, indicating a desire to locate the next most-likely letter in a downstream direction (toward ‘z’) in the alphabet.” Ady ¶ 43.
Claim 5
Ady and Yu teach the method of claim 3,
wherein the plurality of characters are displayed as an ordered subset of characters in a first portion of the 1D list, and the suggested next character is displayed in a second portion of the 1D list.
As shown in FIG. 4B (among others), “the next most-likely letter 162 can be displayed in the center of the selection area 422,” while the rest are shown outside of the center area, in alphabetical order. Ady ¶ 40.
Claims 15–17
Claims 15–17 recite a computer readable medium with instructions that cause a general purpose computer to perform the same method as recited in claims 1–3. Therefore, claims 15–17 are rejected over the findings set forth in the rejections of claims 1–3 above, with further findings that both references teach the computer readable medium for storing those instructions, as well. See, e.g., Ady ¶¶ 19, 21, and clm. 18.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites a general purpose computer system comprising exactly the same computer readable medium as recited in claim 16 (which incorporates claim 15 by reference), but further including the processor alluded to in claims 15 and 16. Claim 20 is therefore rejected over all of the findings and rationale as provided above for claim 16.
II. Ady, Yu, and Griffin teach claim 6.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ady and Yu as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0187835 A1 (“Griffin”).
Claim 6
Ady and Yu teach the method of claim 5, and Ady further provides for different mechanisms for selecting adjacent characters or jumping further down the list. See Ady ¶¶ 62–64.
Thus, the difference between the Ady/Yu combination and claim 6 is that Ady does not utilize two different gestures in order to achieve the two different scrolling speeds in the claim—Ady uses a separate scrollbar instead.
Griffin, however, teaches a method of scrolling,
wherein the first scrolling selection is a gentle motion that selects from adjacent characters in the first portion of the 1D list, and the second scrolling selection is a quick motion that jumps to the second portion of the 1D list.
“For example, a slow swipe could scroll through one item in a menu, whereas a fast swipe could scroll through many items in a menu.” Griffin ¶ 131.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Ady and Yu’s combined user interface with Griffin’s technique of advancing through menu items at different rates, depending on the speed of the swipe gesture. The rationale for making such a modification is that the mere act of making two components integral with one another is prima facie obvious in and of itself. See MPEP § 2144.04 (subsection (V.)(B.)). In this case, Griffin’s technique of fast and slow scrolling speeds would have allowed the skilled artisan to integrate the seek area 120 and target range 128 into a single user interface element capable of performing both functions, thereby saving space on the display.
III. Ady, Yu, and St. Clair teach claim 11.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ady and Yu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0028562 A1 (“St. Clair”).
Claim 11
Ady and Yu teach the method of claim 1, wherein the 1D list is a first 1D list and the plurality of characters is a first plurality of characters that are associated with a first 1D keyboard, as this claim language is merely adding nomenclature for what is already recited in claim 1.
Neither reference explicitly discloses an orthogonal scrolling input that triggers additional keyboard labels that are selectable to display a second set of characters in a second keyboard.
St. Clair, however, teaches a method comprising:
receiving, from the user through the user interface, a scrolling input in an orthogonal direction to the first scrolling selection;
“For another example, the user of the messaging application may perform a swipe touch gesture in vertical direction on touch display 201 as illustrated by the arrow in FIG. 3E.” St. Clair ¶ 18.
responsive to the scrolling input, displaying one or more keyboard labels in a second 1D list orthogonal to the first 1D list, each keyboard label associated with a different respective 1D keyboard;
“The messaging application may detect the swipe touch gesture in vertical direction, and push out lower-case touch-screen keyboard 301 with the swipe touch gesture, while pulling in upper-case touch-screen keyboard 302 on touch display 201, as illustrated in FIG. 3G.” St. Clair ¶ 18.
receiving, from the user through the user interface, a second scrolling selection of a particular keyboard label from the second 1D list; and displaying a second plurality of characters in the first 1D list on the user interface,
Upon completing the remaining portion of the vertical scrolling gesture, “[t]he messaging application may detect the swipe touch gesture in vertical direction, and terminate the display of lower-case touch-screen keyboard 301, while displaying upper-case touch-screen keyboard 302, as illustrated in FIG. 3F.” St. Clair ¶ 18.
wherein the second plurality of characters are associated with the particular keyboard label, and wherein the particular keyboard label is associated with a 1D language keyboard, a 1D symbol keyboard, or a 1D emoji keyboard.
“For example, the plurality of touch-screen keyboards may comprise touch-screen keyboards in a first language (e.g., English) and in a second language (e.g., Traditional Chinese). This disclosure contemplate any suitable touch-screen keyboards and any suitable combinations of these touch-screen keyboards.” St. Clair ¶ 16. While these are not necessarily “1D,” it is asserted that adapting Ady’s 1D keyboard to switch between a plurality of keyboard languages in accordance with St. Clair’s disclosure would necessarily involve adapting those additional keyboards to be one dimensional, so that they may fit in Ady’s user interface.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ady and/or Yu with St. Clair’s teaching of a swipe gesture that displays labels for, and ultimately switches between, different keyboards, including keyboards with different languages (among other types). One would have been motivated to combine St. Clair with Ady and Yu because St. Clair’s arrangement provides a more “intuitive way[] for switching between touch-screen keyboards displayed in a touch display.” St. Clair ¶ 15. Note that while Ady has only one keyboard, some of the keyboards mentioned in St. Clair’s disclosure are subsets of the full set of keys described in Ady’s disclosure, and thus, the ability to navigate between those sets of keys even faster than Ady already enables, and do so intuitively for the user, would have been a motivating factor for one of ordinary skill in the art, who is presumed to have all three references before him.
IV. Assadollahi and Huang teach claim 12.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Assadollahi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0083586 A1 (“Huang”).
Claim 12
Assadollahi teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein the 1D list is a first 1D list and the user interface is a first user interface associated with a first application,
FIG. 2 further illustrates a “main menu is displayed on [a] horizontal axis 212” consisting of individual characters. Assadollahi ¶ 57.
the method further comprising: receiving, from the user through the user interface, a scrolling input in an orthogonal direction to the first scrolling selection; responsive to the scrolling input, displaying one or more
“By pressing left and right buttons, he can move the vertical part 216 of the cursor to navigate to the main menu items, while he can move to sub-menu items using the up-/down-buttons. The horizontal part 214 of the cursor will move accordingly. When having positioned the cursor at the desired word, the user can press the OK button to confirm his selection.” Assadollahi ¶ 59.
However, rather than displaying one or more application labels in a second 1D list orthogonal to the first 1D list and selecting one of those applications, Assadollahi merely discloses sub-menus that display word suggestions, rather than other applications with which to switch.
Huang, however, teaches a method comprising:
displaying one or more application labels in a second 1D list orthogonal to the first 1D list, each application label associated with a different respective application;
Huang teaches a control menu 826 that may be accessed directly from an on-screen dynamic keyboard interface 122, the control menu including a plurality of icons and titles for “channel specific sharing options 828,” such as “IMESSAGE, FACEBOOK MESSENGER, TWITTER, EMAIL, FACEBOOK, GOOGLE HANGOUTS, WHATSAPP, HIPCHAT, SLACK, and HIKE.” Huang ¶ 97.
receiving, from the user through the user interface, a second scrolling selection of a second application label from the second 1D list; and
“Navigating across the various options 828 and functions of the control menu 826 may be accomplished by holding and dragging the finger on a touchscreen interface across the menu.” Huang ¶ 97.
displaying a second user interface associated with a second application associated with the second application label.
Selecting one of the options 828 causes the device to perform the function of “sharing the selected content item in various messaging platforms,” Huang ¶ 97, by pasting it into the interface that belongs to the selected messaging platform. See Huang ¶¶ 101–102 (giving the example of pasting the content into the iMessage® platform, and then explaining that the same can be performed with respect to other applications that are “on [the] mobile device.” Huang ¶ 102.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute or supplement Assadollahi’s sub-menu of word suggestions with Huang’s respective submenu of options 828, which correspond to different applications installed on the device. One would have been motivated to make such a supplement or substitution based on an expressly recognized “need[] [for] a solution for effectively identifying content that matches a user’s expressive intent without the limitations of conventional techniques.” Huang ¶ 6.
V. Assadollahi and Anderson teach claims 13 and 14.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Assadollahi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,150,730 B1 (“Anderson”).
Claim 13
Assadollahi teaches the method of claim 2,
wherein the user provides the second scrolling selection using an input device, and the second scrolling selection comprises positioning a cursor upon the suggested output, the method further comprising: providing, to the user through the input device, a
“By pressing left and right buttons, he can move the vertical part 216 of the cursor to navigate to the main menu items, while he can move to sub-menu items using the up-/down-buttons. The horizontal part 214 of the cursor will move accordingly. When having positioned the cursor at the desired word, the user can press the OK button to confirm his selection.” Assadollahi ¶ 59. “[T]he cursor highlight[s] the selected item when positioned accordingly.” Assadollahi Claim 22.
The only difference between Assadollahi and claim 13 is that Assadollahi’s feedback is not haptic feedback.
Anderson, however, teaches a method wherein:
the user provides the second scrolling selection using an input device,
“FIG. 4A illustrates an exemplary implementation of wearable device 102 with sixteen sensors 410 (e.g., EMG sensors) arranged circumferentially around an elastic band 420.” Anderson col. 18 ll. 6–8. “For example, wearable device 102 may be used and/or deployed to generate control information for controlling . . . a scrolling feature.” Anderson col. 18 ll. 14–17.
and the second scrolling selection comprises positioning a cursor upon the suggested output, the method further comprising: providing, to the user through the input device, a haptic feedback to the user to confirm that the cursor is positioned upon the suggested output.
“Various actions may be mapped to different states of the user’s body parts. Examples of such actions include, without limitation, scrolling through a graphical user interface (GUI), selecting a visual element of a GUI, clicking on a visual element of a GUI, displaying a visual element in a GUI, drawing and/or painting a visual element on a GUI, moving a cursor displayed on a GUI, associating a cursor of the computing system with a visual element displayed in a GUI based at least in part on an updated position of the cursor relative to the visual element,” and “providing a feedback indication (whether visual, auditory, and/or haptic) of an association made between a cursor of the computing system and a visual element displayed in a GUI.” Anderson col. 9 ll. 1–13.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide haptic feedback for the associations made between Assadollahi’s cursor and menu options, as directly taught by Anderson. The rationale for this combination is that Anderson directly teaches (as opposed to merely motivates) the modification by explicitly directing the skilled artisan to provide the haptic feedback for cursor selections. See MPEP § 2143.01 (“[o]bviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so”) (emphasis added).
Claim 14
Assadollahi and Anderson teach the method of claim 13,
wherein the input device is an electromyography device.
“FIG. 4A illustrates an exemplary implementation of wearable device 102 with sixteen sensors 410 (e.g., EMG sensors) arranged circumferentially around an elastic band 420.” Anderson col. 18 ll. 6–8. “For example, wearable device 102 may be used and/or deployed to generate control information for controlling . . . a scrolling feature.” Anderson col. 18 ll. 14–17.
VI. Ady, Yu, and Anderson teach claims 13 and 14.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ady and Yu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Anderson.
Claim 13
Ady and Yu teach the method of claim 2, and Ady further teaches positioning a cursor in a manner that provides feedback, see Ady ¶ 40, but neither reference explicitly discloses a “haptic” feedback to confirm where the cursor is positioned.
Anderson, however, teaches a method wherein:
the user provides the second scrolling selection using an input device,
“FIG. 4A illustrates an exemplary implementation of wearable device 102 with sixteen sensors 410 (e.g., EMG sensors) arranged circumferentially around an elastic band 420.” Anderson col. 18 ll. 6–8. “For example, wearable device 102 may be used and/or deployed to generate control information for controlling . . . a scrolling feature.” Anderson col. 18 ll. 14–17.
and the second scrolling selection comprises positioning a cursor upon the suggested output, the method further comprising: providing, to the user through the input device, a haptic feedback to the user to confirm that the cursor is positioned upon the suggested output.
“Various actions may be mapped to different states of the user’s body parts. Examples of such actions include, without limitation, scrolling through a graphical user interface (GUI), selecting a visual element of a GUI, clicking on a visual element of a GUI, displaying a visual element in a GUI, drawing and/or painting a visual element on a GUI, moving a cursor displayed on a GUI, associating a cursor of the computing system with a visual element displayed in a GUI based at least in part on an updated position of the cursor relative to the visual element,” and “providing a feedback indication (whether visual, auditory, and/or haptic) of an association made between a cursor of the computing system and a visual element displayed in a GUI.” Anderson col. 9 ll. 1–13.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide haptic feedback for the associations made between Ady’s cursor and menu options, as directly taught by Anderson. The rationale for this combination is that Anderson directly teaches (as opposed to merely motivates) the modification by explicitly directing the skilled artisan to provide the haptic feedback for cursor selections. See MPEP § 2143.01 (“[o]bviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so”) (emphasis added).
Claim 14
Ady, Yu, and Anderson teach the method of claim 13,
wherein the input device is an electromyography device.
“FIG. 4A illustrates an exemplary implementation of wearable device 102 with sixteen sensors 410 (e.g., EMG sensors) arranged circumferentially around an elastic band 420.” Anderson col. 18 ll. 6–8. “For example, wearable device 102 may be used and/or deployed to generate control information for controlling . . . a scrolling feature.” Anderson col. 18 ll. 14–17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights